ArticlePDF Available

The Effect of Worked Examples When Learning to Write Essays in English Literature

July 2013
The Journal of Experimental Education 81(3):385-408

DOI:10.1080/00220973.2012.727884

Authors:

Suna Kyun

Sookmyung Women's University

Slava Kalyuga

UNSW Sydney

Worked examples, commonly used in technical domains, are rarely used in language areas such as English literature. In 3 experiments, Korean university students for whom English was a foreign language received worked examples intended to facilitate problem solving in the ill-structured domain of English literature. During the learning phase, half of the students were presented conventional essay questions that they were asked to answer. The other half of the students were presented the same questions along with model answers that they were asked to study, followed by similar questions that they had to answer themselves. All students then were asked to answer retention, near and far transfer tests. Relatively more knowledgeable students were assigned to Experiment 1 than to Experiment 2, who, in turn, were more knowledgeable than were the students in Experiment 3. Results indicated that the effectiveness of worked examples increased with decreasing student knowledge.

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations in Experiment 1

…

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations in Experiment 2

…

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations in Experiment 3

…

Figures - uploaded by Suna Kyun

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Suna Kyun

Content may be subject to copyright.

This article was downloaded by: [Yonsei University]

On: 13 May 2013, At: 15:54

Publisher: Routledge

Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered

office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of Experimental Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and

subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjxe20

The Effect of Worked Examples When

Learning to Write Essays in English

Literature

Suna Kyun a , Slava Kalyuga a & John Sweller a

a University of New South Wales , Australia

Published online: 13 May 2013.

To cite this article: Suna Kyun , Slava Kalyuga & John Sweller (2013): The Effect of Worked Examples

When Learning to Write Essays in English Literature, The Journal of Experimental Education, 81:3,

385-408

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.727884

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any

substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,

systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation

that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any

instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary

sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,

demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

THE JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL EDUCATION, 81(3), 385–408, 2013

Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0022-0973 print/1940-0683 online

DOI: 10.1080/00220973.2012.727884

LEARNING, INSTRUCTION, AND COGNITION

The Effect of Worked Examples When Learning to Write

Essays in English Literature

Suna Kyun, Slava Kalyuga, and John Sweller

University of New South Wales, Australia

Worked examples, commonly used in technical domains, are rarely used in language areas such

as English literature. In 3 experiments, Korean university students for whom English was a foreign

language received worked examples intended to facilitate problem solving in the ill-structured domain

of English literature. During the learning phase, half of the students were presented conventional essay

questions that they were asked to answer. The other half of the students were presented the same

questions along with model answers that they were asked to study, followed by similar questions that

they had to answer themselves. All students then were asked to answer retention, near and far transfer

tests. Relatively more knowledgeable students were assigned to Experiment 1 than to Experiment 2,

who, in turn, were more knowledgeable than were the students in Experiment 3. Results indicated

that the effectiveness of worked examples increased with decreasing student knowledge.

Keywords cognitive load theory, ill-structured problems, literature instruction, problem solving,

worked examples

INTRODUCTION

A worked example provides explicit guidance indicating how to solve a particular problem,

consisting of the problem statement along with a possible solution (Hilbert & Renkl, 2009;

Renkl, Atkinson, & Große, 2004). Instruction using worked examples is considered an effective

method of initial skill acquisition and application or transfer to new problems (Schwonke, Renkl,

Salden, & Aleven, 2011; Stark, Mendl, Gruber, & Renkl, 2002). The worked example effect, in

turn, occurs when a randomized, controlled experiment indicates that students learn more from

studying worked examples than solving the equivalent problems (e.g., Schwonke et al., 2009). It

is one of the instructional effects generated by cognitive load theory (Beckmann, 2010; Sweller,

Address correspondence to John Sweller, School of Education, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052,

Australia. E-mail: j.sweller@unsw.edu.au

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

386 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

2010, 2011, 2012; Sweller, Ayres, & Kalyuga, 2011), an instructional theory that is based on our

knowledge of human cognitive architecture.

Worked Examples in Well- and Ill-deﬁned Domains

Whereas some problems are considered well-deﬁned because the given state, goal-state, and

problem-solving operators are clearly speciﬁed, others are considered ill-deﬁned because the

given state is incompletely speciﬁed, the goal state is speciﬁed to an even lesser extent, and the

problem solving operators are unspeciﬁed (Goel, 1992a). Hence, ill-deﬁned problems require ill-

structured representations, whereas well-deﬁned problems require well-structured representations

that consist of the speciﬁed states and problem-solving operators (Goel, 1992b, Greeno, 1976).

In terms of problem representation, mathematics, science, and related technical domains are

classiﬁed as well-deﬁned, whereas literature, history, social studies, and related nontechnical

domains are classiﬁed as ill-deﬁned.

There have been many studies in technical areas such as mathematics or science demonstrating

the effectiveness of worked examples using well-structured, well-deﬁned problems (see Sweller

et al., 2011). Recently, the effect of worked examples has been tested in ill-deﬁned domains such

as music (e.g., Owen & Sweller, 2008), design history (e.g., Rourke & Sweller, 2009), social

psychology (e.g., H¨

ubner, N¨

uckles, & Renkl, 2010), medical domains (e.g., Stark, Kopp, & Fis-

cher, 2011) and learning argumentation (e.g., Schworm & Renkl, 2007). In research on worked

examples in ill-deﬁned problem areas, a written format providing solutions for problems was

regarded as worked examples. Although well-deﬁned problems have well-structured representa-

tions consisting of the speciﬁed given state, goal-stage, and problem-solving operators, ill-deﬁned

problems have ill-structured representations which not only have partially speciﬁed states or prob-

lem solving operators but also sometimes omit explicit descriptions of those components (Best,

1989, p. 455). For this reason, the nature of ill-structured representations of ill-deﬁned problems

needs to be considered when they are organized as worked examples. A worked example in an

ill-deﬁned problem area can be expected to look different to a worked example in a well-deﬁned

problem area (Schworm & Renkl, 2007). Nevertheless, the one essential commonality must be

preserved: All worked examples from well- or ill-deﬁned problem areas must provide a solution

to a problem that is presented to learners.

As indicated earlier, the worked example effect has primarily been demonstrated using math-

ematics, science, and technical information in well-deﬁned, problem-solving domains but from

a theoretical perspective, it should be obtainable using any class of information, regardless of

differences in the task environments and problem spaces of well-deﬁned and ill-deﬁned problems

(Goel, 1992a; Greeno, 1976). The current work tests the hypothesis that the worked example

effect can be obtained in the ill-deﬁned area of English literature, an area in which the effect has

not previously been demonstrated and in which the construction of worked examples can pose

particular challenges. A contrary hypothesis is that worked examples may hamper the learning

of ill-deﬁned domains (Spiro & DeSchryver, 2009). A successful demonstration of the worked

example effect using ill-deﬁned problems would suggest that human cognitive architecture does

not distinguish between learning domains and that learning and problem solving do not differ

depending on the nature of the learning domain. Appendix A provides examples of literature

worked examples used in the current experiments. These worked examples were used in a series

of randomized, controlled experiments that tested for the worked example effect using English

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

WORKED EXAMPLES WHEN LEARNING TO WRITE ESSAYS 387

literature as the subject domain. In each of three experiments, we looked at the consequences

of having students study these worked examples rather than answer questions themselves. We

begin by outlining the human cognitive architecture on which cognitive load theory and its

recommendations concerning worked examples are based.

Human Cognitive Architecture From an Evolutionary Perspective

Cognitive load theory considers human cognitive architecture from an evolutionary perspective

(Sweller, 2003; Sweller & Sweller, 2006). According to Geary (2007, 2008, 2012), knowledge can

be differentiated between biologically primary and biologically secondary information. Primary

knowledge is knowledge we have evolved to acquire over many generations. It can be acquired

effortlessly, rapidly, and unconsciously. To acquire primary knowledge, we do not require any

speciﬁc educational procedures. Learning to listen to and speak a native language provides

an example. On the other hand, biologically secondary knowledge is knowledge we require for

cultural reasons but which we have not speciﬁcally evolved to acquire. Secondary knowledge must

be explicitly taught and learned in schools and in other educational institutions with considerable

conscious effort, often requiring motivational encouragement. Without appropriate institutional

and procedural support, secondary knowledge will not be acquired by most members of a society.

Learning to read and write provide examples of this category of knowledge and skills as does

an appreciation of literature, the topic of the present set of experiments. Unlike listening and

speaking, learning to read and write or to appreciate literature will not occur without deliberate

instruction because we have not evolved to automatically acquire biologically secondary skills.

The human cognitive architecture on which cognitive load theory is based applies solely to

biologically secondary knowledge and accordingly, the theory applies solely to biologically

secondary knowledge taught in schools and other educational institutions (Sweller, 2008; Sweller

& Sweller, 2006).

When dealing with biologically secondary knowledge, human cognitive architecture processes

information in a manner analogous to the way in which evolution by natural selection processes

information. Both systems are examples of natural information processing systems and share

a common fundamental logic represented by the following ﬁve principles (Sweller & Sweller,

2006).

First, the information store principle states that natural information processing systems require

a very large store of information to govern cognitive activity. In the case of human cognition,

what we perceive, how we think, and how we solve problems are heavily determined by what has

been learned and stored in long-term memory (De Groot, 1946/1965; Sweller, 2006). Second, the

majority of information held in long-term memory is obtained from the long-term memory of other

people through the borrowing and reorganizing principle. Humans listen to what other people say,

read what they write, and imitate what they do (Rourke & Sweller, 2009). Third, when information

cannot be borrowed and must be created, the randomness-as-genesis principle provides the

necessary mechanism. The only mechanism to create knowledge is random generation followed

by test of effectiveness. Effective, novel problem solutions are stored in long term memory

while ineffective solutions are jettisoned (Sweller, 2006). Fourth, the narrow limits of change

principle states that only a few items of novel information can be dealt with when randomly

generating and testing them for effectiveness in a severely limited working memory (Torcasio &

Sweller, 2010). This is why only small changes to long-term store are likely to be effective and so

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

388 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

changes to long-term memory must be slow and incremental. Humans use working memory when

dealing with novel information from the environment, and working memory is severely limited

in capacity when dealing with that information (Rourke & Sweller, 2009). Fifth, according

to the environmental organizing and linking principle, however, when dealing with organized

information from long-term memory, there are no limitations to working memory (Owen &

Sweller, 2008). The ultimate purpose of human cognitive architecture and instruction is to allow

us to deal with complex problems in particular environments (see Sweller & Sweller, 2006).

These ﬁve principles constitute a human cognitive architecture that provides us with instruc-

tional implications. On the basis of this architecture, the primary function of instruction is to

build or alter schemas in long-term memory. If there is no positive change in long-term memory,

nothing has been learned and instruction has failed. The most efﬁcient changes of knowledge

held in long-term memory can be generated through the borrowing and reorganizing principle.

The majority of human learning occurs through this principle resulting in knowledge stored in

long-term memory. That knowledge can be used to efﬁciently direct cognitive activity and solve

problems through the environmental organizing and linking principle.

Worked examples provide the ultimate instantiation of the borrowing and reorganizing prin-

ciple (Sweller, 2006). In contrast, problem solving equally provides an instantiation of the

randomness-as-genesis principle. Presenting learners with information through worked exam-

ples reduces the random generate and test procedure that is characteristic of problem solving.

Being presented with information rather than attempting to generate it should reduce working

memory load. Only the elements contained within a worked example need to be considered

rather than the potentially large number of elements that could be generated during problem

solving. Thus, by using the borrowing and reorganizing principle rather than the randomness-as-

genesis principle, working memory load can be reduced. The worked example effect has been

demonstrated on many occasions in technical domains such as mathematics, science, and com-

puter programming (e.g., Carrol, 1994; Cooper & Sweller, 1987; Crippen & Earl, 2007; Gerjets,

Scheiter, & Catrambone, 2006; Große & Renkl, 2007; Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen, & Sweller,

2001; Kyun & Lee, 2009; Paas & van Merri¨

enboer, 1994; Quilici & Mayer, 1996; Sweller &

Cooper, 1985; van Gog, Paas, & van Merriёnboer, 2006, 2008; Ward & Sweller, 1990; Zhu &

Simon, 1987).

Worked Example Effect

The classical worked example effect is tested by comparing two conditions. In the problem-

solving condition, learners are taught a new area such as new geometry theorems and then, during

an acquisition phase, presented with a series of problems requiring the use of those theorems. The

problems are frequently presented in pairs of structurally similar problems with minor changes

in, for example, the size of angles. In the worked example condition, the initial teaching phase is

identical to the teaching phase for the problem-solving group but differs during the acquisition

phase. The ﬁrst of each pair of acquisition problems is usually presented as a worked example.

The problem is presented along with a detailed solution. In the test phase, both groups are tested

using a conventional, problem-based test in which a series of problems must be solved. The

worked example effect is obtained if the worked example condition that has been required to

solve fewer problems than the problem-solving condition, nevertheless, obtains higher test scores.

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

WORKED EXAMPLES WHEN LEARNING TO WRITE ESSAYS 389

While according to human cognitive architecture as used by cognitive load theory, the worked

example effect should be equally obtainable in ill-deﬁned as well-deﬁned areas (Rourke &

Sweller, 2009), it has been suggested the success of explicit instructional guidance approaches

such as worked examples in well-structured domains cannot extend to ill-structured domains (e.g.,

Spiro & DeSchryver, 2009). However, there is no evidence that learning and problem solving

differ substantially depending on the learning domain. According to our current understanding of

human cognitive architecture, the procedures by which we learn and solve problems are identical

for well- and ill-deﬁned problems. In both cases, learning to solve problems is a domain speciﬁc

activity in which students learn to recognize a problem state and learn appropriate moves for

that state. We learn to solve problems by recognizing problem states and the appropriate moves

associated with them. Unless this information is stored in long-term memory, problem-solving

skill does not develop. The clearest way to ensure that learners have acquired this information

is to present them with worked examples. Accordingly, worked examples should be presented to

novice problem solvers and those worked examples should be just as effective in ill-deﬁned as in

well-deﬁned areas.

In this context, H¨

ubner, N¨

uckles, and Renkl (2010) found that writing instruction using a

worked example (i.e., a written example of a learning journal to use their terms) enhanced students’

comprehension in the domain of social psychology. While there is frequently an assumption that

writing automatically can contribute to learning (Applebee, 1984; Emig, 1977; Tynj ¨

al¨

a, Mason,

& Lonka, 2001), H¨

ubner and colleagues (2010) attempted to use a worked example to reinforce

students’ understanding in a domain-speciﬁc area. In their study, after a videotaped lecture on

social psychology, students were asked to either write a journal on the relevant issue treated in

the lecture or to study a worked example. Students who received a worked example to study

performed signiﬁcantly better in a transfer comprehension test than those who practiced writing

a journal themselves.

In the present context, an essay question is considered to be an ill-deﬁned problem requiring an

ill-deﬁned solution and model answers to an essay question can be classed as worked examples.

We hypothesized that although a model answer is one of a large number of possible answers to

an essay question, students will learn more from studying that answer than by writing an essay

themselves in ill-deﬁned areas such as history, literature, and social studies. We conducted the

present experiments to test this hypothesis using children’s English literature as the curriculum

domain.

EXPERIMENT 1

Experiment 1 tested the hypothesis that students learning about children’s English literature would

obtain higher scores on test essays if they had access to model essays that answer questions during

the learning phase compared with students who were presented the same essay questions that they

had to answer themselves. Cognitive load theory places its emphasis on domain-speciﬁc learning.

The information store principle assumes that skill derives from the acquisition of a large number

of domain-speciﬁc schemas held in long-term memory. In the present context, we assume that

students will learn how to answer particular essay questions associated with children’s English

literature. We hypothesise that initially, studying worked examples will facilitate learning more

than generating answers because the reduction in working memory load associated with studying

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

390 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

an answer using the borrowing and reorganizing principle imposes a lower load than generating

an answer using the randomness-as-genesis principle.

In the present experiment, three different perspectives of a model essay to each question

were given to students before they tried to solve problems on their own. Through the process of

studying these model essays (deﬁned as worked examples), students were expected to learn what

constitutes a good answer to the particular question in this domain.

METHOD

Participants

The participants were 63 (59 Korean, 2 French, and 2 Chinese) female university students

(ages ranged from 19 to 25 years) enrolled in the course “Children’s English Literature” at the

Sookmyung Women’s University, Seoul, Korea. Almost all students had formal English ability

scores and the few students who did not have these scores were eliminated from the analysis.

Their English test average scores were 258.8 for the Computer-Based Test of the Test of English

as a Foreign Language (maximum score: 300), 100.13 for the Internet-Based Test of the Test

of English as a Foreign Language (maximum score: 120), and 895 for the Test of English for

International Communication (maximum score: 990).

The students’ language proﬁciency was sufﬁciently high to discuss and write their thoughts in

English. On the contrary, their experience of formal education in English literature varied. Almost

all students had taken English literature subjects including children’s English literature as college

courses. Among them, some had taken more than four literature subjects as college courses.

Students were randomly assigned to one of the two conditions except that their knowledge of

English and English literature was taken into account to ensure equivalent levels of knowledge

in the two groups (see the “Experimental Procedure” section). There were 32 participants in the

worked-example group and 31 in the problem-solving group.

Materials

The paper-and-pencil based materials consisted of a pretest questionnaire, four pages of learning

materials including a mental effort rating questionnaire used in the learning phase, and two pages

of retention and transfer test materials used in the posttest phase.

Pretest questionnaire

The pretest questionnaire was used to collect information about each participant’s age, grade,

afﬁliated schools and colleges, the number of previously taken college courses in English literature

including children’s English literature, and English test scores on the Computer-Based Test of

the Test of English as a Foreign Language, the Internet-Based Test of the Test of English as a

Foreign Language, and the Test of English for International Communication.

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

WORKED EXAMPLES WHEN LEARNING TO WRITE ESSAYS 391

Learning materials

The learning materials were produced by the professor who taught this subject. The materials

were actual teaching materials used in a realistic teaching and learning environment. A separate

set of learning materials was developed for the worked example and problem-solving formats.

Four essay questions were included in each format based on two pairs of similar problems. In the

worked example format, a worked out, model answer to the essay question was presented ﬁrst

(Appendix A) followed by a similar problem-solving practice exercise. In the problem-solving

format, the same problem-solving questions were included but model answers were not provided.

Before each paired set of worked examples and problems, the worked example format included

the following instruction: “Question 1 and 2 are closely related to each other. After studying

Question 1 and its possible answers, answer Question 2. When you answer Question 2, you

can, of course, make use of answers to Question 1. Please note the time limit for studying and

answering Questions 1 and 2.” The problem-solving condition included the following instructions:

“Please answer the two following questions. Note that the two questions are very similar and so

you should feel free to answer the two questions in a similar manner. Please note the time limit

for each question.”

Rating of mental effort

We used Paas and van Merriёnboer’s (1994) 9-point subjective rating scale to measure levels

of cognitive load following the learning acquisition phase. Students were required to rate the

question, “How easy or difﬁcult was it to study and solve these tasks?” from 1 (extremely easy)

to 9 (extremely difﬁcult). It was hypothesized that difﬁculty ratings and hence cognitive load

would be higher in the essay writing than the essay studying condition because of the increased

difﬁculty in generating an answer through the random generate and test principle than analyzing

an answer through the borrowing and reorganizing principle.

Posttest materials

The posttest consisted of retention, near and far transfer problems. The retention test problem

was identical to one of the four problems in the learning phase:

Folktales and fairytales show universally familiar female characters. What do you think are the

characteristics of the female ﬁgures, in relation to their male characters? Are fairytale females

typically “feminine” or do they demonstrate different characteristics from “traditional feminine”

characters?

The near transfer problem was similar to that in the learning phase:

In contemporary times, picture books are a very popular genre of the children’s book market and

children are encouraged to access many of those books particularly from an early stage. What do you

think of this classiﬁcation of picture books as children’s books? Do you think it is valid or useful?

Do you think “picture books” are mainly for children? If yes, why do you think so? If not, what are

your reasons?

The far transfer problem was different from the problems in the learning phase:

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

392 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

There are two arguments, regarding the teaching of literature to the poor in a society. One party argues

that the poor cannot afford to study literature or philosophy, since what they need is a job to earn

income and to manage their life. This ﬁrst party says that literature is simply too luxurious an item

for the poor. The other party argues that access to literature and philosophy education is as necessary

(or even more necessary) for the poor as it is for the middle and the upper class. They argue that in

the long term, instruction in humanity subjects is the very way for the poor to escape their poverty,

since what they ultimately need is to change their mindset and to be aware of purpose in their life.

What do you think of these two arguments? Discuss your opinion.

It was important to use not only a near transfer problem (similar to those used in the learning

phase) but also a far transfer problem in order to evaluate the ability of students to apply

the acquired knowledge in a domain different from children’s English literature. The posttest

questions were also produced by the professor who teaches this subject. These questions were

actual problems used in a quiz or a mid-term exam.

Procedure

This experiment included four phases conducted during the second and third week of a semester

in teaching children’s English literature to university students. In Phase 1 (pretest), students were

allocated 15 min to complete the pretest questionnaire on their age and prior academic history.

In allocating students to groups, we considered students’ English score (English proﬁciency)

and the number of previous college courses taken in English literature including children’s

English literature. We initially organized students’ English ability level on the basis of an English

conversion score table between the Computer-Based Test of the Test of English as a Foreign

Language, the Internet-Based Test of the Test of English as a Foreign Language, and the Test of

English for International Communication and examined whether or not students had experience

in the area of children’s English literature in previous semesters and the credit they obtained.

Considering these two factors, each student was paired with a student of a similar level based

on their sequential ranks in the sample in terms of English ability and previous experience

in the area of English literature and then members of each pair were randomly assigned to

one of two conditions, a worked-example group (32 participants) and problem-solving group

(31 participants).

In Phase 2 (the lecture phase), the two groups were provided a lecture by the same lecturer

on an “Historical introduction to children’s English literature.” The lecturer provided examples

of many selections of children’s books, their historical meanings and status. Also, students were

asked to pay attention to how the history of children’s literature in western society has changed

and what kind of ideas, cultures and social phenomena have been involved. The lecture lasted for

approximately 50 min.

In Phase 3 (the learning phase) 2 days later, students in the worked example and problem-

solving groups were presented their learning materials as described earlier. All students had

60 min to complete this phase (15 min per problem). At the end of this phase, the subjective

self-rating scale was administered to students.

In Phase 4 (the posttest) 5 days later, both groups were provided with the same retention,

near and far transfer problems and were given 45 min to complete these problems (15 min per

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

WORKED EXAMPLES WHEN LEARNING TO WRITE ESSAYS 393

problem). Every 15 min during the learning and posttest phases, the instructor informed students

of the time and asked them to proceed to the next problem.

Scoring procedure

The student answers to two essay questions during the learning phase (corresponding to

Questions 2 and 4 in the worked example format) and their answers to the retention, near and

far transfer questions during the posttest phase were scored by two professional lecturers in the

area of English literature. The International English Language Testing System academic writing

test rubrics (Appendix B), which is offered by University of Cambridge English for Speakers of

Other Languages Examinations, were used as a marking standard. The academic writing task of

International English Language Testing System is designed in terms of the format of a university

essay that can be allocated to the genre “written argument” (see Shaw & Falvey, 2008, p. 202).

In the present study, students were expected to argue their perspectives to the given questions in

the area of children’s English literature. Because this characteristic of writing was considered a

similar characteristic of International English Language Testing System academic writing, the

rubrics have been chosen as the assessment tool to assess the results of students’ writing.

According to the International English Language Testing System Academic writing test

rubrics, each essay was marked in terms of four categories—task response,coherence and

cohesion,lexical resource, and grammatical range and accuracy—and was differentiated into

10 levels (from 0 to 9) for each subcategory. Therefore, the maximum score was 36 points for

each marker. Each student’s score was based on the sum of the two markers, therefore the max-

imum possible score was 72. Pearson product-moment correlation coefﬁcients between the two

raters’ scores for Tests 1 and 2 during the learning phase were .69 and .77, respectively; for the

retention, near and far transfer tests during the posttest phase, the coefﬁcients were .74, .69, and

.82 respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Out of 63 participants, 4 students who did not complete all phases of the experiment were excluded

from the analysis. For the remaining 59 participants, Table 1 shows the mean scores and standard

deviations for each of the two groups for the dependent variables. A one-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA) was conducted with instructional method (worked example vs. problem solving) as

the between-subject factor.

There were signiﬁcant differences between groups for the two similar questions during the

learning phase with F(1, 58) =8.26, MSE =57.20,p<.01, partial η2=.13, for Question 1,

and F(1, 58) =8.9,MSE =52.69, p<.01 partial η2=.14, for Question 2, both favoring the

worked-example group.

There were no signiﬁcant differences on any of the posttest problems: F(1, 58) =1.73, MSE

=45.70, p=.19, partial η2=.03, for the retention question; F(1, 58) =.17, MSE =38.32, p

=.69, partial η2=0, for the near transfer question; and F(1, 58) =.68, MSE =73.26, p=.41,

partial η2=0, for the far transfer question.

Regarding the mental effort invested during learning acquisition, there was no signiﬁcant

difference between groups, F(1, 58) =1.21, MSE =2.78, p=.28, partial η2=.02.

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

394 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

TABLE 1

Mean Scores and Standard Deviations in Experiment 1

Worked example Problem-solving

group (n=31) group (n=28)

MSDM SD

Learning phase

Similar question 1 46.25 6.92 40.79 8.22

Similar question 2 45.16 7.24 39.50 7.23

Mental effort 5.71 1.15 6.14 1.46

Posttest phase

Retention test 43.71 7.03 41.39 6.44

Near transfer test 43.45 6.66 44.11 5.63

Far transfer test 42.52 6.90 40.68 10.10

Efﬁciency score

Similar question 8.45 4.42 5.54 1.39

1st retention test 8.16 3.77 5.85 1.59

1st near transfer test 8.05 3.88 6.21 1.36

2nd retention test 8.83 4.09 6.25 1.79

2nd near transfer test 8.74 3.83 6.67 1.64

2nd far transfer test 8.64 3.54 6.75 1.67

posttest phase, F(1, 70) =6.75, MSE =43.44, p<.05, partial η2=.09, favoring the worked-

example group. However, there was no signiﬁcant difference on the near transfer question, F(1,

70) =.67, MSE =36.06, p=.416, partial η2=.01.

There was a signiﬁcant difference for the retention test during the second posttest phase, F(1,

70) =6.78, MSE =52.44, p<.05, partial η2=.09. Also, there was a marginally signiﬁcant

difference for the near transfer test during the second posttest phase, F(1, 70) =3.15, MSE =

39.12, p=.08, partial η2=.04, favoring the worked-example group. However, there was no

signiﬁcant difference on the far transfer test during the second posttest phase, F(1, 70) =1.46,

MSE =41.10, p=.23, partial η2=.02.

Regarding the mental effort invested during learning acquisition, there was a signiﬁcant

difference between groups, F(1, 70) =5.25, MSE =1.34, p<.05, partial η2=.07, indicating

that students who had studied worked examples invested a lower mental effort than the students

who had practiced conventional problems.

An ANOVA performed on the efﬁciency measure data using the likelihood model provided

signiﬁcant effects on all test problems, F(1, 70) =15.18, MSE =9.84, p<.001, partial η2=

.18, for the similar problem during the learning phase; F(1, 70) =12.04, MSE =7.78, p<.01,

partial η2=.15 and F(1, 70) =7.64, MSE =7.76, p<.01, partial η2=.10, respectively, for

the retention and near transfer test during the ﬁrst posttest phase; F(1, 70) =12.53, MSE =9.29,

p<.01, partial η2=.15, F(1, 70) =9.31, MSE =8.08, p<.01, partial η2=.12 and F(1, 70) =

8.79, MSE =7.18, p<.01, partial η2=.11, respectively, for the retention, near and far transfer

test during the second posttest phase. All of these results favored the worked-example group.

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

400 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

In Experiment 3, a marginally signiﬁcant difference was found between the two groups on

the near but not the far transfer posttest. The students who received worked examples performed

signiﬁcantly better than those who were required to solve problems on the similar problem during

the training session. The students in the worked-example group performed signiﬁcantly better than

those in the conventional problem-solving group on both the ﬁrst and second retention posttest.

It is critical to note that, in this experiment, a signiﬁcant difference was obtained between the

two conditions on the subjective rating of task difﬁculty. That difference indicated that learners

found that studying the worked examples reduced cognitive load compared to answering the

equivalent questions. As a consequence, efﬁciency gains were obtained on all measures by the

worked-example group compared to the problem-solving group.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The purpose of the present study was to investigate the worked-example effect in the ill-structured

domain of English literature. This study further extended the effects of worked examples from

well-deﬁned domains such as mathematics, science, and computer programming to an ill-deﬁned

domain.

The results obtained in this study convey theoretical and educational implications that can lead

to effective instruction. We believe that providing learners with information that fully explains the

concepts and procedures that students are required to learn (Kirschner, Sweller, & Clark, 2006)

is necessary for problem-solving performance. This explicit instructional guidance can facilitate

the acquisition of domain-speciﬁc knowledge which is the major determinant of skilled problem-

solving performance. Students in language-based subjects such as social studies, humanities,

history, or literature have traditionally been required to write essays as a form of practice. Often,

they need to construct those essays with little guidance concerning what constitutes a good essay in

a speciﬁc domain. This instructional technique was developed and became a dominant teaching

paradigm before our current understanding of human cognitive architecture. The technique is

heavily based on instructional processes associated with discovery learning and problem-based

learning (Sweller, 2009).

The human cognitive architecture associated with biologically secondary knowledge suggests

that the primary function of instruction is to assist in the acquisition of knowledge in long-term

memory. That knowledge can be acquired through the randomness-as-genesis principle or the

borrowing and reorganizing principle. Knowledge acquired through the randomness-as-genesis

principle requires a generate and test procedure that imposes a heavy working memory load.

Essay writing without guidance places a heavy emphasis on the randomness-as-genesis principle.

In contrast, we have evolved to acquire biologically secondary knowledge from the borrowing

and reorganizing principle. We are skilled at obtaining information from other people. The use

of worked examples provides an ideal procedure for obtaining information from others.

The three experiments in this study support the suggestion that providing worked examples

can be beneﬁcial even in discursive domains such as literature. In all of the experiments, as

measured by the questions in the training session, the students who received worked examples

demonstrated that they learned signiﬁcantly more than those who were required to construct their

own answers without previous guidance. In Experiment 2, using less knowledgeable students,

this superiority extended to the retention test in the posttest phase. In Experiment 3, using even

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

WORKED EXAMPLES WHEN LEARNING TO WRITE ESSAYS 401

less knowledgeable students, there was an indication of this superiority on the near transfer

test in the posttest phase. Furthermore, and critically, in Experiment 3 and only in Experiment

3, a signiﬁcant difference was obtained between conditions on the subjective ratings of task

difﬁculty. The worked-example group found their task of studying worked examples easier than

the problem-solving group found answering the equivalent questions. In Experiments 1 and 2,

using more knowledgeable learners this difference was not obtained.

While there were no signiﬁcant differences on the near and far transfer problems through the

three experiments and the effect sizes were small, it is noticeable that the effect sizes increased

with decreasing learner expertise from Experiment 1 to the 3. Furthermore, using the instructional

efﬁciency measure in which learners’ performance and mental effort scores were combined

using the likelihood model, there was an increasing effect size as the learners’ prior knowledge

decreased, along with signiﬁcant differences on the both near and far transfer problems in

Experiment 3.

The increased effectiveness of studying worked examples with decreased knowledge levels

is predicted by cognitive load theory and is one of the bases for the expertise reversal effect.

Only low knowledge learners require worked examples. For higher knowledge learners, worked

examples are unnecessary and, depending on levels of expertise, learners may gain more from

solving problems. An absolute measure of expertise is desirable to determine whether worked

examples are likely to be beneﬁcial. Some progress on such a measure is available for technical

areas (Kalyuga & Sweller, 2004, 2005). A suitable measure is not yet available for the ill-deﬁned

curriculum area of the present experiments. In the absence of such a measure, the judgment of

instructors must be used to determine whether worked examples are likely to be beneﬁcial.

As far as we are aware, the present study is the ﬁrst to attempt to study worked examples

in the domain of literary analysis. To do so, we required a new type of worked examples very

different from the classical worked examples used in technical domains. We have deﬁned an

essay question as an ill-deﬁned problem and model answers to an essay question were classed

as worked examples using the perspective of problem solving in ill-deﬁned learning domains.

In well-deﬁned problem areas, a worked example is deﬁned as a problem for which a solution

is explicitly provided. We have used this deﬁnition to construct worked examples in the area of

literature. An essay question provides the problem statement that is analogous to the problem

statement found in mathematics or science problems. A model answer to the essay question

provides a worked example that is analogous to a worked out problem solution in mathematics or

science. Of course, depending on the learning domain, the representation of the worked examples

is different because it must reﬂect the manner in which the discipline is organized. Accordingly,

the worked examples in the present experiments differ from mathematics worked examples. This

new type of worked example is inﬂuenced by the nature of the ill-deﬁned learning domain of

literature, in which the given, goal and problem solving operators are deﬁned in more general

terms resulting in a large number of acceptable solutions. Notwithstanding, the worked examples

used in the present experiments still include the basic, deﬁnitional requirements of a worked

example in that they provide learners with an explicit answer to a problem that students are

required to study in order to improve subsequent problem-solving performance.

There are limitations to the present study that need to be addressed in subsequent work. Most

of the limitations occur because the sole purpose of the experiments was to test the hypothesis,

disputed by some, that worked examples could be effective in a literature-based area. The simple

research design used in this study aimed to demonstrate that instruction that conformed to the

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

402 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

deﬁnition of worked examples could be constructed in the area of English literature and that those

worked examples would prove to be superior to more conventional, problem-solving instruction.

The experiments succeeded in this aim. In future research, a factorial design incorporating

different levels of expertise to demonstrate the conditions under which the effect might be

enhanced as well as testing for the worked example effect will need to be carried out.

In addition, the reported experiments were limited to female English-as-a-foreign-language

participants only. In future studies, samples representing a variety of learners studying in their

native language should be used. Given that the correlations coefﬁcients between the markers

used in this study were low in some cases, a more consistent essay scoring procedure (or, more

generally, scoring procedures for problem solutions in ill-structured task domains) needs to be

developed and used in future research.

It needs to be emphasized that we have not suggested that essay writing should be abandoned.

Students are unlikely to gain skill in essay writing without actual practice. Our point is that

practice should be carefully guided, and the use of worked examples provides an ideal vehicle

for guidance. Our results suggest that the use of worked examples can provide a beneﬁcial

instructional procedure even in areas where they are rarely used. That beneﬁt increases with

decreased student knowledge levels.

AUTHOR NOTES

Suna Kyun received a PhD from the School of Education at the University of New South

Wales and currently works as a postdoctoral research fellow in the College of Medicine at Yonsei

University, South Korea. Her research interests are cognitive processes in learning and their appli-

cation to instructional design of ill-deﬁned domains such as medical domains. Slava Kalyuga is

Professor of Educational Psychology at the School of Education, the University of New South

Wales, where he received a PhD and has worked since 1995. His research interests are in cognitive

processes in learning and the role of learner prior knowledge, adaptive multimedia learning, and

diagnostic assessment methods. John Sweller is Emeritus Professor of Education in the School

of Education at the University of New South Wales. His research is concerned with cognitive

processes and instructional design.

REFERENCES

Applebee, A. N. (1984). Writing and reasoning. Review of Educational Research,54, 577–596.

Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environment: Using interactive elements to

encourage effective processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review,19, 375–386.

Beckmann, J. (2010). Taming a beast of burden: On some issues with the conceptualisation and operationalisation of

cognitive load. Learning and Instruction,20, 250–264.

Best, J. B. (1989). Cognitive psychology (2nd ed.). St. Paul. MN: West.

Carroll, M. W.(1994). Using worked examples as an instructional support in the algebra classroom. Journal of Educational

Psychology,86, 360–367.

Cooper, G., & Sweller, J. (1987). Effects of schema acquisition and rule automation on mathematical problem-solving

transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology,79, 347–362.

Crippen, K. J., & Earl, B. L. (2007). The impact of web-based worked examples and self-explanation on performance,

problem solving, and self efﬁcacy. Computers & Education,49, 809–821.

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

WORKED EXAMPLES WHEN LEARNING TO WRITE ESSAYS 403

De Groot, A. (1965). Thought and choice in chess. The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. (Original work published 1946)

Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication,28, 122–128.

Geary, D. (2007). Educating the evolved mind: Conceptual foundations for an evolutionary educational psychology.

In J. S. Carlson & J. R. Levin (Eds.), Psychological perspectives on contemporary educational issues (pp. 1–99).

Greenwich, CT: Information Age.

Geary, D. (2008). An evolutionarily informed education science. Educational Psychologist,43, 179–195.

Geary, D. (2012). Evolutionary educational psychology. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational

psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 597–621). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., & Catrambone, R. (2006). Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced

by providing instructional explanations and prompting self explanation? Learning and Instruction,16, 104–121.

Goel, V. (1992a, July–August). A comparison of well-structured and ill-structured task environments and problem spaces.

Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Goel, V. (1992b, July–August). Ill-structured representations for ill-structured problems. Proceedings of the Fourteenth

Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Hillsdale, New Jersey.

Greeno, J. (1976). Indeﬁnite goals in well-structured problems. Psychological Review,83, 479–491.

Große, C. S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Finding and ﬁxing errors in worked examples: Can this foster learning outcomes?

Learning and Instruction,17, 612–634.

Hilbert, T. S., & Renkl, A. (2009). Learning how to use a computer-based concept-mapping tool: Self-explaining examples

helps. Computers in Human Behavior,25, 267–274.

Hoffman, B., & Schraw, G. (2010). Conceptions of efﬁciency: Applications in learning and problem solving. Educational

Psychologist,45, 1–14.

H¨

ubner, S., N¨

uckles, M., & Renkl, A. (2010). Writing learning journals: Instructional support to overcome learning-

strategy deﬁcits. Learning and Instruction,20, 18–29.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior worked examples. Journal

of Educational Psychology,93, 579–588.

Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2004). Measuring knowledge to optimize cognitive load factors during instruction. Journal of

Educational Psychology,96, 558–568.

Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efﬁciency of adaptive e-learning.

Educational Technology, Research and Development,53, 83–93.

Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis

of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational

Psychologist,41, 75–86.

Kyun, S., & Lee, H. (2009). The effects of worked examples in computer based instruction: Focus on the presentation

format of worked examples and prior knowledge of learners. Asia Paciﬁc Education Review,10, 495–503.

Owen, P., & Sweller, J. (2008). Cognitive load theory and music instruction. Educational Psychology,28, 29–45.

Paas, F., & van Merrienboer, J. (1993). The efﬁciency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental-effort

and performance measures. Human Factors,35, 737–743.

Paas, F., & van Merri ¨

enboer, J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills:

A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology,86, 122–133.

Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems.

Journal of Educational Psychology,88, 144–161.

Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works- A cognitive load perspective.

Instructional Science,32, 59–82.

Rourke, A., & Sweller, J. (2009). The worked example effect using ill-deﬁned problems: Learning to recognise designers’

style. Learning and Instruction,19, 185–199.

Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Krieg, C., Wittwer, J., Aleven, V., & Salden, R. (2009). The worked example-effect: Not an

artefact of lousy control conditions. Computers in Human Behavior,25, 258–266.

Schwonke, R., Renkl, A., Salden, R., & Aleven, V. (2011). Effects of different ratios of worked solution steps and problem

solving opportunities on cognitive load and learning outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior,27, 58–62.

Schworm, S., & Renkl, A. (2007). Learning argumentation skills through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples.

Journal of Educational Psychology,99, 285–296.

Shaw, S., & Falvey, P. (2008). The IELTS writing assessment revision project: Towards a revised rating scale (Research

reports No. 08.1). Cambridge, England: University of Cambridge ESOL Examinations.

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

404 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

Spiro, R. J., & DeSchryver, M. (2009). Constructivism: when it’s the wrong idea and when it’s the only idea. In S. Tobias

&T.M.Duffy(Eds.),Constructivist instruction: success or failure? (pp. 106–123). New York, NY: Routledge.

Stark, R., Kopp, V., & Fischer, M. R. (2011). Case-based learning with worked examples in complex domains: Two

experimental studies in undergraduate medical education. Learning and Instruction,21, 22–33.

Stark, R., Mendl, H., Gruber, H., & Renkl, A. (2002). Conditions and effects of example elaboration. Learning and

Instruction,12, 39–60.

Sweller, J. (2003). Evolution of human cognitive architecture. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation

(Vol. 43, pp. 215–266). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction,16, 165–169.

Sweller, J. (2008). Instructional implications of David C. Geary’s evolutionary educational psychology. Educational

Psychologist,43, 214–216.

Sweller, J. (2009). What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism. In S. Tobias & T. M. Duffy (Eds.),

Constructivist instruction: success or failure? (pp. 127–143). New York, NY: Routledge.

Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology

Review,22, 123–138.

Sweller, J. (2011). Cognitive load theory. In J. Mestre & B. Ross (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation:

Cognition in education (Vol. 55, pp. 37–76). Oxford, England: Academic Press.

Sweller, J. (2012). Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and others do not. In K.

Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educational psychology handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 295–325). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer.

Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra.

Cognition and Instruction,2, 59–89.

Sweller, J., & Sweller, S. (2006). Natural information progressing systems. Evolutionary Psychology,4, 434–458.

Torcasio, S., & Sweller, J. (2010). The use of illustrations when learning to read: A cognitive load theory approach.

Applied Cognitive Psychology,24, 659–672.

Tynj¨

al¨

a, P., Mason, L., & Lonka, K. (2001). Writing as a learning tool: An introduction. In P. Tynj¨

al¨

a, L. Mason, & K.

Lonka (Eds.), Writing as a learning tool: Integrating theory and practice (pp. 7–22). Dordrecht, The Netherlands:

Kluwer.

van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriёnboer, J. J. G. (2006). Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting

transfer performance. Learning and Instruction,16, 154–164.

van Gog, T., Paas, F., & van Merriёnboer, J. J. G. (2008). Effect of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-

oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer efﬁcacy. Learning and Instruction,18, 211–222.

Ward, M., & Sweller, J. (1990). Structuring effective worked examples. Cognition and Instruction,7, 1–39.

Zhu, X., & Simon, H. A. (1987). Learning mathematics from examples and by doing. Cognition and Instruction,4,

137–166.

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

WORKED EXAMPLES WHEN LEARNING TO WRITE ESSAYS 405

APPENDIX A

Learning Materials for the Worked Example Group

Faculty: Student Number: Name:

(Questions 1–2) Questions 1 and 2 are closely related to each other. After studying Question 1 and

its possible answers, answer Question 2. When you answer Question 2, you can, of course, make use of

answers to Question 1. Please note the time limit for studying and answering Questions 1 and 2.

Question 1. In contemporary times, fairytales are mainly considered as stories for children and

children are encouraged to read many fairytales from an early stage. Do you think that the fairytales

are mainly children’s stories? If yes, why do you think so? If not, why not?

<Answer 1>I think fairytales can be stories for children. First of all, the plot is very simple but the stories

are very interesting. Despite being mostly short and simple, the stories contain vivid conﬂicts but the ending

is always a happy one where the problems are solved. I think these aspects can encourage children to think

more positively about the problems or conﬂicts they face: when there are conﬂicts and problems, there

are solutions and rewards too. Also, many fairytales include child characters. Hansel and Gretel is a good

example and in other fairytales, children grow up and get married to a prince or princess. Although the

process of their growth is normally mentioned very brieﬂy, the story normally starts the time when the main

character was young, having particular problems such as a witch’s curse, and in most cases, having lost their

mother or both. So there are aspects, in which child readers can sympathize more with the characters too.

There is no reason that adults cannot enjoy reading fairytales but I think child readers is the main reason for

the simple plot but complex relationships and conﬂicts, and for happy ending with all problems solved, and

child characters involved in fairytales.

<Answer 2>I don’t think fairytales are mainly for children. Children can read fairytales of course but they

were mainly for adults before the 17th century and even now for them too. It was mainly regarded as the

Brothers Grimm who published fairytales for children and contributed to the trend that fairytales are mainly

for children. They removed many scenes and elements, which were not considered proper for children such

as the elements of sex and violence. I think this creates two problems. First, despite their omission of those

sexual and violent elements from the stories, many fairytales published for children still contain hints of

sex and violence. The way that a stepmother treats her stepdaughter cruelly or how Gretel kills the witch,

or how a kind husband suddenly turns out to be a murderer of several wives in Blue Beard, all show aspects

of cruelty and violence. So, children actually experience those violent and cruel aspects repeatedly through

reading fairytales. The other problem is that when an editor and a publisher omit particular elements or

scenes, which they consider are not appropriate for children’s version, is it likely that those original fairytales

also lose some important symbols or the integrity of the story. Most fairytales are passed down orally and

there are several versions of a similar type of story, so we cannot say there is a deﬁnite original story.

However, I think when people intend to make a particular story for children and omit sections of the original

oral stories, it is unavoidable that those children’s versions are somewhat artiﬁcial and lose some elements

of the original stories that might be important for the integrity of the fairytale. Considering these aspects, I

think fairytales are mainly for adults and when they are constructed as children’s versions, they often lose

particular integrity of symbols or meanings not only some speciﬁc elements of sex or violence.

<Answer 3>For reasons of space, the third answer has been omitted.

Question 2. There are different versions of fairytales in different countries even if they share similar

motifs or symbols. Since the western industrialization, children’s versions of fairytales began to appear

and in the contemporary times, there are diverse modiﬁed versions of fairytales and creative stories,

which adopt main motifs from familiar fairytales. Despite the universality and diversity of fairytales,

fairytales still tend to be classiﬁed as children’s stories. What do you think are the reasons for that?

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

406 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

Question 3–4) The following Questions 3 and 4 are closely related to each other. After studying Question

3 and the answers, answer Question 4. When you answer Question 4, you can, of course, make use of

the answers to Question 3. Also, you need to note the time limit for studying and answering the question

<Answer 1>I think most of the fairytales familiar to me show a typical plot where an outstandingly beautiful

but passive female character wins ultimate happiness by gaining a prince’s love and getting married to him.

She is not only beautiful but also good in her heart and endures many sufferings and hardships in her life

until she meets the prince and get married to him. One of the most famous ﬁgures is perhaps Cinderella. She

lost her real mother and her father has another wife with two daughters. Cinderella’s stepmother treats her

badly but she is very patient to obey her stepmother and endures all kinds of maltreatment and hard tasks

at home. As most people know, a prince holds a big party to look for his “future” wife and invites all the

young ladies in the land. Cinderella’s stepmother does not allow her to go to the party but thanks to a fairy

godmother’s help, she is changed into a splendid princess and attends the party. The prince falls in love with

Cinderella and eventually they get married to each other despite the problems her stepmother caused. In the

story of the Sleeping Beauty, a princess is cursed to sleep for one hundred years but is saved by a prince,

who has heard about her and has been looking for her. Cinderella is different from the Sleeping Beauty in

that she has gone through difﬁculties in her life; however, they ultimately both achieve their happiness by

with the help of princes who appear as saviors in their lives. Their characters are described as ‘obedient

and patient’, and most of all, beautiful, which is typically required for an “ideal female character” in a

traditional patriarchal society. In this way, I think the fairytales portray “typical feminine” characters and

even reinforce these stereotypes, and female characters are portrayed as obtaining a happy and privileged

status by a royal male character.

<Answer 2>I think many fairytales show “typical feminine” characters, which can be described as passive,

obedient and beautiful. Many female characters such as Cinderella seem to show those characteristics and

ultimately gain the happiness by male “saviors.” However, I think we cannot underestimate their positive

attitudes in their life and some of the female characters show distinct leadership qualities. For example,

Cinderella, who is remembered as beautiful but passive and obedient, has strength to endure the difﬁculties

in her life and is able to communicate with “Nature.” She is helped by small ants and a fairy godmother.

This can be another example of her reliance on “somebody else.” However, I think this aspect also proves

her strength and her ability to harness the power of nature and to make the most of it when she really needs

some help. Also, in the story of Beauty and the Beast, the Beauty is a typical female character in that she is

beautiful, kind and obedient to her father. However, it is her decision to choose her “destiny” to get married

to the Beast and to accept “the ugly creature” in her life. Her destiny does not appear bright and fantastic to

other people but she “chooses” to accept it and make the most of her destiny. It is not that she is forced to

stay with the Beast. Gretel, in the story of Hansel and Gretel, might be a character who changed from a

seemingly helpless little girl to a leading character to save her own and her brother’s life. When they face

the witch’s cunning plan, it is Gretel who dares to push the witch into the ﬁre. So, female characters in

fairytales are apparently passive but there are aspects and situations where they also show their own courage

and independent decision making, which I think should be noted. Thus, female characters in fairytales do

not always depend on male characters but can be said to play a role of cooperating male ﬁgures or even

leading them.

<Answer 3>For reasons of space, the third answer has been omitted.

Question 4. Many fairytales are regarded as showing “typical” male ﬁgures such as a prince who saves a

main female character. What do you think of male ﬁgures in fairytales in relation to female characters? Are

they all typical “saviors” or do they show different aspects?

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

WORKED EXAMPLES WHEN LEARNING TO WRITE ESSAYS 407

APPENDIX B

International English Language Testing System Task 2 Writing Band Descriptors (Public Version)

Band Task response Coherence and cohesion Lexical resource

Grammatical range and

accuracy

9 – fully addresses all parts

of the task

– presents a fully

developed position in

answer to the question

with relevant, fully

extended, and

well-supported ideas

– uses cohesion in such a

waythatitattractsno

attention

– skillfully manages

paragraphing

– uses a wide range of

vocabulary with very

natural and

sophisticated control of

lexical features; rare

minor errors occur only

as “slips”

– uses a wide range of

structures with full

ﬂexibility and accuracy;

rare minor errors occur

only as ‘slips’

8 – sufﬁciently addresses all

parts of the task

–presentsa

well-developed response

to the question with

relevant, extended, and

supported ideas

– sequences information

and ideas logically

– manages all aspects of

cohesion well

– uses paragraphing

sufﬁciently and

appropriately

– uses a wide range of

vocabulary ﬂuently and

ﬂexibly to convey

precise meanings

– skillfully uses

uncommon lexical

items, but there may be

occasional inaccuracies

in word choice and

collocation

– produces rare errors in

spelling and/or word

formation

– uses a wide range of

structures

– the majority of sentences

are error-free

– makes only very

occasional errors

7 – addresses all parts of the

task

– presents a clear position

throughout the response

– presents, extends, and

supports main ideas, but

there may be a tendency

to over generalize

and/or supporting ideas

may lack focus

– logically organizes

information and ideas;

there is clear

progression throughout

– uses a range of cohesive

devices appropriately

although there may be

some under- or overuse

– presents a clear central

topic within each

paragraph

– uses a sufﬁcient range of

vocabulary to allow

some ﬂexibility and

precision

– uses less common lexical

items with some

awareness of style and

collocation

– may produce occasional

errors in word choice,

spelling, and/or word

formation

– uses a variety of complex

structures

– produces frequent

error-free sentences

– has good control of

grammar and

punctuation but may

make a few errors

6 – addresses all parts of the

task although some parts

may be more fully

covered than others

– presents a relevant

position, although the

conclusions may

become unclear or

repetitive

– presents relevant main

ideas but some may be

inadequately

developed/unclear

– arranges information and

ideas coherently, and

there is a clear overall

progression

– uses cohesive devices

effectively, but cohesion

within and/or between

sentences may be faulty

or mechanical

– may not always use

referencing clearly or

appropriately

– uses paragraphing, but

not always logically

– uses an adequate range of

vocabulary for the task

– attempts to use less

common vocabulary but

with some inaccuracy

– makes some errors in

spelling and/or word

formation, but they do

not impede

communication

– uses a mix of simple and

complex sentence forms

– makes some errors in

grammar and

punctuation but they

rarely reduce

communication

(Continued on next page)

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

408 KYUN, KALYUGA, AND SWELLER

APPENDIX B

International English Language Testing System Task 2 Writing Band Descriptors (Public Version)

(Continued)

Band Task response Coherence and cohesion Lexical resource

Grammatical range and

accuracy

5 – addresses the task only

partially; the format

may be inappropriate in

places

– expresses a position but

the development is not

always clear and there

may be no conclusions

drawn

– presents some main ideas

but these are limited and

not sufﬁciently

developed; there may be

irrelevant detail

– presents information

with some organization

but there may be a lack

of overall progression

– makes inadequate,

inaccurate or overuse of

cohesive devices

– may be repetitive

because of lack of

referencing and

substitution

– may not write in

paragraphs, or

paragraphing may be

inadequate

– uses a limited range of

vocabulary, but this is

minimally adequate for

the task

– may make noticeable

errors in spelling and/or

word formation that

may cause some

difﬁculty for the reader

– uses only a limited range

of structures

– attempts complex

sentences but these tend

to be less accurate than

simple sentences

– may make frequent

grammatical errors and

punctuation may be

faulty; errors can cause

some difﬁculty for the

reader

4 – responds to the task only

in a minimal way or the

answer is tangential; the

format may be

inappropriate

– presents a position but

this is unclear

– presents some main ideas

but these are difﬁcult to

identify and may be

repetitive, irrelevant, or

not well supported

– presents information and

ideas but these are not

arranged coherently and

there is no clear

progression in the

response

– uses some basic cohesive

devices but these may be

inaccurate or repetitive

– may not write in

paragraphs or their use

may be confusing

– uses only basic

vocabulary that may be

used repetitively or that

may be inappropriate for

the task

– has limited control of

word formation and/or

spelling; errors may

cause strain for the

reader

– uses only a very limited

range of structures with

only rare use of

subordinate clauses

– some structures are

accurate but errors

predominate, and

punctuation is often

faulty

3 – does not adequately

address any part of the

task

– does not express a clear

position

– presents few ideas, which

are largely undeveloped

or irrelevant

– does not organize ideas

logically

– may use a very limited

range of cohesive

devices, and those used

may not indicate a

logical relation between

ideas

– uses only a very limited

range of words and

expressions with very

limited control of word

formation and/or

spelling

– errors may severely

distort the message

– attempts sentence forms

but errors in grammar

and punctuation

predominate and distort

the meaning

2 – barely responds to the

task

– does not express a

position

– may attempt to present

one or two ideas but

there is no development

– has very little control of

organizational features

– uses an extremely limited

range of vocabulary;

essentially no control of

word formation and/or

spelling

– cannot use sentence

forms except in

memorized phrases

1 – answer is completely

unrelated to the task

– fails to communicate any

message

– can only use a few

isolated words

– cannot use sentence

forms at all

0 – does not attend

– does not attempt the task

in any way

– writes a totally

memorized response

Downloaded by [Yonsei University] at 15:54 13 May 2013

The effect of worked examples on learning solution steps and knowledge transfer

Article

Full-text available

Oct 2023

The worked example effect has been well documented within the framework of Cognitive Load Theory (CLT), which suggests that teaching with examples would be superior to engaging in unguided problem solving, particularly for novices, as using worked examples would reduce their cognitive load, compared to solving problems, thus facilitating knowledge retention. This paper, using multiple-step mathematics problems, reports an experiment investigating the micro level of the worked example effect on learning solution steps, from the perspective of cognitive load and challenge (as a relevant affective, motivational factor), testing the worked example effect with a transfer test. The results favored worked examples on both the retention and transfer tests after learning and showed that using worked examples would reduce cognitive load and impose less challenge on each step during learning.

Using instructive simulations to teach young students simple science concepts: Evidence from electricity content

Article

Apr 2023

This research aimed to determine the effectiveness of applying instructive simulation experiments (SE) to the development of deeper conceptual understanding, retention of static electricity contents, and engagement of 4th-grade students. The correlation between student achievements and engagement was examined. 76 4th graders (10–11 years) were assigned to one of the groups: direct – DI + SE (DSE) and indirect instruction – II + SE (ISE) group. The results indicate that the ISE group showed significantly better achievements on the highest cognitive level compared to the DSE group. The application of SE had a significantly greater impact on the perceived behavioral, cognitive, and agentic engagement of the ISE group compared to the DSE group. A positive correlation was observed between student engagement and achievements.

Why and How to Implement Worked Examples in Upper Division Theoretical Physics

Preprint

Full-text available

Jul 2023

Studying worked examples has been shown by extensive research to be an effective method for learning to solve well-structured problems in physics and mathematics. The effectiveness of learning with worked examples has been demonstrated and documented in many research projects. In this work, we propose a new four-step approach for teaching with worked examples that includes writing explanations and finding and correcting errors. This teaching method can even be implemented in courses in which homework performance constitutes part of the grading system. This four-step approach is illustrated in the context of Lagrangian mechanics, which is ideal for the application of worked examples due to its universal approach to solve problems.

Throw them in the deep end? Quizzing with factual versus application items

Chapter

Mar 2023

Danney Rasco

Students regularly ask, “How can I do well in your course?” They are surprised when I provide a simple answer: Take advantage of the quizzes. Quizzes are not a silver bullet, but they improve students’ recollection of course information and, importantly to students, increase performance on exams. Pre-lecture reading quizzes encourage students to arrive prepared (pre-training), ongoing quizzes promote regular studying (spacing), and review quizzes help students revisit material from previous topics (interleaving). Central to the present discussion, all of these types of quizzes require students to retrieve information to answer items, which improves performance on later exams (testing effect, retrieval practice). Still, questions remain about how to use quizzes most effectively. In particular, should we use harder application quizzes or easier factual quizzes to help students do well in the course? That is to say, should we throw students in the deep end early in the learning process or not?

Students’ Technology, Cognitive, and Content Knowledge (TSCCK) Instructional Model Effect on Cognitive Load and Learning Achievement

Article

Full-text available

Dec 2022

The application of scientific and technological approaches in education has been increasing year by year. We evaluated the effect of a TSCCK model based on the cognitive load theory on the cognitive load and learning achievement of vocational students: this model had six components: (1) analysis; (2) content development; (3) cloud development; (4) learning activity development; (5) model implementation; and (6) model revision. We used 62 students randomly selected from 115 students taking an “E-commerce data analysis and processing” course and used cluster random sampling. A total of 31 students were taught with instructions based on the TSCCK model, while 31 students were taught with a traditional method. The instruments used included lesson plans for the TSCCK group developed using the cognitive load theory and the workload profile self-rating scale (WP scale) used to measure the student cognitive load for both groups. The students who learned with TSCCK had significantly lower cognitive load (WP scale) scores than the students who learned with the traditional method, and their achievement scores were higher. The MANOVA confirmed that both the achievement scores and cognitive load measures for the two groups were significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Why and how to implement worked examples in upper division theoretical physics

Article

Oct 2023

The effects of Multiple Representation Method and Prior Knowledge Level on Problem Solving Skills and Cognitive Load

Article

Full-text available

Aug 2023

In this study, the effect of multiple representation method and prior knowledge level in solving ill-structured problems was investigated. Quasi-experimental and 2x2 (multiple representation method x prior knowledge level) factorial designs were used in the study. The study group consists of 39 undergraduate students. The dependent variables of the study were determined as problem solving skills, cognitive load, and permanence. The independent variables were considered as multiple representation method (step-by-step, holistic) and prior knowledge levels (novice, expert). Prior knowledge level test, problem solving skills test and cognitive load scale developed to measure the variables were used as data collection tools within the scope of the study. The data was analysed with two-way analysis of variance and independent groups t-test as the data obtained from the data collection tools exhibited normal distribution. In the results that were significant in the analysis, Cohen (d) in the independent groups t-tests and eta-square (η2) in the two-way analysis of variance were also shown. As a result of the research, it is evident that the level of prior knowledge and the interaction (interaction effect) of the level of prior knowledge and the multiple representation method affect problem solving skills. In addition, it was concluded that the interaction of multiple representation method and prior knowledge level was statistically significant in terms of cognitive load variable. The findings supported the expertise reversal effect.

Advanced Instructional Design Techniques: Theories and Strategies for Complex Learning

Book

Jul 2023

Jill Stefaniak

Improving Computer-Assisted Language Learning Through the Lens of Cognitive Load language learning

Article

Full-text available

May 2023
EDUC PSYCHOL REV

A contemporary review (over a 10-year period) was conducted into studies that used computer-assisted language learning (CALL) strategies to learn a second language (L2) by considering the impact of cognitive load. Twelve affordances were identified that led to enhanced learning, namely, online annotations and glosses, captioning, digital game-based language learning, videoconferencing and video feedback, visualization-based learning approaches, online instructional content and features, online machine translation tools, online interactive collaborative learning, (meta) cognitive learning strategies argument mapping, computer-mediated dictionary assisted learning, and multiple display screens. Associated with these affordances were a number of conditions and learner characteristics that modified the effectiveness of the affordances such as L2 proficiency. Most learning strategies were used to reduce cognitive load, although a limited number fostered germane cognitive load through generative learning practices. A number of issues associated with measuring cognitive load, multimedia learning, and research designs are also discussed.

The comparison of the effectiveness of traditional and combined (electronic and traditional) training on the cognitive load theory of girls’stuents in the seconds of level high school in kerman city

Article

Nov 2022

The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance measures

Article

Full-text available

Jan 1993

This article reports on a calculational approach for combining measures of mental workload and task performance that allows one to obtain information on the relative efficiency of instructional conditions. The method is based on the standardization of raw scores for mental effort and task performance to z scores, which are displayed in a cross of axes. Relative condition efficiency is calculated as the perpendicular distance to the line that is assumed to represent an efficiency of zero. We conclude that the method for calculating and representing relative condition efficiency discussed here can be a valuable addition to research on the training and performance of complex cognitive tasks.

Cognitive Load Theory

Article

Jan 2011

Cognitive Load Theory John Sweller, Paul Ayres, Slava Kalyuga Effective instructional design depends on the close study of human cognitive architecture—the processes and structures that allow people to acquire and use knowledge. Without this background, we might recognize that a teaching strategy is successful, but have no understanding as to why it works, or how it might be improved. Cognitive Load Theory offers a novel, evolutionary-based perspective on the cognitive architecture that informs instructional design. By conceptualizing biological evolution as an information processing system and relating it to human cognitive processes, cognitive load theory bypasses many core assumptions of traditional learning theories. Its focus on the aspects of human cognitive architecture that are relevant to learning and instruction (particularly regarding the functions of long-term and working memory) puts the emphasis on domain-specific rather than general learning, resulting in a clearer understanding of educational design and a basis for more effective instructional methods. Coverage includes: • The analogy between evolution by natural selection and human cognition. • Categories of cognitive load and their interactions in learning. • Strategies for measuring cognitive load. • Cognitive load effects and how they lead to educational innovation. • Instructional design principles resulting from cognitive load theory. Academics, researchers, instructional designers, cognitive and educational psychologists, and students of cognition and education, especially those concerned with education technology, will look to Cognitive Load Theory as a vital addition to their libraries.

Writing as a Learning Tool: An Introduction

Chapter

Jan 2001

This introductory chapter begins with a brief historical account of the writing-to-learn movement, emphasising especially the significance of the cognitive revolution for the development of both teaming research and writing research. The next section considers those theories of the writing process which have had the most profound impact on writing-to-learn, theories of writing as problem solving. Further on, theories and views of learning are discussed as essential determinants of approaches to writing as a learning tool. it is emphasised that current constructivist and social constructivist views imply the use of writing activities requiring transformations of knowledge, social interaction, and collaboration, as well as the integration of writing with other forms of learning and studying.

What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism

Article

Jan 2009

J. Sweller

Human cognitive architecture: Why some instructional procedures work and others do not

Article

Jan 2012

J. Sweller

Using Worked Examples as an Instructional Support in the Algebra Classroom

Article

Sep 1994

William M. Carroll

In the 2 experiments reported here, high school students studied worked examples while learning how to translate English expressions into algebraic equations. In Experiment 1, worked examples were used as part of the regular classroom instruction and as a support for homework. In Experiment 2, students in a remedial mathematics class received individual instruction. Students using worked examples outperformed the control group on posttests after completing fewer practice problems; they also made fewer errors per problem and fewer types of errors during acquisition time, completed the work more rapidly, and required less assistance from the teacher.

Evolution of human cognitive architecture

Chapter

Dec 2003
Psychol Learn Motiv

John Sweller

Cognitive Load Theory

Article

Dec 2011
Psychol Learn Motiv

John Sweller

Cognitive load theory uses evolutionary theory to consider human cognitive architecture and uses that architecture to devise novel, instructional procedures. The theory assumes that knowledge can be divided into biologically primary knowledge that we have evolved to acquire and biologically secondary knowledge that is important for cultural reasons. Secondary knowledge, unlike primary knowledge, is the subject of instruction. It is processed in a manner that is analogous to the manner in which biological evolution processes information. When dealing with secondary knowledge, human cognition requires a very large information store, the contents of which are acquired largely by obtaining information from other information stores. Novel information is generated by a random generate and test procedure with only very limited amounts of novel information able to be processed at any given time. In contrast, very large amounts of organized information stored in the information store can be processed in order to generate complex action. This architecture has been used to generate instructional procedures, summarized in this chapter.

Cognitive Load Theory

Chapter

Feb 2011

The goal-free effect was the first instructional effect investigated within a cognitive load theory framework. Goal-free problems occur when a conventional problem with a specific goal is replaced by a problem with a non-specific goal. For example, in high school geometry, a typical problem will ask students to calculate a specific angle, such as angle ABC. In contrast, goal-free problems will not require students to specifically calculate this angle, but use a more general wording such as ‘calculate the value of as many angles as you can’. This particular wording of the problem will still allow students to calculate the targeted angle of the conventional problem (angle ABC), but students are free to calculate as many other angles as they can, and are not required to focus on one ultimate goal. Goal-free problems are sometimes called no-goal problems, and the goal-free effect is sometimes referred to as the goal-specificity effect. Consider an example taken from the domain of geometry. The goal-free effect occurs when students, having solved goal-free problems with an instruction to ‘calculate the value of as many angles as you can’ during acquisition, demonstrate superior learning outcomes to students who have solved the equivalent, conventional problems that include a goal such as ‘calculate the value of angle ABC’.

Thought and Choice in Chess

Article

Jun 1966

The Effect of Worked Examples When Learning to Write Essays in English Literature

Abstract and Figures

Recommended publications

Effects of interactivity and progressive visuospatial cues on learners’ comprehension of dynamic vis...

Using General Problem-solving Strategies to Generate Ideas in Order to Solve Geography Problems

The Worked Example Effect using Ill-defined Problems in On-line Learning : Focus on the Components o...

Using a General Problem-Solving Strategy to Promote Transfer

The Worked Example Effect, the Generation Effect, and Element Interactivity