Is learning from worked examples a good classroom strategy?

Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow

Research studies have outlined a variety of effective practices for classroom teaching,

one of which is the study of worked examples. Research in this area began decades ago and

has constantly been improved on, evaluated and critiqued. The following paper will outline

the underpinnings of the worked examples strategy, define it, analyse arguments for and

against it and provide a final recommendation on how the literature can inform teaching

practice.

Learning from worked examples is a concept which has been developed through the

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT). CLT is a theory developed by Sweller (1994) for the purpose

of finding what made a task difficult for learners. The theory is based on the idea that

learning is primarily linked to schema acquisition and automation, hence the main purpose of

any learning activity should be to store “automated schemas in long-term memory” (p. 295).

The theory also heavily relies on the idea that working memory is limited and can only store

and process a few items simultaneously. Sweller (1994) uses the terms intrinsic load and

extraneous load to identify aspects that make a learning task difficult. Intrinsic load is that

which is associated with the inherent difficulty of the task itself and cannot be altered.

However, extraneous load is that which is imposed through instructional design and can be

altered. For example, Sweller (1994) states that when students are faced with a new problem,

they tend to use means-end analysis, this process requires the use of many individual

processes which impose heavy load on working memory. He argues that other methods of

teaching can be utilised to minimise this load and ensure better student learning. The main

method that has been advocated for as a result of this theory is learning from worked

examples (Sweller, 1994). Worked examples serve the purpose of providing students with a

problem and clearly set out procedures for how the solution should be attained (Atkinson,
Derry, Renkl & Wortham, 2000). Advocates of CLT argue that studying worked examples

reduces extraneous load and helps students with their learning of concepts (Atkinson et al.,

2000; Booth et al., 2015; Sweller, 1994; Sweller & Cooper, 1985)

Studies over the past decades have outlined the effectiveness of worked examples on

student learning in comparison to other methods. In the research, worked examples were

compared mainly to problem-solving instruction. Majority of studies relied on experiments

held in testing laboratories rather than classrooms (Atkinson et al., 2000). The research

widely shows the importance of teaching worked examples before providing students with

practice problems (Sweller & Cooper, 1985; Van Gog, Kester & Paas, 2011). These studies

have been conducted on a wide variety of topics, mainly those with a technical background,

including Algebra (Sweller & Cooper, 1985). Furthermore, Tuovinen & Sweller (1999)

assessed the effectiveness of worked examples as opposed to discovery learning methods and

found that novice learners benefited more from worked examples than discovery learning. All

these studies tie back to CLT, arguing that other tasks in the comparison impose extraneous

load on students which affects their ability to learn effectively.

Advocates of the worked-example strategy and CLT claim their usefulness but also

address some issues related to the strategy in their research. In various studies, the worked-

example strategy at times did not provide the expected results, this was attributed to three

main aspects: intra-example features, inter-example features and individual student

differences (Atkinson et al., 2000). These aspects all aim to improve the effectiveness of the

worked example strategy. Intra-example features relate to how the examples are designed

(Atkinson et al. 2000). Here, the importance of integrating text and diagrams appropriately to

avoid split attention is discussed (Atkinson et al., 2000). Other suggestions involved the

inclusion of clearly outlined sub-goals and steps in the worked solution (Atkinson et al.,

2000). Van Gog, Paas and Merrienboer (2004) also highlight the importance of including
process oriented worked examples which highlight the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of the steps included

in the example. Students sometimes do not actively process the worked examples, so

incorporating interactive elements within the worked example to prompt students was used to

increase student processing of worked examples (Atkinson & Renkl, 2007). Inter-example

features relate to how the lesson is designed to incorporate worked examples (Atkinson et al.,

2000). This includes how many examples are going to be presented, how they will be

presented alongside practice problems and the variety and complexity of examples (Atkinson

et al., 2000). Van Gog, Kester & Paas (2011) demonstrate how examples should always be

provided initially to learners before problem-solving activities. Finally, the diversity of

student ability has been shown to impact on the effectiveness of the worked example strategy

(Atkinson et al., 2000). In various research studies, it was found that novice learners

benefitted mostly out of the strategy whereas expert learners either had no benefit or were

negatively affected due to redundancy (Booth et al., 2015; Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovin &

Sweller, 2001; Tuovinen & Sweller, 1999).

Despite the extensive literature that advocates the worked example strategy, there also

exists vast literature critiquing this approach. Firstly, the methodology of the research studies

conducted is heavily criticized as leading to results which cannot be generalised to

mainstream classrooms due to being conducted in laboratory test conditions (Atkinson et al.,

2000; Renkl, 2017). This argument has been refuted by studies which demonstrate the recent

research developments in real-world classrooms where worked examples have had positive

impacts (Booth et al., 2015; Renkl, 2017). However, other studies have demonstrated the

effectiveness of approaches contrary to worked example strategies and argued for their

importance due to the development of academic and soft skills. Important skills in

mathematics and for 21st century learning such as collaboration, social interactions, and

connecting ideas to the real world are developed in inquiry learning environments (Goos,
Stillman & Vale, 2007; Hmelo-Silver, Duncan & Chinn, 2007; Retnowati, Ayres & Sweller,

2017). Furthermore, inquiry environments are effective for student engagement and worked

examples may not provide that level of engagement for students who are disengaged in

mathematics (Glogger-Frey et al., 2015; Moreno, 2006). Hence, it is important to consider the

context of the classroom and level of student ability and engagement in mathematics to

understand when certain strategies can be beneficial.

Taking into consideration the conflicting and complex arguments provided in the

literature regarding worked examples, a balanced approach can be developed. Research more

recently, has addressed ways in which worked examples can be used in a variety of contexts.

These include mathematical modelling, where solution plans can be provided to students to

guide their process, and this was shown by Schukajlow, Kolter & Blum (2015) to be highly

effective for students and increased their understanding of the mathematical modelling

process. Worked examples can be provided in interactive ways using gaps, prompts and help

devices which can increase student active processing and engagement (Atkinson & Renkl,

2007). Although it does seem to be a process-oriented strategy, as mentioned earlier, teachers

can incorporate the ideas into real-world mathematical problems and mathematical modelling

activities. The use of worked examples must be used a support process for guiding student

learning at initial stages and then gradually faded out to enhance student independence

(Atkinson et al., 2000). Hence, teachers can consider how worked examples can fit into their

lessons depending on their student’s ability and the skills that need to be developed in

particular topic areas.

The following example demonstrates how worked examples can be used in a Year 12

classroom studying integration. The question has been derived from the 2018 HSC

Mathematics paper. The worked example solution utilises the points identified in the research

to improve the effectiveness of a worked example. Colour coding has been used as an
interactive element for students to connect the different information and how it is used

(Atkinson & Renkl, 2007). Steps have been provided to outline the process clearly (Atkinson

et al., 2000). The prompt boxes have been used to ensure student understanding of the

process and in matters which generally cause student misunderstanding (Van Gog, Paas &

Merrienboer, 2004).
 Another way that the concept of worked examples can be used which has been

discussed in the literature is as a scaffold or solution plan (Schukajlow, Kolter & Blum,

2015). The solution plan serves as a guide for students when graphing functions. This

resource can be used with students in initial stages of learning and slowly faded to encourage

independent learning and understanding of the ideas. The solution plan contains a mnemonic

and images to support the individual steps to ensure student understanding (Atkinson &

Renkle, 2007). In contrast to the previous example, this resource can be used throughout the

unit of work on graphing functions for multiple questions not in particular to one. It should be

used by the teacher and reinforced through examples in the class which students can review

(Schukajlow, Kolter & Blum, 2015). This can help ensure students do not feel overwhelmed

by the number of examples they can study for varied problems (Schukajlow, Kolter & Blum,

2015).

In conclusion, literature on the worked example strategy is extensive and has only

been addressed in part in this paper. Stemming from the theory of cognitive load, it has

gained popularity and has earned advocates and critiques over the decades. It is important to

review the research in context, understand where it may apply to an individual classroom

context and apply where appropriate. The worked-example strategy does show promise;

however, it must be carefully designed in order to align with the research findings.
 References

Atkinson, R., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples:

Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational

Research, 70(2), pp. 181-214. Retrieved from

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/de4c/5b7874aeb35de8baf80a50657f03beab51ff.pdf

Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments:

Using interactive elements to encourage effective processing of worked examples.

Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), pp. 375-386. doi: 10.1007/s10648-007-9055-2

Booth, J. L., Oyer, M. H., Pare-Blagoev, E. J., Elliot, A. J., Barbieri, C., Augustine, A., &

Koedinger, K. R. (2015). Learning algebra by example in real-world classrooms.

Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8, pp. 530-551. doi:

10.1080/19345747.2015.1055636

Glogger-Frey, I., Fleischer, C., Gruny, L., Kappich, J., & Renkl, A. (2015). Inventing a

solution and studying a worked solution prepare differently for learning from direct

instruction. Learning and Instruction, 39, pp. 72-87. doi:

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.05.001

Goos, M., & Stillman, G., Vale, C. (2007). Teaching secondary school mathematics:

Research and practice for the 21st century. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in

problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Krishner, Sweller, and Clark (2006).

Educational Psychologist, 42(2), pp. 99-107. doi: 10.1080/00461520701263368

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovin, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior

to studying worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), pp. 579-588.

doi: 10.1037//0022-0663.93.3.579.

Moreno, R. (2006). When worked examples don’t work: Is cognitive load theory at an

impasse? Learning and Instruction 16(2), pp. 170-181. doi:

10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.02.006.

Renkl, A. (2017). Learning from worked-examples in mathematics: students relate

procedures to principles. ZDM, 49(4), pp. 571-584. doi: 10.1007/s11858-017-0859-3

Retnowati, E., Ayres, P., & Sweller, J. (2017). Can collaborative learning improve the

effectiveness of worked examples in learning mathematics? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 109(5), 666-679. doi: 10.1037/edu0000167

Schukajlow, S., Kolter, J., & Blum, W. (2015). Scaffolding mathematical modelling with a

solution plan. ZDM, 47(7), pp. 1241-1254. doi: 10.1007/s11858-015-0707-2

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design.

Learning and Instruction, 4, pp. 295-312. Retrieved from

http://coral.ufsm.br/tielletcab/Apostilas/cognitive_load_theory_sweller.pdf

Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem

solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2(1), pp. 59-89. Retrieved from

https://www-jstor-

org.ezproxy.uws.edu.au/stable/3233555?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (1999). A comparison of cognitive load associated with

discovery learning and worked examples. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2),

 334-341. Retrieved from http://idtoolbox.eseryel.com/uploads/9/0/7/5/9075695/1999-

03660-014.pdf

Van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of worked examples, example-problem,

and problem-example pairs on novices’ learning. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 36(3), pp. 212-218. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.10.004

Van Gog, T., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples:

Improving transfer performance through enhanced understanding. Instructional

Science, 32, pp. 83-98. Retrieved from

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021810.70784.b0.pdf
 Parent Fact Sheet – Worked Examples
Our teachers are committed to providing students with quality teaching practices. The
following fact sheet aims to explain the use of worked examples in mathematics classrooms.

What are worked examples and how are they used?

Worked examples are problems with clearly worked out solutions which aim to support
student learning. They are provided to students and studied in class to ensure students
understand the process they are required to undertake to solve the problem. They are used
to introduce students to new concepts. Examples can be interactive, requiring students to fill
in the gaps and provide their own self-explanation of the process. They can also be simple
guides to assist students in addressing larger problems.

Why worked examples?

Research has shown that using worked examples is an effective teaching practice. Studying
worked examples can help students solve problems more efficiently, more effectively and
with less effort. They are especially helpful with students beginning a learning topic to
provide support and guidance.

How does this prepare my child for the future?

The worked examples are used extensively at first, but are gradually faded out, ensuring
students have a deep understanding of the content and process and become independent
learners. They ensure that students learn and develop the skills they need to solve problems
in the real world in the most efficient way.

Further Information
If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact the school at:

E: _______________________

Ph: ___________________

Address: ______________________

_____________________________

Thank you.