Talk:Prompted self-explanation hypothesis

From LearnLab
Revision as of 07:22, 31 October 2008 by Koedinger (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

The Caveats section says: "The problems created conditions where an impasse might be reached while solving a problem, and the example would demonstrate a smooth, expert solution to the same problem." Is it really the *same* problem they are given as a worked example? Or is it an isomorphic problem? -Ken

Looking again at that Caveats section, it is not clear (to me at least) why these comments are an instance of "Caveats, limitations, open issues, or dissenting views". Can the text be made more clear about that? Also, some of the citations in that section (e.g., Sweller; Trafton) are to papers about worked examples not about self-explanation -- there certainly is a connection, but it seems a bit of tangent. (Some of this content might be better for the worked example principle page.) -Ken

Experiments on the self-explanation idea, if not yet named as such yet, pre-date the Chi 89 paper (which should be added to the reference section btw) that coined the term ... as Art Graesser has pointed out to me. See the "deep questions" recommendation of the IES Practice Guide (referenced on the Wiki main page) for other references. One such early paper is:

  • Gagne, R. H., & Smith, E. C. (1962). A study of the effects of verbalization on problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 12-18.

To what extent the procedure used in this paper really counts as prompting for self-explanation is worth some investigation. -Ken