Search

The worked example effect has been well documented within the framework of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), which suggests that teaching with examples would be superior to engaging in unguided problem solving, particularly for novices, as using worked examples would reduce their cognitive load, compared to solving problems, thus facilitating knowledge retention. This paper, using multiple-step mathematics problems, reports an experiment investigating the micro level of the worked example effect on learning solution steps, from the perspective of cognitive load and challenge (as a relevant affective, motivational factor), testing the worked example effect with a transfer test. The results favoured worked examples on both the retention and transfer tests after learning and showed that using worked examples would reduce cognitive load and impose less challenge on each step during learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on cognitive load theory, this paper reports on two experiments investigating the variability effect that occurs when learners' exposure to highly variable tasks results in superior test performance. It was hypothesised that the effect was more likely to occur using high rather than low levels of guidance and testing more knowledgeable than less knowledgeable learners. Experiment 1, which tested 103 adults studying pre-university mathematics, showed no interaction between levels of variability (high vs. low) and levels of instructional guidance (worked examples vs. unguided problem solving). The significant main effect of variability indicated a variability effect regardless of levels of instructional guidance. Experiment 2, which tested another group of 56 adults enrolled in the same mathematics program, showed an interaction between levels of variability (high vs. low) and levels of learner expertise (novices vs. experts). More experienced learners learned more from high rather than low variability tasks demonstrating the variability effect, while less experienced learners learned more from low rather than high variability tasks demonstrating a reverse variability effect. It was suggested that more experienced learners had sufficient available working memory capacity to process high variability information while less experienced learners were overwhelmed by high variability and learned more using low variability information. Subjective ratings of difficulty supported the assumptions based on cognitive load theory. The major educational implication is that learners should initially be presented with low variability or easier tasks, and as they gain more experience in the task domain, variability or task difficulty should increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Effective design of instruction involves choosing the best alternatives to have students achieve learning goals. Good instructional design builds backwards from clearly stated objectives, motivates students, and pays attention to cognitive load. Worked examples and problem-based learning can be very effective if accompanied with appropriate support. Students should be given opportunities to try and fail so long as failures lead to progress toward learning goals. Librarians can be very valuable sources of support for individual learners. Although librarians rarely establish learning goals, we can provide the scaffolding students need to achieve learning objectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dirasat: Educational Sciences is the property of University of Jordan and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Within the framework of cognitive load theory, the element interactivity and the expertise reversal effects usually are not treated as closely related effects. We argue that the two effects may be intertwined with the expertise reversal effect constituting a particular example of the element interactivity effect. Specifically, the element interactivity effect relies on changes in element interactivity due to changes in the type of material being learned, while the expertise reversal effect also relies on changes in relative levels of element interactivity but in this case, due to changes in relative levels of expertise. If so, both effects rely on equivalent changes in element interactivity with the changes induced by different factors. Empirical evidence is used to support this contention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The contradiction between the worked example effect that occurs when learners presented with more instructional guidance learn more than learners presented with less guidance and the generation effect that occurs when the reverse result is obtained can be resolved by the suggestion that the worked example effect is obtained using materials high in element interactivity, whereas simpler, low element interactivity materials result in the generation effect. A 2 (guidance: low vs. high) × 2 (element interactivity: low vs. high) × 2 (expertise: low vs. high) experiment investigated this hypothesis with high school trigonometry learners. On an immediate test, high guidance reflecting a worked example effect was found for novices, but a generation effect was obtained for more knowledgeable learners. In contrast, on a delayed test, a three-way interaction between guidance, element interactivity and expertise was found. This interaction was caused by a worked example effect for material high in element interactivity and a generation effect for material low in element interactivity for novices while for more knowledgeable learners, a generation effect was obtained for both low and high element interactivity materials. These results suggest firstly, that both the worked example and generation effects may be more likely on delayed than immediate tests and secondly, that the worked example effect relies on high element interactivity material while the generation effect relies on low element interactivity material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]