The goal of this study was to investigate interindividual differences in learning from worked-out examples with respect to the quality of self-explanations. Restrictions of former studies (e.g., lacking control of time-on-task) were avoided and additional research questions (e.g., reliability and dimensionality of self-explanation characteristics) were addressed. An investigation with 36 university freshmen of education working in individual sessions was conducted. The domain was probability calculus. As predictors of learning, prior knowledge and the quality of self-explanations (thinking aloud protocols) were assessed. (...) A post-test was employed to measure the learning gains as dependent variable. The following main results were obtained. Most self-explanation characteristics can be regarded as relatively stable person characteristics. The interindividual differences in the quality of self-explanations were, however, found to be multidimensional. Most importantly, even when controlling for time-on-task (quantitative aspect), learning gains could be substantially predicted by qualitative differences of self- explanation characteristics. Successful learners tended to employ more principle-based explanations, more anticipative reasoning and more explication of operator-goal combinations. (shrink)

The implicit-explicit distinction is applied to knowledge representations. Knowledge is taken to be an attitude towards a proposition which is true. The proposition itself predicates a property to some entity. A number of ways in which knowledge can be implicit or explicit emerge. If a higher aspect is known explicitly then each lower one must also be known explicitly. This partial hierarchy reduces the number of ways in which knowledge can be explicit. In the most important type of implicit knowledge, (...) representations merely reflect the property of objects or events without predicating them of any particular entity The dearest cases of explicit knowledge of a fact are representations of one's own attitude of knowing that fact. These distinctions are discussed in their relationship to similar distinctions such as procedural-declarative, conscious unconscious, verbalizable-nonverbalizable, direct-indirect tests, and automatic voluntary control. This is followed by an outline of how these distinctions can be used to integrate and relate the often divergent uses of the implicit-explicit distinction in different research areas. We illustrate this for visual perception, memory, cognitive development, and artificial grammar learning. (shrink)

The present paper analyzes the self‐generated explanations (from talk‐aloud protocols) that “Good” and “Poor” students produce while studying worked‐out examples of mechanics problems, and their subsequent reliance on examples during problem solving. We find that “Good” students learn with understanding: They generate many explanations which refine and expand the conditions for the action parts of the example solutions, and relate these actions to principles in the text. These self‐explanations are guided by accurate monitoring of their own understanding and misunderstanding. Such (...) learning results in example‐independent knowledge and in a better understanding of the principles presented in the text. “Poor” students do not generate sufficient self‐explanations, monitor their learning inaccurately, and subsequently rely heavily on examples. We then discuss the role of self‐explanations in facilitating problem solving, as well as the adequacy of current AI models of explanation‐based learning to account for these psychological findings. (shrink)

The present paper analyzes the self‐generated explanations (from talk‐aloud protocols) that “Good” and “Poor” students produce while studying worked‐out examples of mechanics problems, and their subsequent reliance on examples during problem solving. We find that “Good” students learn with understanding: They generate many explanations which refine and expand the conditions for the action parts of the example solutions, and relate these actions to principles in the text. These self‐explanations are guided by accurate monitoring of their own understanding and misunderstanding. Such (...) learning results in example‐independent knowledge and in a better understanding of the principles presented in the text. “Poor” students do not generate sufficient self‐explanations, monitor their learning inaccurately, and subsequently rely heavily on examples. We then discuss the role of self‐explanations in facilitating problem solving, as well as the adequacy of current AI models of explanation‐based learning to account for these psychological findings. (shrink)

The representation of physics problems in relation to the organization of physics knowledge is investigated in experts and novices. Four experiments examine the existence of problem categories as a basis for representation; differences in the categories used by experts and novices; differences in the knowledge associated with the categories; and features in the problems that contribute to problem categorization and representation. Results from sorting tasks and protocols reveal that experts and novices begin their problem representations with specifiably different problem categories, (...) and completion of the representations depends on the knowledge associated with the categories. For, the experts initially abstract physics principles to approach and solve a problem representation, whereas novices base their representation and approaches on the problem's literal features. (shrink)

It was investigated to what extent example variability and the elicitation of sophisticated self-explanations foster the acquisition of applicable and transferable knowledge by learning from worked-out examples. To this end, we had 56 apprentices from a bank learn calculation of compound interest and real interest. The subjects were randomly assigned to the four conditions of a 2´2-factorial design (factor 1: uniform vs. multiple examples; factor 2: spontaneous vs. Elicited self-explanations). The learning results were measured by a post-test comprising application problems (...) and transfer problems. It was found that the acquisition of applicable and transferable knowledge can be supported by eliciting self-explanations. This underlines the "causal" relevance of the quality of self-explanations for knowledge acquisition by learning from worked-out examples. The assumption that multiple examples foster transfer performance, at least when sophisticated self-explanations are elicited, is not unequivocally supported. Without learner support in form of an elicitation procedure, multiple examples even seem to be detrimental. (shrink)