Varying effects of subgoal labeled expository text in programming, chemistry, and statistics
Originally intended as a replication study, this study discusses differences in problem solving performance among different domains caused by the same instructional intervention. The learning sciences acknowledges similarities in the learners’ cognitive architecture that allow interventions to apply across domains, but it also argues that each domain has characteristics that might affect how interventions impact learning. The present study uses an instructional design technique that had previously improved learners’ problem solving performance in programming: subgoal labeled expository text and subgoal labeled worked examples. It intended to replicate this effect for solving problems in statistics and chemistry. However, each of the experiments in the three domains had a different pattern of results for problem solving performance. While the subgoal labeled worked example consistently improved performance, the subgoal labeled expository text, which interacted with subgoal labeled worked examples in programming, had an additive effect with subgoal labeled worked examples in chemistry and no effect in statistics. Differences in patterns of results are believed to be due to complexity of the content to be learned, especially in terms of mapping problem solving procedures to solving problems, and the familiarity of tools used to solve problems in the domain. Subgoal labeled expository text was effective only when students learned more complex content and used unfamiliar problem solving tools.
KeywordsWorked examples Expository text Discipline based education research STEM education Instructional design Subgoal learning
This research was supported by the American Psychological Foundation’s and Council of Graduate Departments of Psychology’s Graduate Research Scholarship. The authors would like to thank John Sweller and Mark Guzdial for their feedback. We also thank Gerin Williams for her help collecting data.
- Atkinson, R. K., & Derry, S. (2000). Computer-based examples designed to encourage optimal example processing: A study examining the impact of sequentially presented, subgoal-oriented worked examples. In Proceedings of 2000 International Conference of the Learning Sciences (pp. 132–133).Google Scholar
- Booth, L. R. (1988). Children’s difficulties in beginning algebra. In A. F. Coxford (Ed.), The ideas of algebra, K-12 (pp. 20–32). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.Google Scholar
- Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Catrambone, R. (2011). Task analysis by problem solving (TAPS): Uncovering expert knowledge to develop high-quality instructional materials and training. In Paper presented at the 2011 Learning and Technology Symposium (Columbus, GA, June).Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
- Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Kirschner, P. A., Verschaffel, L., Star, J., & Van Dooren, W. (2017). There is more variation within than across domains: an interview with Paul A. Kirschner about applying cognitive psychology-based instructional design principles in mathematics teaching and learning. ZDM, 49(4), 637–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Improving problem solving with subgoal labels in procedural instructions and worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 42, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- McGee, P., & Reis, A. (2012). Blended course design: A synthesis of best practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 7–22.Google Scholar
- Morrison, B. B., Decker, A., & Margulieux, L. E. (2016). Learning loops: A replication study illuminates impact of HS courses. In Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 221–230). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960330.
- Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual International Conference on International Computing Education Research (pp. 21–29). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787733.
- Singer, S. R., Nielsen, N. R., & Schweingruber, H. A. (Eds.). (2012). Discipline-based education research: Understanding and improving learning in undergraduate science and engineering. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- Trafton, J. G., & Reiser, B. J. (1993). Studying examples and solving problems: Contributions to skill acquisition. Technical report, Naval HCI Research Lab, Washington, DC.Google Scholar