Findings from the fields of cognitive science and cognitive development propose a variety of evidence-based principles for improving learning. One such recommendation is that instead of having students practice solving long strings of problems on their own after a lesson, worked-out examples of problem solutions should be incorporated into practice sessions in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) classrooms. Research in scientific laboratories and real-world classrooms has also identified a number of methods for utilizing worked examples in lessons, including fading the examples; prompting self-explanation of the examples, including incorrect examples; and providing opportunities for students to compare multiple examples. Each of these methods has been shown to lend itself well to particular types of learning goals. Implications for education policy are discussed, including rethinking the ways in which STEM textbooks are constructed, finding ways to support educators in recognizing and implementing effective cognitive science–based pedagogical techniques, and changing the climate in classrooms to include the perception of errors as a functional part of the learning process.
AdamsD. M.McLarenB. M.DurkinK.MayerR. E.Rittle-JohnsonB.IsotaniS.van VelsenM. (2014). Using erroneous examples to improve mathematics learning with a web-based tutoring system. Computers in Human Behavior, 36, 401-411.
2.
AlevenV. A.KoedingerK. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147-179.
3.
AtkinsonR. K.RenklA.MerrillM. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774-783.
4.
AuW. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267.
5.
BarbieriC.BoothJ. L. (under review). Support for struggling students in algebra: Contributions of incorrect worked examples. Learning and Individual Differences.
6.
BoothJ. L.CooperL. A.DonovanM. S.HuygheA.KoedingerK. R.Paré-BlagoevE. J. (2015). Design-based research within the constraints of practice: AlgebraByExample. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 20, 79-100.
7.
BoothJ. L.LangeK. E.KoedingerK. R.NewtonK. J. (2013). Using example problems to improve student learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning and Instruction, 25, 24-34.
8.
BoothJ. L.OyerM. H.Paré-BlagoevE. J.ElliotA.BarbieriC.AugustineA. A.KoedingerK. R. (in press). Learning algebra by example in real-world classrooms. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness. doi:10.1080/19345747.2015.1055636
9.
CarrollW. M. (1994). Using worked examples as an instructional support in the algebra classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 360-367.
10.
CatramboneR. (1996). Generalizing solution procedures learned from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1020-1031.
11.
CatramboneR. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 127, 355-376.
12.
CatramboneR.HolyoakK. J. (1989). Overcoming contextual limitations on problem-solving transfer. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 1147-1156.
13.
CatramboneR.YuasaM. (2006). Acquisition of procedures: The effects of example elaborations and active learning exercises. Learning and Instruction, 16, 139-153.
14.
ChiM. T. (2000). Self-explaining expository texts: The dual processes of generating inferences and repairing mental models. Advances in Instructional Psychology, 5, 161-238.
15.
ChiM. T.BassokM.LewisM. W.ReimannP.GlaserR. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13,145-182.
16.
ClarkR. C.MayerR. E. (2003). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
CooperG.SwellerJ. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 347-362.
19.
CumminsD. (1992). Role of analogical reasoning in the induction of problem categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1103-1124.
20.
DavenportJ. L.KlahrD.KoedingerK. R. (2007, August). The influence of diagrams on chemistry learning. Paper presented at the Biennial Conference of the European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction, Budapest, Hungary.
21.
DurkinK.Rittle-JohnsonB. (2012). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22, 206-214.
22.
DynarskiM.AgodiniR.HeavisideS.NovakT.CareyN.CampuzanoL.. . . SussexW. (2007). Effectiveness of reading and mathematics software products: Findings from the first student cohort (Report provided to Congress by the National Center for Education Evaluation). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20074005.pdf
23.
FleischmanH. L.HopstockP. J.PelczarM. P.ShelleyB. E. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of US 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context (NCES 2011-004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
24.
FloresR.InanF. (2014). Examining the impact of adaptively faded worked examples on student learning outcomes. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 25, 467-485.
25.
GentnerD. (2005). The development of relational category knowledge. In RakisonD. H.Gershkoff-StoweL. (Eds.), Building object categories in developmental time (pp. 245-275). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26.
GroßeC. S.RenklA. (2006). Effects of multiple solution methods in mathematics learning. Learning and Instruction, 16, 122-138.
27.
HausmannR. G.VanlehnK. (2007). Explaining self-explaining: A contrast between content and generation. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 158, 417.
28.
HeemsothT.HeinzeA. (2014). The impact of incorrect examples on learning fractions: A field experiment with 6th grade students. Instructional Science, 42, 639-657.
29.
HilbertT.RenklA.SchwormS.KesslerS.ReissK. (2008). Learning to teach with worked-out examples: A computer-based learning environment for teachers. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 316-332.
30.
KalyugaS.AyresP.ChandlerP.SwellerJ. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23-31.
31.
KalyugaS.ChandlerP.TuovinenJ.SwellerJ. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 579-588.
32.
KilpatrickJ.SwaffordJ.FindellB. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
33.
KimR. S.WeitzR.HeffernanN. T.KrachN. (2009). Tutored problem solving vs. “pure” worked examples. In TaatgenN. A.van RijnH. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 3121-3126). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
34.
KoedingerK. R.BoothJ. L.KlahrD. (2013). Instructional complexity and the science to constrain it. Science, 342, 935-937.
35.
KuenziJ. J.MatthewsC. M.ManganB. F. (2006). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education issues and legislative options. Washington DC: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.
36.
LappanG.FeyJ. T.FitzgeraldW. M.FrielS.PhillipsE. D. (2006). Connected mathematics 2: Implementing and teaching guide. Boston, MA: Pearson.
37.
LehmanS.SchrawG.McCruddenM. T.HartleyK. (2007). Processing recall of seductive details in scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 569-587. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.07.002
38.
LevinJ. R.AnglinG. J.CarneyR. N. (1987). On empirically validating functions of pictures in prose. In WillowsD. M.HoughtonH. (Eds.), The psychology of illustration: Volume 1. Basic research (pp. 51-86). New York, NY: Springer.
39.
LomaxR. G.WestM. M.HarmonM. C.ViatorK. A.MadausG. F. (1995). The impact of mandated standardized testing on minority students. Journal of Negro Education, 64, 171-185.
40.
McLarenB. M.LimS. J.GagnonF.YaronD.KoedingerK. R. (2006). Studying the effects of personalized language and worked examples in the context of a web-based intelligent tutor. In IkedaM.AshlayK.ChanT., (Eds.), Intelligent tutoring systems (pp. 318-328). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
41.
MorenoR.ReissleinM.OzogulG. (2009). Optimizing worked-example instruction in electrical engineering: The role of fading and feedback during problem-solving practice. Journal of Engineering Education, 98, 83-92.
42.
Next Generation Science Standards Lead States. (2013). Next Generation Science Standards: For states, by states. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
43.
OhlssonS. (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychological Review, 103, 241-262.
44.
PaasF. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 429-434.
45.
PaasF.Van MerriënboerJ. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
46.
PashlerH.BainP.BottgeB.GraesserA.KoedingerK.McDanielM.MetcalfeJ. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning: IES practice guide (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research.
47.
RenklA.AtkinsonR.GroßeC. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works—A cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59-82.
48.
RenklA.AtkinsonR.MaierU.StaleyR. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 293-315.
49.
RenklA.StarkR.GruberH.MandlH. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90-108.
50.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 561-574.
51.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2009). Compared with what? The effects of different comparisons on conceptual knowledge and procedural flexibility for equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 529-544.
52.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R. (2011). The power of comparison in learning and instruction: Learning outcomes supported by different types of comparisons. In MestreJ. P.RossB. H.MestreJ. P.RossB. H. (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Vol. 55. Cognition in education (pp. 199-225). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.
53.
Rittle-JohnsonB.StarJ. R.DurkinK. (2009). The importance of prior knowledge when comparing examples: Influences on conceptual and procedural knowledge of equation solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 836-852.
54.
RoyM.ChiM. T. H. (2005). The self-explanation effect in multimedia learning. In MayerR. E. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 271-286). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
55.
SaldenR. M.AlevenV.SchwonkeR.RenklA. (2010). The expertise reversal effect and worked examples in tutored problem solving. Instructional Science, 38, 289-307.
56.
SantagataR. (2004). “Are you joking or are you sleeping?” Cultural beliefs and practices in Italian and U.S. teachers’ mistake-handling strategies. Linguistics and Education, 15, 141-164.
57.
SchwonkeR.RenklA.KriegC.WittwerJ.AlevenV.SaldenR. (2009). The worked-example effect: Not an artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 258-266.
58.
SchwonkeR.WittwerJ.AlevenV.SaldenR. J. C. M.KriegC.RenklA. (2007). Can tutored problem solving benefit from faded worked-out examples? In VosniadouS.KayserD.ProtopapasA. (Eds.), Proceedings of EuroCogSci 07: The European Cognitive Science Conference 2007 (pp. 59–64). New York: Erlbaum.
59.
SieglerR. S. (2002). Microgenetic studies of self-explanations. In GranottN.ParzialeJ. (Eds.), Microdevelopment: Transition processes in development and learning (pp. 31-58). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
60.
SkinnerB. F. (1961). Why we need teaching machines. Harvard Educational Review, 31, 377-398.
61.
StarJ. R.Rittle-JohnsonB. (2009). It pays to compare: An experimental study on computational estimation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 102, 408-426.
62.
SteuerG.Rosentritt-BrunnG.DreselM. (2013). Dealing with errors in mathematics classrooms: Structure and relevance of perceived error climate. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 196-210.
63.
StiglerJ. W.HiebertJ. (1999). The teaching gap: Best ideas from the world’s teachers for improving education in the classroom. New York, NY: Free Press.
64.
StiglerJ. W.PerryM. (1988). Mathematics learning in Japanese, Chinese, and American classrooms. In SaxeG. B.GearhartM. (Eds.), Children’s mathematics: New directions for child development (No. 41, pp. 27-54.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
TarmiziR. A.SwellerJ. (1988). Guidance during mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 424-436.
67.
TraftonJ. G.ReiserB. J. (1993). The contributions of studying examples and solving problems to skill acquisition. In PolsonM. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1017-1022). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
68.
van MerrienboerJ. J. G.KirschnerP. A.KesterL. (2003). Taking the load off a learner’s mind: Instructional design for complex learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 5-13.
69.
WardM.SwellerJ. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction, 7, 1-39.
70.
ZhuX.SimonH. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction, 4, 137-166.
