No abstract

A rising number of (online) learning scenarios feature video-based worked examples. We analyzed the effects of the presentation mode of worked examples on their effectiveness and efficiency in two experiments with university students (N 1 ϭ 57; N 2 ϭ 43). The students acquired argumentation knowledge by self-explaining different types of worked examples. In Experiment 1, we compared video-based examples with written examples, and in Experiment 2, we compared video-based examples with graphic novel-based examples.Regardless of the examples' presentation mode, we observed similar learning processes (i.e., invested mental effort and self-explanation quality) as well as a large effect on learning outcomes (i.e., conceptual knowledge about argumentative principles). Although they appear similarly effective, we found learning by selfexplaining written examples and by self-explaining graphic novels to be less time consuming and, thus, more efficient than learning by self-explaining video examples. Educational Impact and Implications StatementAgainst the background of the findings of two experiments, the present paper suggests that using examples to let students learn about argumentation is very effective-regardless of presenting those examples as videos, texts, or graphic novels. However, learning from texts takes less time than learning from videos. In return, learners rated videos as being more authentic than texts. Finally, our findings imply graphic novels as the preferred choice of instruction, because they are very effective while being both as efficient as text and as authentic as video examples.

No abstract

Informed by Eccles and colleagues’ expectancy-value theory and Möller and Marsh’s dimensional comparison theory, we examined cross-domain intra-individual differences in elementary teachers’ (N = 57) and their students’ (N = 469) ratings of students’ ability and subjective importance of math and reading. Latent difference score analyses revealed that students perceived greater intra-individual differences in their own math versus reading ability than did their teachers. Analogous results emerged for students’ and teachers’ ratings of students’ valuing (i.e., perceived importance) of math versus reading, suggesting differing dimensional comparison processes for students’ self-judgments vs. their teachers’ judgments. Cross-domain differences in teachers’ and students’ perceptions were positively associated for ratings of students’ ability but not for ratings of students’ perceived importance. Moreover, intra-individual differences varied substantially across students, in both students’ and teachers’ ratings. Students’ gender and prior achievement in math and reading contributed to this variation.