A Model of the Self-Explanation Effect

VanLehn, Kurt; Jones, Randolph M.; T.H., Michelene

doi:10.1207/s15327809jls0201_1

Cited by 210 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For near transfer tasks, a more passive or rote learning style focussing on "syntactic" aspects may be quite successful (cf. the distinction of transformational analogy and analogical search control by VanLehn & Jones, 1993;VanLehn, Jones, & Chi, 1992). As the latter aspect was not represented as well in the present coding system, the near transfer could not be predicted to the same extent as the medium transfer.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 53%

Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 53%

Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences

1997

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One of the factors that seems to be particularly beneficial has been defined as the self-explanation effect (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989; see also Reimann & Neubert, 2000;VanLehn, Jones, & Chi, 1992;Wright, 1981), which refers to the idiosyncratic ways individuals explain elements of the examples to themselves during problem solving. For example, VanLehn (1998) observed no difference in the number of self-explanations among successful and unsuccessful solvers.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Following the Wrong Footsteps: Fixation Effects of Pictorial Examples in a Design Problem-Solving Task.

Chrysikou

Weisberg

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

220

175

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined possible negative transfer in nonexperts from the use of pictorial examples in a laboratory design problem-solving situation. In Experiment 1, 89 participants were instructed to "think aloud" and were assigned to 1 of 3 conditions: (a) control (standard instructions), (b) fixation (inclusion of a problematic example, describing its problematic elements), or (c) defixation (inclusion of a problematic example, with instructions to avoid using problematic elements). Negative transfer due to examples was measured both quantitatively and qualitatively through verbal protocols. Verbal protocols (N ϭ 176) were analyzed for participants' reasons for reference to the examples. In Experiment 2, fixation to examples was evaluated in nonverbalizing participants (N ϭ 60). Results of both experiments suggest that (a) although participants consulted the problem instructions, they tended to follow the examples even when they included inappropriate elements and (b) the fixation effects can be diminished with the use of defixating instructions.

show abstract

“…Instead, a mix of teaching strategies was used. The strategy that best help students master building and programming robots according to our experience in this project was "learning by teaching" [20]. This was a main teaching strategy intended to help students improve their technical and social skills by teaching robotics to other students.…”

Section: Creation Of Models By Means Of Free Explorationmentioning

confidence: 99%