Advertisement

Exploring the Assistance Dilemma: Comparing Instructional Support in Examples and Problems

  • Bruce M. McLaren
  • Tamara van Gog
  • Craig Ganoe
  • David Yaron
  • Michael Karabinos
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8474)

Abstract

An important question for teachers and developers of instructional software is how much guidance or assistance should be provided to help students learn. This question has been framed within the field of educational technology as the ‘assistance dilemma’ and has been the subject of a variety of studies. In the study reported in this paper, we explore the learning benefits of four types of computer-based instructional materials, which span from highly assistive (worked examples) to no assistance (conventional problems to solve), with support levels in between these two extremes (tutored problems to solve, erroneous examples). In this never-before conducted comparison of the four instructional materials, we found that worked examples are the most efficient instructional material in terms of time and mental effort spent on the intervention problems, but we did not find that the materials differentially benefitted learners of high and low prior knowledge levels. We conjecture why this somewhat surprising result was found and propose a follow-up study to investigate this issue.

Keywords

assistance dilemma classroom studies empirical studies worked examples erroneous examples tutored problems to solve problem solving 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Koedinger, K.R., Aleven, V.: Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review 19, 239–264 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, R.K., Derry, S.J., Renkl, A., Wortham, D.: Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Ed R’ch 70, 181–214 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McLaren, B.M., Lim, S., Koedinger, K.R.: When and how often should worked examples be given to students? New results and a summary of the current state of research. In: Love, B.C., McRae, K., Sloutsky, V.M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cog. Sci. Society, pp. 2176–2181. Cognitive Science Society, Austin (2008)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J.J.G., Paas, F.: Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review 10, 251–295 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chi, M.T.H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M.W., Reimann, P., Glaser, R.: Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. CogSci. 13, 145–182 (1989)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paas, F.: Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology 84, 429–434 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., Sweller, J.: When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology 93, 579–588 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    VanLehn, K.: The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist 46(4), 197–221 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Graesser, A.C., Chipman, P., Haynes, B.C., Olney, A.: AutoTutor: An intelligent tutoring system with mixed-initiative dialogue. IEEE Transactions in Ed. 48, 612–618 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ritter, S., Anderson, J.R., Koedinger, K., Corbett, A.: Cognitive Tutor: Applied research in mathematics education. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 14, 249–255 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Salden, R., Koedinger, K.R., Renkl, A., Aleven, V., McLaren, B.: Accounting for beneficial effects of worked examples in tutored problem solving. Ed. Psy. Rev. 22(4), 379–392 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Durkin, K., Rittle-Johnson, B.: The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction 22, 206–214 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grosse, C.S., Renkl, A.: Finding and fixing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes? Learning and Instruction 17, 612–634 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McLaren, B.M., et al.: To err is human, to explain and correct is divine: A study of interactive erroneous examples with middle school math students. In: Ravenscroft, A., Lindstaedt, S., Kloos, C.D., Hernández-Leo, D. (eds.) EC-TEL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7563, pp. 222–235. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McLaren, B.M., DeLeeuw, K.E., Mayer, R.E.: Polite web-based intelligent tutors: Can they improve learning in classrooms? Computers & Education 56(3), 574–584 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Van Merriënboer, J.J.G.: Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance. Learning and Instruction 16, 154–164 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce M. McLaren
    • 1
  • Tamara van Gog
    • 2
  • Craig Ganoe
    • 1
  • David Yaron
    • 1
  • Michael Karabinos
    • 1
  1. 1.Carnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Erasmus University RotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations