The efficiency of worked examples compared to erroneous examples, tutored problem solving, and problem solving in computer-based learning environments

Abstract

How much instructional assistance to provide to students as they learn, and what kind of assistance to provide, is a much-debated problem in research on learning and instruction. This study presents two multi-session classroom experiments in the domain of chemistry, comparing the effectiveness and efficiency of three highassistance (worked examples, tutored problems, and erroneous examples) and one low-assistance (untutored problem solving) instructional approach, with error feedback consisting of either elaborate worked examples (Experiment 1) or basic correctness feedback (Experiment 2). Neither experiment showed differences in learning outcomes among conditions, but both showed clear efficiency benefits of worked example study: equal levels of test performance were achieved with significantly less investment of time and effort during learning. Interestingly for both theory and practice, the time efficiency benefit was very substantial: worked example study required 46-68% less time in Experiment 1 and 48-69% in Experiment 2 than the other instructional approaches.

Immediate and delayed effects of a modeling example on the application of principles of good feedback practice: a quasi-experimental study

“…Modeling examples differ from worked examples in the sense that the former demonstrate how to perform a task, whereas the latter are fully worked-out, written examples that explain step by step how a problem should be solved (McLaren et al 2016; Van Gog and Rummel 2010). For novice learners, worked examples have proven to be a more effective learning strategy than unguided problem solving (McLaren et al 2016;Nievelstein et al 2013). This positive learning effect has been attributed to a reduction in cognitive load on working memory resulting from worked examples.…”

Example-Tracing Tutors: Intelligent Tutor Development for Non-programmers

“…Further, we have made efforts to build a user community, by setting up an online user forum (http://groups.google.com/groups/ctat-users) and by holding yearly summer schools where people can learn about ITS with hands-on work in CTAT. We have also used the tools extensively ourselves to build tutors used in classrooms, primarily in research projects (Aleven et al 2009a;Forlizzi et al 2014;Long and Aleven 2013a, b;McLaren et al 2008McLaren et al , 2011aMcLaren et al , b, 2012McLaren et al , 2014McLaren et al , 2015aMcLaren et al , b, 2016Olsen et al 2014a, b;Rau et al 2013Rau et al , 2014Rau et al , 2015aStampfer and Koedinger 2013;Waalkens et al 2013;Wylie et al 2011). BEating our own dog food^(i.e., using our own tools for our own ITS research projects) has helped spot opportunities for improvement and has driven development of a number of new CTAT features.…”

“…The Stoichiometry Tutor (McLaren et al 2014(McLaren et al , 2015b(McLaren et al , 2016 was extended so that students watch the step-by-step narrated playback of worked and erroneous examples in the tutor's problem-solving interface. They are prompted to explain the solutions, in the case of standard worked examples, or fix the errors, in the case of erroneous examples.…”

Using APOS Theory Framework: Why Did Students Unable To Construct a Formal Proof?

“…Therefore, the students need assistance to refine a proof-structure and conceptual understanding about proposition. One of method is learning using worked-example (Retnowati, Ayres & Sweller, 2010;Margulieux & Catrambone, 2016;McLaren, van Gog, Ganoe, Karabinos & Yaron, 2016). Weber (2005) stated that proving is a problem solving activity.…”