FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2580966745> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2580966745 abstract "Enhancing Example-Based Learning in Hypertext Environments Julia Schuh (j.schuh@iwm-kmrc.de ) Virtual Ph.D. Program: Knowledge Acquisition and Knowledge Exchange with New Media Konrad-Adenauer-Strasse 40, 72072 Tuebingen Germany Peter Gerjets (p.gerjets@iwm-kmrc.de) Multimedia and Hypermedia Research Unit, Knowledge Media Research Center Konrad-Adenauer-Strasse 40, 72072 Tuebingen, Germany Katharina Scheiter (k.scheiter@iwm-kmrc.de) Department of Applied Cognitive Psychology and Media Psychology, University of Tuebingen Konrad-Adenauer-Strasse 40, 72072 Tuebingen, Germany Abstract In previous research, Gerjets, Scheiter, and Tack (2000) demonstrated that learners experience serious difficulties in utilizing instructional examples according to their profitability when interacting with a hypertext-based learning environment. In this paper we focus on possible causes of these difficulties and on different instructional methods for improving learners' utilization of worked-out examples in hypertext environments. The results of two experimental studies are reported. Learning from Worked-Out Examples: The Role of Example Processing Strategies and Example Design Research over the last 15 years in the domain of learning and problem solving has demonstrated that instructional examples play an important role for knowledge acquisition in domains like mathematics, physics, or programming (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989). In particular for initial skill acquisition, learning from worked-out examples seems to be superior to actively solving training problems (Sweller, van Merrienboer, & Paas, 1998). However, numerous findings also indicate major drawbacks of example-based learning. In particular, poor learners tend to overuse examples during problem solving without reflecting on their appropriateness (VanLehn & Jones, 1993). In addition, learners have difficulties identifying relevant information in worked-out examples and are often distracted by examples' surface features (Ross, 1989). Furthermore, Renkl (1999) assumes that students often suffer from illusions of understanding when learning from worked-out examples. I.e., they may have the false impression of having grasped the solution rationale of an example problem. Finally, learners have difficulties generalizing solutions from examples to novel problems (Catrambone & Holyoak, 1989; Reed, Dempster, & Ettinger, 1985). A number of empirical studies have identified features of example processing strategies and example design that are efficient for successful knowledge acquisition (cf. Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, & Wortham, 2000). •Important strategical aspects mainly concern the adequate selection and elaboration of instructional examples. Reed, Ackinclose, and Voss (1990) showed that learners failed to select sufficiently complex instructional examples for learning although the profitability of these examples for subsequently solving test problems could be demonstrated. However, Reed, Willis, and Guarino (1994) found that learners who were allowed to select worked-out examples while solving test problems were able to select suitable examples. Additionally, it has been shown that self- explanations are an important aspect of good learners’ example processing (Chi et al., 1989; Pirolli & Recker, 1994; Renkl, 1997). In particular, anticipations of solution steps and inferences with regard to the relations between solution steps, goals, and abstract principles have been proven useful for knowledge acquisition. •With respect to design issues it could be shown that multiple examples can support schema induction which helps learners to solve novel problems (Cummins, 1992). Providing multiple examples with different surface features might further improve this process of abstraction (Quilici & Mayer, 1996). Additionally, it has been proposed that the provision of completion problems - where learners have to fill in some details of worked-out examples’ solution steps - is a helpful instructional device as it fosters self-explanations (Van Merrienboer, 1990). In particular, presenting completion problems along with evaluative feedback on subjects’ gap-filling performance seems to improve learning outcomes. For instance, Stark (1999) showed that learners benefit from such a combination of completion problems and feedback and stresses the point that completion problems foster example elaboration whereas giving feedback on the learning success might prevent learners from illusions of understanding. From these findings on learning from examples it can be argued that strategies of example selection and processing as well as features of example design have to be taken into account to improve learning outcomes. The aspect of adopting suitable strategies gains increasing importance the more the control of the learning process is left up to the learner. In learning situations where the learner can select instructional material as well as determine the sequence and the pace of presentation, the importance of strategies increases (Gerjets, Scheiter, & Tack, 2000). Therefore, an identification of suitable strategies of information utilization and an examination of whether learners can adopt these strategies is highly relevant when more focus is put on self-regulated learning in the field of instruction." @default.
• W2580966745 created "2017-02-03" @default.
• W2580966745 creator A5052513959 @default.
• W2580966745 creator A5055559619 @default.
• W2580966745 creator A5089332735 @default.
• W2580966745 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W2580966745 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W2580966745 title "Enhancing Example-Based Learning in Hypertext Environments" @default.
• W2580966745 cites W1596136271 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W1743328599 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W1977204714 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2002694510 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2004702017 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2009947888 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2023918104 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2024120329 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2026190834 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2048783550 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2048923076 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2074324022 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2084895013 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2096036274 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2124868162 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2148428760 @default.
• W2580966745 cites W2159000095 @default.
• W2580966745 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W2580966745 type Work @default.
• W2580966745 sameAs 2580966745 @default.
• W2580966745 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2580966745 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2580966745 hasAuthorship W2580966745A5052513959 @default.
• W2580966745 hasAuthorship W2580966745A5055559619 @default.
• W2580966745 hasAuthorship W2580966745A5089332735 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C134306372 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C134895398 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C145420912 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C162215914 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C169760540 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C169900460 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C188147891 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C2780126544 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C33923547 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C36503486 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConcept C49774154 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C134306372 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C134895398 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C136764020 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C145420912 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C15744967 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C162215914 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C169760540 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C169900460 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C188147891 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C2780126544 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C33923547 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C36503486 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C41008148 @default.
• W2580966745 hasConceptScore W2580966745C49774154 @default.
• W2580966745 hasIssue "26" @default.
• W2580966745 hasLocation W25809667451 @default.
• W2580966745 hasOpenAccess W2580966745 @default.
• W2580966745 hasPrimaryLocation W25809667451 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W1489285547 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W1566277402 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W1572197083 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W1851592233 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W1968645376 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W1998848131 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2013746998 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2101778833 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2188319908 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2209216222 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2217824244 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2559935402 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2578219502 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2587457441 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2598891784 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2765699054 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2895562642 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W2960106866 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W3108011830 @default.
• W2580966745 hasRelatedWork W56667296 @default.
• W2580966745 hasVolume "26" @default.
• W2580966745 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2580966745 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2580966745 magId "2580966745" @default.
• W2580966745 workType "article" @default.