Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fostering active processing of instructional explanations of learners with high and low prior knowledge

  • Published:
European Journal of Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Despite the potential advantages of instructional explanations, evidence indicates that they are usually ineffective. Subsequent work has shown that in order to make instructional explanations effective indeed, one successful strategy is to combine them with indications of the limitations in learners' understanding that they are intended to revise, which makes learners deeply process the explanations. We explored whether this is so for both learners with low and those with high prior domain knowledge. In one experiment, 77 participants with low and high prior knowledge learned about plate tectonics from a multimedia presentation. In addition to the presentation, half the participants received instructional explanations combined with indications, whereas the rest received instructional explanations with no indications. After using the materials, the participants solved retention and transfer tests. Results showed that low prior knowledge learners learned more from explanations including indications of their misunderstandings, whereas high prior knowledge learners profited from instructional explanations either with or without the indications. We discussed theoretical and practical implications.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Campbell, J., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). Questioning as an instructional method: Does it affect learning from lectures? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 23, 747–759. doi:10.1002/acp.1513.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology (pp. 161–238). Mahwah: Lawrence Erbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S., Jeong, H., Yamauchi, T., & Hausmann, R. G. (2001). Learning from human tutoring. Cognitive Science, 25, 471–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Siler, S. A., & Jeong, H. (2004). Can tutors monitor students’ understanding accurately? Cognition and Instruction, 22, 363–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coté, N., Goldman, S. R., & Saul, E. U. (1998). Students making sense of informational text: Relations between processing and representation. Discourse Processes, 25, 1–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • deLeeuw, D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2002). Self-explanation: Enriching a situation model or repairing a domain model. In G. M. Sinatra & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Intentional conceptual change (pp. 55–78). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diakidoy, I. N., Kendeou, P., & Ioannides, C. (2003). Reading about energy: The effects of text structure in science learning and conceptual change. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 335–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 145–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Driscoll, D., Craig, S. D., Gholson, B., Ventura, M., Hu, X., & Graesser, A. C. (2003). Vicarious learning: Effects of overhearing dialog and monolog-like discourse in a virtual tutoring session. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 29, 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlosky, J., & Lipko, A. (2007). Metacomprehension: A brief history and how to improve its accuracy. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16, 228–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar to modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations? Learning and Instruction, 16, 104–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobert, J. (2000). A typology of models for plate tectonics: Inferential power and barriers to understanding. International Journal of Science Education, 22(9), 937–977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grosse, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 122–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hacker, D. J. (1998). Self-regulated comprehension during normal reading. In D. J. Hacker, A. C. Graesser, & J. Dunlosky (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 165–191). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35, 1567–1577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W. (1994). Text comprehension, memory and learning. The American Psychologist, 49, 294–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kintsch, W., & Kintsch, E. (1995). Strategies to promote active learning from text: Individual differences in background knowledge. Swiss Journal of Psychology, 54, 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G. (1997). Instructional explanations in history. International Journal of Educational Research, 27, 221–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinhardt, G., & Steele, M. D. (2005). Seeing the complexity of standing to the side: Instructional dialogues. Cognition and Instruction, 23, 87–163.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lorch, R. F., Lorch, E. P., & Inman, W. E. (1993). Effects of signaling topic structure on text recall. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 281–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from text: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22, 247–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mikkilä-Erdmann, M. (2001). Improving conceptual change concerning photosynthesis through text design. Learning and Instruction, 11, 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, K., & Durán, R. (2004). Do multiple representations need explanations? The role of verbal guidance and individual differences in multimedia mathematics learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 492–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32, 99–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nückles, M., Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2005). Information about a layperson’s knowledge supports experts in giving effective and efficient online advice to laypersons. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 11, 219–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Otero, J. (2002). Noticing and fixing difficulties in understanding science texts. In J. Otero, J. A. León, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), The psychology of science text comprehension (pp. 281–307). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38, 1–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2002). Learning from worked-out examples: Instructional explanations supplement self-explanations. Learning and Instruction, 12, 529–556.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, E., García Rodicio, H., & Acuña, S. R. (2009). Are instructional explanations more effective in the context of an impasse? Instructional Science, 37, 537–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K., Siler, S., Murray, C., Yamauchi, T., & Baggett, W. B. (2003). Why do only some events cause learning during human tutoring? Cognition and Instruction, 21, 209–249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidal-Abarca, E., Martínez, G., & Gilabert, R. (2000). Two procedures to improve instructional text: Effects on memory and learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43, 49–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2010). How effective are instructional explanations in example-based learning? A meta-analytic review. Educational Psychology Review. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9136-5

  • Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., Landmann, N., & Renkl, A. (2010). Can tutors be supported in giving effective explanations? Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 74–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by funding from PROMEP-SEP de México, Junta de Castilla y León y Fondo Social Europeo, and Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación de España (Proyecto EDU2009-13077) awarded to the first, second and third authors, respectively. Any opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this article are those of the authors. The authors thank J. Ricardo García for their helpful comments on prior versions of the paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. UAEM Morelos State University, Morelos, Mexico

    Santiago R. Acuña

  2. Department of Education, University of Cantabria, Avenida de los Castros s/n, edificio interfacultativo, 39005, Santander, Spain

    Héctor García Rodicio & Emilio Sánchez

Authors
  1. Santiago R. Acuña
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Héctor García Rodicio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emilio Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Héctor García Rodicio.

Additional information

Santiago R. Acuña. Department of Psychology, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos Privada del Tanque 200, Col. Lomas del Mirador; 62350, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico. Phone: 01 777 3297000; E-mail: santiagoacu1@gmail.com

Current themes of research:

Santiago R. Acuña got his PhD in Educational Psychology from the Universidad de Salamanca, Spain (2005, June). He is now teaching and researching at the Universidad Autónoma del Estado de Morelos, Mexico. His research interests include multimedia learning and inclusive education.

Most relevant publication in the field of Psychology of Education:

Sánchez, E., García Rodicio, H., & Acuña, S. R. (2009). Are instructional explanations more effective in the context of an impasse? Instructional Science, 37, 537–563.

Héctor García Rodicio. Department of Education, Universidad de Cantabria Avenida de los Castros s/n, Edificio Interfacultativo; 39005, Santander, Spain. Phone: 0034 942291275; E-mail: hector.garciarodicio@unican.es

Current themes of research:

Héctor García Rodicio got his PhD in Educational Psychology from the Universidad de Salamanca, Spain (209, February). He is now teaching and researching at the Universidad de Cantabria, Spain. His research interests include multimedia learning, text comprehension, self regulated learning and instructional explanations.

Most relevant publication in the field of Psychology of Education:

Sánchez, E., García Rodicio, H., & Acuña, S. R. (2009). Are instructional explanations more effective in the context of an impasse? Instructional Science, 37, 537–563.

Emilio Sánchez. Department of Developmental and Educational Psychology, Universidad de Salamanca, Avenida de la Merced 109; 37005, Salamanca, Spain. Phone: 923294400; E-mail: esanchez@usal.es

Current themes of research:

Emilio Sánchez is professor of Developmental and Educational Psychology at the Universidad de Salamanca, Spain, where he has served since 1983. He is mainly interested in reading literacy and professional development of teachers.

Most relevant publication in the field of Psychology of Education:

Sánchez, E., & García, J. R. (2008). The relation of knowledge of textual integration devices to expository text comprehension under different assessment conditions. Reading and Writing, 22, 1081–1108

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Acuña, S.R., García Rodicio, H. & Sánchez, E. Fostering active processing of instructional explanations of learners with high and low prior knowledge. Eur J Psychol Educ 26, 435–452 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0049-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-010-0049-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation