“…Not only high knowledgeable students for the learning domain but also low knowledgeable students can make working memory overloaded, which results in failure to solve problems (see Kyun et al, 2013). …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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. The number of possible moves that may need to be learned may be greater in the case of ill-defined than well-defined problems (that is, the cognitive load when solving ill-defined problems might be higher than when solving well-de- Kyun et al, 2013). This study has been conducted to test this assumption.…”
Section: Well-defined and Ill-defined Domainsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While there was an attempt using ill-defined problems of literature in controlled classroom-based instruction (e.g., Kyun et al, 2013), which reported successful results, or using well-defined problems of chemistry in web-based instruction (e.g., Crippen and Earl, 2007), there had been no case using the both 'ill-defined problems' and 'on-line learning environment', which might highly bring about cognitive overload. We hypothesized that regardless of learning domains and environments, the worked example will be effective and also explored in terms of the components of a worked example.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, 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 (Kyun et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, it has been tested in ill-defined domains such as literature (e.g., Kyun et al, 2013), design history (e.g., Rourke and Sweller, 2009), and medical domains (e.g., Stark et al, 2011). While the huge success of worked examples in technical domains has been thoroughly approved, it has been still argued that the success of explicit instructional guidance approaches such as worked examples in well-defined domains cannot extend to ill-defined domains (see Spiro and DeSchryver, 2009).…”
This study has two goals. The first goal is to investigate whether worked examples are effective in the ill-defined domain with on-line learning and the second goal is to find out which components (conceptual or procedural knowledge) of worked examples are effective factor at the given learning environment. We carried out three experiments in which Korean undergraduate or graduate students were working in three or four conditions of worked examples (CWE, PWE, CPWE, or the control group). While experiment 1 conducted in on-line learning environment did not find any effect and difference among groups and also any logical reason for those results, experiment 2 conducted in completely controlled laboratory setting with less knowledgeable students showed the clear difference among groups by the order CPWE, PWE, and CWE. Experiment 3 in which highly knowledgeable and motivated students were presented the same materials in more controlled on-line learning environment indicated the difference among groups by the order CWE, CPWE, and PWE. The results were discussed within the framework of cognitive load theory.
“…Not only high knowledgeable students for the learning domain but also low knowledgeable students can make working memory overloaded, which results in failure to solve problems (see Kyun et al, 2013). …”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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. The number of possible moves that may need to be learned may be greater in the case of ill-defined than well-defined problems (that is, the cognitive load when solving ill-defined problems might be higher than when solving well-de- Kyun et al, 2013). This study has been conducted to test this assumption.…”
Section: Well-defined and Ill-defined Domainsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While there was an attempt using ill-defined problems of literature in controlled classroom-based instruction (e.g., Kyun et al, 2013), which reported successful results, or using well-defined problems of chemistry in web-based instruction (e.g., Crippen and Earl, 2007), there had been no case using the both 'ill-defined problems' and 'on-line learning environment', which might highly bring about cognitive overload. We hypothesized that regardless of learning domains and environments, the worked example will be effective and also explored in terms of the components of a worked example.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, 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 (Kyun et al, 2013).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Recently, it has been tested in ill-defined domains such as literature (e.g., Kyun et al, 2013), design history (e.g., Rourke and Sweller, 2009), and medical domains (e.g., Stark et al, 2011). While the huge success of worked examples in technical domains has been thoroughly approved, it has been still argued that the success of explicit instructional guidance approaches such as worked examples in well-defined domains cannot extend to ill-defined domains (see Spiro and DeSchryver, 2009).…”
This study has two goals. The first goal is to investigate whether worked examples are effective in the ill-defined domain with on-line learning and the second goal is to find out which components (conceptual or procedural knowledge) of worked examples are effective factor at the given learning environment. We carried out three experiments in which Korean undergraduate or graduate students were working in three or four conditions of worked examples (CWE, PWE, CPWE, or the control group). While experiment 1 conducted in on-line learning environment did not find any effect and difference among groups and also any logical reason for those results, experiment 2 conducted in completely controlled laboratory setting with less knowledgeable students showed the clear difference among groups by the order CPWE, PWE, and CWE. Experiment 3 in which highly knowledgeable and motivated students were presented the same materials in more controlled on-line learning environment indicated the difference among groups by the order CWE, CPWE, and PWE. The results were discussed within the framework of cognitive load theory.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.