Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Two instructional aids to optimise processing and learning from instructional explanations

  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although instructional explanations are commonly used to introduce learners to new learning content, previous studies have often shown that their effects on learning outcomes are minimal. This failure might partly be due to mental passivity of the learners while processing introductory explanations and to a lack of opportunity to revise potential misunderstandings after working on introductory explanations. Against this background, we provided learners with two instructional support measures to optimise the introduction of new principles and concepts by providing instructional explanations in the domain of management theory: (a) prompts designed to induce inferences that are focused on the central content of the explanations, and (b) remedial explanations that are adapted to the learners’ knowledge gaps. We tested their effects in a 2 × 2 factorial experimental design with the following factors: (a) prompts designed to induce focused processing (with vs. without), and (b) remedial explanations (adapted vs. random). The participants consisted of 80 psychology students. We found that the prompts fostered both the share of deep-oriented processing and the acquisition of conceptual knowledge. The beneficial effect of prompts on conceptual knowledge was mediated by the number of inferences that learners generated in response to the prompts. In addition, we found that prompts also fostered the instructional efficiency of providing instructional explanations. The provision of adapted remedial explanations, however, fostered neither deep-oriented processing nor the acquisition of conceptual knowledge. We conclude that prompts designed to induce focused processing can foster deep-oriented processing as well as both the effectiveness and efficiency of learning from instructional explanations.

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
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acuña, S. R., García-Rodicio, H., & Sánchez, E. (2011). Fostering active processing of instructional explanations of learners with high and low prior knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 435–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andre, T. (1979). Does answering higher-level questions while reading facilitate productive learning? Review of Educational Research, 49, 280–318.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K. (2012). Explanatory support for learning. In N. Seel (Ed.), Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning (pp. 1241–1244). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2008). Wie kann eine aktive Verarbeitung von instruktionalen Erklärungen zu multiplen Repräsentationen gefördert werden? [How can an active processing of instructional explanations on multiple representations be fostered?]. In E.-M. Lankes (Ed.), Pädagogische Professionalität als Gegenstand empirischer Forschung (pp. 177–188). Münster: Waxmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2009). Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 70–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2010). How to foster active processing of explanations in instructional communication. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 25–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Röder, H., Knörzer, D., Kessler, W., & Renkl, A. (2011). The double-edged effects of explanation prompts. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 69–75.

    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 Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbalan, G., Kester, L., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Selecting learning tasks: Effects of adaptation and shared control on learning efficiency and task involvement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 733–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Jong, T., & Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M. (1996). Types and qualities of knowledge. Educational Psychologist, 31, 105–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiebert, J., Gallimore, R., Garnier, H., Givvin, K. B., Hollingsworth, H., Jacobs, J., et al. (2003). Teaching mathematics in seven countries: Results from the TIMSS 1999 video study. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2006). Assessment of learners’ organized knowledge structures in adaptive learning environments. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 333–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2008). When less is more in cognitive diagnosis: A rapid online method for diagnosing learner task-specific expertise. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 603–612.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2009). Adaptive procedures for efficient learning. In S. Kalyuga (Ed.), Managing cognitive load in adaptive multimedia learning (pp. 272–290). Hershey: Information Science Reference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 83–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kester, L., Kirschner, P. A., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Just-in-time information presentation: Improving learning a troubleshooting skill. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 31, 167–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • King, A. (1990). Enhancing peer interaction and learning in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 664–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. (2010). Introduction: Explaining instructional explanations. In M. K. Stein & L. Kucan (Eds.), Instructional explanations in the disciplines (pp. 1–5). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  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 

  • MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation analysis. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nokes, T. J., Hausmann, R. G. M., VanLehn, K., & Gershman, S. (2011). Testing the instructional fit hypothesis: the case of self-explanation prompts. Instructional Science, 39, 645–666.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skills in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures. Human Factors, 35, 737–743.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pressley, M., Wood, E., Woloshyn, V. E., Martin, V., King, A., & Menke, D. (1992). Encouraging mindful use of prior knowledge: Attempting to construct explanatory answers facilitates learning. Educational Psychologist, 27, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2011). Aktives Lernen: Von sinnvollen und weniger sinnvollen theoretischen Perspektiven zu einem schillernden Konstrukt [Active learning: About sensible and less sensible theoretical perspectives on a multi-faceted construct]. Unterrichtswissenschaft, 39, 197–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2007). Interactive learning environments: Contemporary issues and trends. An introduction to the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 235–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2012). The expertise reversal effect in prompting focused processing of instructional explanations. Instructional Science. doi:10.1007/s11251-012-9247-0.

  • Sánchez, E., & García-Rodicio, H. (2013). Using online measures to determine how learners process instructional explanations. Learning and Instruction, 26, 1–11.

    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 

  • Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in covariance structure models. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1986 (pp. 159–186). Washington: American Sociological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Gerven, P. W. M., Paas, F. G. W. C., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Schmidt, H. G. (2002). Cognitive load theory and aging: Effects of worked examples on training efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 12, 87–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist, 43, 16–26.

    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 

  • Webb, N. M. (1989). Peer interaction and learning in small groups. International Journal of Educational Research, 13, 21–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Webb, N. M., & Farivar, S. (1999). Developing productive group interaction in middle school. In A. M. O’Donnell & A. King (Eds.), Cognitive perspectives on peer learning (pp. 117–149). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein, C. E., & Mayer, R. E. (1986). The teaching of learning strategies. In C. M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research in teaching (pp. 315–327). New York: Macmillan.

    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., 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

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Yana Ampatziadis for her assistance in coding the process data and analysing the tests and Julian Kappich for his assistance in programming. Furthermore, we would like to thank Stewart Campbell for proofreading.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Bielefeld University, P.O. Box 100131, 33501, Bielefeld, Germany

    Julian Roelle & Kirsten Berthold

  2. University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany

    Alexander Renkl

Authors
  1. Julian Roelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kirsten Berthold
    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 Julian Roelle.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roelle, J., Berthold, K. & Renkl, A. Two instructional aids to optimise processing and learning from instructional explanations. Instr Sci 42, 207–228 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9277-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-013-9277-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation