Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Using a Diagnosis-Based Approach to Individualize Instructional Explanations in Computer-Mediated Communication

  • Reflections on the Field
  • Published:
Educational Psychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To maximize the effectiveness of instructional explanations, they should be tailored to an individual learner. However, instructors are often not able to collect diagnostically relevant information about a learner to individualize their explanations. This is particularly true in computer-mediated settings where it is more difficult to thoroughly assess a learner’s understanding. We present an approach that provides instructors in asynchronous and text-based computer-mediated communication settings with information about a learner’s understanding that has sufficient diagnostic power to enable them to generate learner-tailored explanations. A series of experiments testing this approach suggest several conclusions. First, instructors need information about a learner to individualize explanations. Second, instructors are able to design explanations that are specifically adapted to a learner’s individual understanding. Third, learner-tailored explanations facilitate the processing of new information and make instructional communication more efficient. Fourth, learner-tailored explanations enhance a deep understanding of the information processed and make instructional communication more effective.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alty, J. L., & Coombs, M. J. (1980). Face-to-face guidance of university computer users: I. A study of advisory services. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 12, 389–405.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumert, J., & Kunter, M. (2006). Stichwort: Professionelle Kompetenz von Lehrkräften [Keyword: Professional competence of teachers]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 9, 469–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bente, G., & Breuer, J. (2009). Making the implicit explicit. Embedded measurement in serious games. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games. Mechanisms and effects (pp. 322–343). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (this issue) How to foster active processing of explanations in instructional communication. Educational Psychology Review

  • Bromme, R., Rambow, R., & Nückles, M. (2001). Expertise and estimating what other people know: The influence of professional experience and type of knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7, 317–330.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buder, J., & Bodemer, D. (2008). Supporting controversial CSCL discussions with augmented group awareness tools. International Journal of Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning, 3, 123–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine, & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington: American Psychological Association.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Daft, R. L., & Lengel, R. H. (1986). Organisational information requirements? Media richness and structural design. Management Science, 32, 554–571.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 147–188.

    Google Scholar 

  • Epley, N., Keysar, B., Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2004). Perspective taking as egocentric anchoring and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldon, D. F. (2007). Cognitive load in the classroom: The double-edged sword of automaticity. Educational Psychologist, 42, 123–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Pavelchak, M. A. (1986). Category-based versus piecemeal-based affective responses: Developments in schema-triggered affect. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior (pp. 167–203). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, B. A. (1993). The human tutorial dialogue project: Issues in the design of instructional systems. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Graesser, A. C., & Olde, B. A. (2003). How does one know whether a person understands a device? The quality of the questions the person asks when the device breaks down. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 524–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Helmke, A., & Schrader, F.-W. (1987). Interactional effects of instructional quality and teacher judgement accuracy on achievement. Teaching and Teacher Education, 3, 91–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinds, P. J. (1999). The curse of expertise: The effects of expertise and debiasing methods on predictions of novice performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 205–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horton, W. S., & Keysar, B. (1996). When do speakers take into account common ground? Cognition, 59, 91–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2007). Expertise reversal effect and its implications for learner-tailored instruction. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 509–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katz, S., Allbritton, D., & Connelly, J. (2003). Going beyond the problem given: How human tutors use post-solution discussions to support transfer. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 13, 79–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krämer, N., & Bente, G. (this issue). Personalizing e-learning. The social effects of pedagogical agents. Educational Psychology Review.

  • Leinhardt, G. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 333–357). Washington: American Educational Research Association.

    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 

  • Morrison, J. A., & Lederman, N. G. (2003). Science teachers’ diagnosis and understanding of students’ preconceptions. Science & Education, 87, 849–867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nathan, M. J., & Petrosino, A. J. (2003). Expert blind spot among preservice teachers. American Educational Research Journal, 40, 905–928.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 737–759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nückles, M., & Stürz, A. (2006). The assessment tool. A method to support asynchronous communication between computer experts and laypersons. Computers in Human Behavior, 22, 917–940.

    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 

  • Nückles, M., Winter, A., Wittwer, J., Herbert, M., & Hübner, S. (2006). How do experts adapt their explanations to a layperson’s knowledge level? An experimental study. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 16, 87–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19, 259–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). An example order for cognitive skill acquisition. In F. E. Ritter, J. Nerb, T. O’Shea, & E. Lehtinen (Eds.), In order to learn: How the sequence of topics affects learning (pp. 95–105). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roscoe, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge-building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77, 534–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The ‘false consensus’ effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sangin, M., Molinari, G., Nuessli, M.-A., & Dillenbourg, P. (2008). Knowing what the peer knows: The differential effect of knowledge awareness on collaborative learning performance of asymmetric pairs. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (pp. 384–394). Berlin: Springer.

  • Schober, M. F., & Brennan, S. E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In A. C. Graesser, M. A. Gernsbacher, & S. R. Goldman (Eds.), The handbook of discourse processes (pp. 123–164). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, F., Evens, M., Michael, J., & Rovick, A. (2002). Classifying student initiatives and tutor responses in human keyboard-to-keyboard tutoring sessions. Discourse Processes, 33, 23–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, L., Hammerness, K., Darling-Hammond, L., & Rust, F. (2005). Assessment. In L. Darling-Hammond & J. Bransford (Eds.), Preparing teachers for a changing world: What teachers should learn and be able to do (pp. 275–326). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., & Towle, B. (2003). Adaptive e-learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 105–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., & Bauer, M. (2009). Melding the power of serious games and embedded assessments to foster learning: Flow and grow. In U. Ritterfeld, M. Cody, & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Serious games. Mechanisms and effects (pp. 295–321). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell: Australian Council for Educational Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., Ing, M., Kersting, N., & Nemer, K. M. (2006). Help seeking in cooperative learning groups. In S. A. Karabenick & R. S. Newman (Eds.), Help seeking in academic settings: Goals, groups, and contexts (pp. 45–88). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinert, F. E., Helmke, A., & Schrader, F.-W. (1992). Research on the model teacher and the teaching model. In F. K. Oser, A. Dick, & J.-L. Patry (Eds.), Effective and responsible teaching—The new synthesis (pp. 249–260). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wiliam, D., Lee, C., Harrison, C., & Black, P. (2004). Teachers developing assessment for learning: Impact on student achievement. Assessment in Education, 11, 49–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., Hübner, S., & Herbert, M. (2005, August). How tutors plan and students learn from adaptive explanations: A think-aloud study in online tutoring. In J. Wittwer & M. Nückles (Chairs), Adaptation in tutoring and collaborative learning. Symposium conducted at the 11th biennial conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Nicosia, Cyprus.

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

    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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittwer, J., Nückles, M., & Renkl, A. (2008). Is underestimation less detrimental than overestimation? The impact of experts’ beliefs about a layperson’s knowledge on learning and question asking. Instructional Science, 36, 27–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Educational Psychology and Developmental Psychology, Department of Psychology, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Jörg Wittwer, Matthias Nückles & Alexander Renkl

  2. Leibniz Institute for Science and Mathematics Education, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany

    Jörg Wittwer

  3. Department of Educational Science, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Matthias Nückles

  4. Leibniz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften und Mathematik, Olshausenstr. 62, 24098, Kiel, Germany

    Jörg Wittwer

Authors
  1. Jörg Wittwer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Matthias Nückles
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Alexander Renkl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jörg Wittwer.

Additional information

This research was supported in part by grants from the German Science Foundation DFG. We thank Gráinne Newcombe for her proofreading.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wittwer, J., Nückles, M. & Renkl, A. Using a Diagnosis-Based Approach to Individualize Instructional Explanations in Computer-Mediated Communication. Educ Psychol Rev 22, 9–23 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9118-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9118-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation