Why Instructional Explanations Often Do Not Work: A Framework for Understanding the Effectiveness of Instructional Explanations

Wittwer, Jörg; Renkl, Alexander

doi:10.1080/00461520701756420

Cited by 207 publications

(213 citation statements)

References 131 publications

(176 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

172

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, it is assumed that attending to redundant information (information that is already known) ''might prevent learners from processing more elaborate information and, thus, from engaging in more meaningful activities that directly foster learning cf. Kalyuga 2007;McNamara and Kintsch 1996;Wittwer and Renkl 2008;Wannarka and Ruhl 2008).'' (Wittwer et al 2010, p. 74).…”

Section: Scaffolding and Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…If the level of control is too high for a student (i.e., the support is non-contingent as too much help is given), superficial processing of the information is assumed. The student is not challenged to actively process the information and therefore does not actively make connections with existing knowledge or an existing mental model in the long term memory (e.g., Wittwer and Renkl 2008;Wittwer et al 2010). In addition, it is assumed that attending to redundant information (information that is already known) ''might prevent learners from processing more elaborate information and, thus, from engaging in more meaningful activities that directly foster learning cf.…”

Section: Scaffolding and Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teacher scaffolding, in which teachers support students adaptively or contingently, is assumed to be effective. Yet, hardly any evidence from classroom studies exists. With the current experimental classroom study we investigated whether scaffolding affects students' achievement, task effort, and appreciation of teacher support, when students work in small groups. We investigated both the effects of support quality (i.e., contingency) and the duration of the independent working time of the groups. Thirty social studies teachers of pre-vocational education and 768 students (age 12-15) participated. All teachers taught a five-lesson project on the European Union and the teachers in the scaffolding condition additionally took part in a scaffolding intervention. Low contingent support was more effective in promoting students' achievement and task effort than high contingent support in situations where independent working time was low (i.e. help was frequent). In situations where independent working time was high (i.e., help was less frequent), high contingent support was more effective than low contingent support in fostering students' achievement (when correcting for students' task effort). In addition, higher levels of contingent support resulted in a higher appreciation of support. Scaffolding, thus, is not 123Instr Sci (2015) 43:615-641 DOI 10.1007/s11251-015-9351-z unequivocally effective; its effectiveness depends, among other things, on the independent working time of the groups and students' task effort. The present study is one of the first experimental study on scaffolding in an authentic classroom context, including factors that appear to matter in such an authentic context.

show abstract

Section: Scaffolding and Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scaffolding and Achievementmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…posing informative or explorative questions) and prompting (i.e. explicating critical or controversial positions) to reveal students' personal knowledge addressing a specific subject Beishuizen 2010, 2011;Wittwer and Renkl 2008). Students respond and show a degree of understanding, giving the teacher indications about what students know and think (Lin et al 2012;Ruiz-Primo and Furtak 2007).…”

Section: Teaching Strategies In Relation To Negotiation Of Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…verifying whether teachers understood students correctly or not, for instance by means of questioning, paraphrasing and summarizing (Ruiz-Primo and Furtak 2006) and intervening (i.e. actual support of teachers containing different interventions) (Wittwer and Renkl 2008). For teacher interventions, we used the framework of Hill and Hannafin (2001), who distinguished conceptual, meta-cognitive, procedural and strategic interventions.…”

Section: Teaching Strategies In Relation To Negotiation Of Meaningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions in vocational education: negotiation of meaning of students and teaching strategies

Schaap

Schaaf

Bruijn

2016

Studies in Continuing Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to describe verbal student-teacher interactions in vocational education from a socio-cultural perspective on negotiation of meaning. Teaching as part of these interactions is addressed by a combination of diagnosing, checking and intervening strategies. A study was conducted in which students (n students = 20) and teacher (n teachers = 5) from Social Work (SW) and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) worked together in small groups (n groups = 5) discussing vocational core problems. Each group held five discussions (n discussions = 25). All discussions were audio recorded and transcribed before they were analysed for negotiation of meaning including teaching strategies. The results showed that 5-8% of the interactions include negotiation of meaning. Interactions in SW groups revealed more negotiation of meaning than in interactions in ICT groups. Teaching strategies mainly included checking and intervening activities in favour of diagnosing activities. Furthermore, teachers used meta-cognitive and conceptual interventions most frequently. The implications of these results are discussed by reflecting on occupational differences and on how negotiation of meaning including teaching strategies can be enhanced. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

“…For example, for more advanced learners, eliminating redundant representations or detailed worked-out steps was more effective than providing them. For these learners, processing redundant material could induce unnecessary working memory load and may distract from the central concepts and principles yet to be learned (see Renkl and Atkinson 2007;Wittwer and Renkl 2008). Especially, if more knowledgeable learners could not avoid or ignore redundant sources of information, those sources might impose an additional cognitive load resulting in negative rather than positive or neutral effects.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: introduction to the special issue

2009

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Why Instructional Explanations Often Do Not Work: A Framework for Understanding the Effectiveness of Instructional Explanations

Cited by 207 publications

References 131 publications

The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support

The effects of scaffolding in the classroom: support contingency and student independent working time in relation to student achievement, task effort and appreciation of support

Interactions in vocational education: negotiation of meaning of students and teaching strategies

Expertise reversal effect and its instructional implications: introduction to the special issue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About