Is learning from worked examples a good classroom strategy?

A work example is a step-by-step solution on how to carry out a task, usually accompanied

by explanations for each step (Renkl, Atkinson, & Große, 2004). There is much debate about

the effectiveness as well as the limitations of worked examples (Logan & Ho, 2013). This

paper was designed in an attempt to answer the question: Is learning from worked

examples a good classroom strategy?. This paper highlights some of the benefits in

conjunction with some limitations of worked examples; including the worked example

effect, different variants of worked examples, how worked examples do/do not promote

learning. By the end of this paper, there will be a personal point of view to answer this

question.

In a traditional lesson, after the teacher explains the new topic and solves a few

examples on the board, then students will be given a worksheet with similar problems to

solve themselves. Instead of having students practice solving those problems, it would be

better for the students to study worked out examples. A vast majority of studies has found

that learning via worked examples in the early stages of cognitive skill acquisitions is more

effective, compared to the traditional method of problem-solving (Zhu & Simon, 1987).

According to Merriënboer and Sweller (2005), this is known as “worked example effect”.

When solving a problem, students are required to do a problem-solving search (Kirschner,

Sweller, & Clark, 2006). This problem-solving search overburdens limited working memory

in an activity that is unrelated to learning. More specifically, worked examples reduce

extraneous cognitive load by freeing the limited working memory to allow novice learners

build on the underlying schema and learn the procedure (Kalyuga, Renkl, & Paas, 2010). In

the case of problem-solving, a novice learner often has to employ general problem-solving

strategies in order to solve a problem. Such strategies impose a high intrinsic cognitive load
which leads to cognitive overload that does not contribute to productive learning processes

(Renkl, Hilbert, & Schworm, 2009). To expand on this, learners need to know the concepts

or procedures in order to solve a problem, without those, they will learn almost nothing. By

providing learners with a worked example, it not only helps to reduce extraneous cognitive

load but also allows learners to focus their attention on learning the steps in problem-

solving. Additionally, one of the benefits of learning from worked example is that students

do not have to work out the answer but rather focusing in studying the applied principles in

the presented solution, constructing and automating a cognitive schema (Renkl at al., 2009).

Contrary to the effectiveness of worked examples, Bokosmaty, Sweller, and Kalyuga

(2015) argued that the benefit of studying from worked examples does not apply equally to

all learners. The superior of using worked examples instead of problem-solving on less

experienced learners has been demonstrated in many research over the years. However,

there are occasions where the effect of worked examples does not foster learning or, may

even impair later learning (Kirschner et al., 2006). Many studies have shown that worked

examples with step-by-step solutions work well for novice learners, who have not yet

developed proper schema but may inhibit learning for those who are more knowledgeable.

This reversal effectiveness of worked examples is also known as the expertise reversal effect

(Van Gog, Paas, & Van Merriënboer, 2008). Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, & Sweller (2003)

explained that for more experienced learners, the available schemata make the worked-out

solution steps redundant. In this case, Furthermore, the solution steps may no longer

contribute to effective learning, or at worst start to hamper learning for high prior

knowledge students. That is to say, the expertise-reversal effect may actually cause an

enormous extraneous load for a more advanced learner (Van Gog et al., 2008).
 Bokosmaty et al. (2015) suggested teachers could use different variants of worked

examples to counter the expertise reversal effect and also to improve students' learning.

There are four types of worked examples; including faded worked examples, worked

examples with self-explanation, incorrect worked examples and comparing worked

examples. The four listed worked examples can be used for different educational purposes

to provide appropriate levels of instructional guidance.

The first type of worked example - faded example - can be used to address the

expertise reversal effect (Atkinson, Renkl, & Merril, 2003). When using faded worked

examples, the first one or more examples have complete working out, but for subsequent

examples, the amount of “worked-out” will successively fade out, and learners have to

complete the missing step(s). Renk et al. (2004) explained such scaffolding, or fading away

facilitates the shift from studying worked examples to solving problems in the later stage;

once students develop the necessary knowledge and procedure to carry out the task, the

traditional worked examples should be gradually decreased and be replaced by problem-

solving. Research has shown that by learning from faded examples, students not only

perform better in solving harder problems but also can achieve the same level of

performance in a shorter period of times (Atkinson et al., 2003). Renkl, Atkinson, Maier, and

Staley (2002) found that it is better to fade the steps from the end rather than the beginning

of the problem.

The second type of worked example is worked examples with self-explanation. This

approach requires students to answer the “what”, “how”, and “why” the steps included in

the examples are done correctly. This self-explanation promotes conceptual understanding

as well as increases declarative knowledge (Aleven & Koedinger, 2002; Hilbert, Renk,

Schworm, Kessler, & Reis, 2008). In addition, when students actively explain the steps
required in a certain problem, this will help them to identify necessary steps when it comes

to solving similar problems. Also, students’ ability to carry out these processes will improve

as they familiarise themselves with the underlying concepts inherent in the problems

(Hilbert et al., 2008).

The third type of worked example is incorrect worked examples. Normally the

teacher would provide students correct solution to a problem, however, for the incorrect

worked example, the teacher demonstrates a common mistake that students typically make

when solving a particular problem. Also, the teacher can provide correct examples in

conjunction with incorrect examples, so students can learn from these errors. Durkin and

Rittle-Johnson (2011) found that when students explain an error in the incorrect worked

example, they actually learn it themselves and avoid not to use the wrong

procedure/strategy again. In line with this, there is research suggested that learning from

incorrect work examples, reduces students misconception about the concept, which can

lead to greater procedural and conceptual understanding (Adams, McLaren, Durkin, Mayer,

Rittle-Johnson, Isotani, & van Velsen, 2014; Booth, Lange, Koedinger, & Newton, 2013).

Studying incorrect worked examples have shown to be beneficial for all students regardless

of their ability (Adams et al., 2014).

In contrast, often students make the same mistakes over and over again because of

their misunderstandings not being properly addressed (Renkl, 2017). It is important that the

teacher explicitly highlight or point out the part where the errors occur. If the errors are

explicitly stated, students with less experienced can avoid making these errors. However,

most of the time, worked examples only provide the correct solutions to mathematical

problems. These worked examples do not address and correct student errors (Renkl, 2017).

The effects of worked examples can be enhanced by including a mix of correct and incorrect
worked out solutions. For example, students will be given a mix of correct and incorrect

working out solutions for a mathematical problem. Students will then have the opportunity

to sort these solutions into two categories: “correct working out solution” and “incorrect

working out solution”. Next, students identify the errors which are found in the incorrect

working out solution and then fix the errors. This technique of students identifying incorrect

working out a solution and fixing the errors in the incorrect solution has now been used in

many Mathematics tests and exams (Renkl, 2017).

Showing students two or multiple examples and then letting students compare and

contrast them is the idea of the last variant - comparing worked examples (Rittle-Johnson &

Star, 2007). Rittle-Johnson and Star (2007) also found that students will gain both

procedural and conceptual understanding when they are given opportunities to learn

different methods of solving a mathematical problem by comparing and contrasting

different worked examples. Comparison of different ways of solving a problem empowers

students to “move beyond rigid adherence to a single solution method to the more adaptive

and flexible use of multiple methods” (Rittle-Johnson & Star, 2007).

On the other hand, the potential of worked examples can be hindered if they are not

used appropriately. Many teachers believe that worked examples only promote knowledge

about procedures but not conceptual understanding. These worked examples just teach

students the knowledge about algorithms (Renkl, 2017). For example, the students

sometimes learn to use a new mathematical concept or formula to solve a problem in

worked examples. They then apply the algorithms in the worked examples to solve similar

problems that just differ with respect to the used numbers or objects. As a result, one

support way for worked examples to effectively lead to conceptual understanding is that the

students are asked prompting, open-ended questions so that they can self-explain the
worked examples (Boaler & Foster, 2007). Asking prompting questions will develop

students’ higher-order thinking, cater for mixed ability students, and hence encourage them

to explain the rationale of the worked examples to themselves.

Another limitation of worked examples is that they present multiple representations

of a mathematical concept such as diagrams, equations, symbols and many more separately

or in isolations. The students may fail to see the relationship between different

representations and hence limiting their conceptual understanding. Teachers should help

their students in understanding the relationship between different representations of the

same concept. Teachers can achieve this by explicitly explain to their students the technical

meanings of mathematical terminologies, notations and symbols which their students have

never seen before (Schleppegrell, 2007). Teachers can also use “color coding” to help

students determine correspondences between different representations (Renkl, 2017).

Teachers also carefully set out the structure of worked examples. For example, in Stage 4

topic “Properties of geometrical figures”, the equation and a geometrical figure should be

put near the angles and lines which it is related to rather than printing them separately

(Renkl, 2017).

Based on all of the above findings of the benefits as well as the limitations of worked

examples. I personally think learning from worked examples is a good classroom strategy.

The challenge here is to overcome all the problems such as how and when worked examples

should be used or which group of learners will benefit from what sort of worked examples.

Approaches that can be used to counter these problems are teachers explicitly explain the

meaning of symbols, terminologies, and diagrams, teachers asking prompting and open-

ended questions, and teachers must take into consideration the experience/knowledge of
learners. With efficient use of these strategies will result in the effective use of worked

examples that improves both students’ procedural and conceptual understanding.

Typical mathematics content activity from HSC mathematics syllabuses

Year 12
Topic: Calculus Subtopics: MA-C2 Differential Calculus
C2.2: Rules of differentiation

The teacher explicitly explain the product, quotient and chain rules of differentiation.

The teacher should:

- provide students worked examples with step-by-step how to apply these rules

- let students learn these worked examples carefully before asking them to do similar or

harder problems

When students just learn the concept, the teacher should not ask students to do a long list

of problems, instead replace some of these problems with worked examples.

The teacher should show students that sometimes it is easier to use quotient rule instead of

product rule. Showing the same questions with different solutions, help students to learn to

compare and contrast different ways to solve problems

Is learning from worked examples a good classroom strategy?

There are arguments on both sides for this question.

What is worked examples?

A work example guides students the steps required to solve a problem, usually accompanied
by explanations for each step
Benefits of worked examples:

- Learning from worked examples is more effective than problem -solving methods (focus
more on learning instead of searching for strategies)
- Worked examples reduce extraneous load and allow students to concentrate on
understanding the applied principles in the presented solution, constructing and automating
a cognitive schema.
- Different worked examples can be used for different educational purposes (faded worked
examples, self-explanation worked examples, incorrect worked examples and comparing
worked examples)
- All four variants of worked examples benefit all learners
- Students achieve the same level of performance in shorter period of times.

- Improve students ability to accurately carry out procedures.

- Promote higher order of thinking which lead to the develop of conceptual understanding.

Limitations of worked examples:

- Worked examples are not always beneficial to all students, especially experienced
students.
- Worked examples may inhibit learning (expertise reversal effect)

- Many believe that worked examples does not foster conceptual understanding as its main focus is
on procedural demonstrations.

- Misuse of incorrect worked examples may not address students' misconception

- Multiple representation or separate diagrams and solutions limit students' understanding

Conclusion

Learning from worked examples is a good classroom strategy when all the limitations are
appropriately addressed
References

Adams, Mclaren, Durkin, Mayer, Rittle-Johnson, Isotani, & Van Velsen. (2014). Using

erroneous examples to improve mathematics learning with a web-based tutoring

system. Computers in Human Behavior, 36(C), 401-411. doi:

10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.053

Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing

and explaining with a computer‐based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147-

179. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog2602_1

Atkinson, R., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving

problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774-783.

Boaler, J. & Foster, D. (2007). Raising Expectations and Achievement. The Impact of Wide

Scale Mathematics Reform Giving All Students Access to High Quality Mathematics.

Retrieved from https://bhi61nm2cr3mkdgk1dtaov18-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-

content/uploads/2017/03/Raising-Expectations.pdf

Bokosmaty, S., Sweller, J., & Kalyuga, S. (2015). Learning Geometry Problem Solving by

Studying Worked Examples: Effects of Learner Guidance and Expertise. American

Educational Research Journal, 52(2), 307-333. doi: 10.3102/0002831214549450

Booth, Lange, Koedinger, & Newton. (2013). Using example problems to improve student

learning in algebra: Differentiating between correct and incorrect examples. Learning

and Instruction, 25(C), 24-34. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.11.002

Durkin, & Rittle-Johnson. (2011). The effectiveness of using incorrect examples to support

learning about decimal magnitude. Learning and Instruction, 22(3), 206-214. doi:

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.11.001
Hilbert, Renkl, Schworm, Kessler, & Reiss. (2008). Learning to teach with worked‐out

examples: A computer‐based learning environment for teachers. Journal of Computer

Assisted Learning, 24(4), 316-332. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00266.x

Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, & Sweller. (2003). The Expertise Reversal Effect. Educational

Psychologist, 38(1), 23-31.

Kalyuga, S., Renkl, A., & Paas, F. (2010). Facilitating Flexible Problem Solving: A Cognitive

Load Perspective. Educational Psychology Review,22(2), 175-186. doi:

10.1007/s10648-010-9132-9

Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. (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(2), 75-86. doi:

10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1

Logan, T., & Ho, S. Y. (2013). The Classic Word Problem: The Influence of Direct Teaching. In

Steinle, V., Ball., L., & Bardini, C. (Eds.). Mathematics Education: Yesterday, Today and

Tomorrow. Proceedings of the 36th annual conference of the Mathematics Education

Research Group of Australasia (pp. 743-746). Melbourne, VIC: MERGA.

Merriënboer, J., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and Complex Learning: Recent

Developments and Future Directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147-177.

doi: 10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0

Renkl, A. (2017). Learning from worked-examples in mathematics: Students relate

procedures to principles. ZDM, 49(4), 571-584. doi: 10.1007/s11858-017-0859-3

Renkl, A., Atkinson, R., & Große, K. (2004). How Fading Worked Solution Steps Works – A

Cognitive Load Perspective. Instructional Science, 32(1), 59-82. doi:

10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021815.74806.f6
Renkl, A., Atkinson, R., Maier, U., & Staley, R. (2002). From Example Study to Problem

Solving: Smooth Transitions Help Learning. The Journal of Experimental Education,

70(4), 293-315. doi: 10.1080/00220970209599510

Renkl, A., Hilbert, T., & Schworm, S. (2009). Example-Based Learning in Heuristic Domains: A

Cognitive Load Theory Account. Educational Psychology Review, 21(1), 67-78. doi:

10.1007/s10648-008-9093-4

Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. (2007). Does Comparing Solution Methods Facilitate Conceptual

and Procedural Knowledge? An Experimental Study on Learning to Solve Equations.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561-574.

Schleppegrell, M. J. (2007). The linguistic challenges of mathematics teaching and learning:

A research review. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 23(2), 139-159.

Van Gog, Paas, & Van Merriënboer. (2008). Effects of studying sequences of process-

oriented and product-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer

efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 18(3), 211-222. doi:

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2007.03.003

Zhu, X., & Simon, H. (1987). Learning Mathematics From Examples and by Doing. Cognition

and Instruction, 4(3), 137-166. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0403_1