Learning
Can worked examples teach a skill and course content at once?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Students who learned argumentation skills from examples built around their actual course topics felt no more mental strain and learned about as well as students whose examples used simple unrelated topics.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Human experiment — Students randomly allocated to an online worked-example argumentation training whose examples used either course-relevant or irrelevant (simple, familiar) topics; pre/post epistemic beliefs and four argumentations up to about 9 weeks later
- N
- N=142 · 142 consenting students randomised (68 relevant-content, 74 irrelevant-content); analyses of delayed argumentations used a smaller subset with course assignments available, and exact per-analysis Ns are not all stated
- Population
- Undergraduate psychology students in a required 'Pedagogy for Psychotherapists' course at three German universities
- Outcome
- Self-reported intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load; declarative knowledge of skill components and course content; epistemic beliefs (CAEB); argumentation quality
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
The two groups did not differ in intrinsic, extraneous or germane cognitive load, and Bayes factors mostly favoured no difference. Knowledge of epistemic beliefs, argumentative thinking and course content, and later argumentation quality, were similar across groups; the only difference favoured the irrelevant-topic group on knowledge about combining multiple documents. Overall, epistemic beliefs became more advanced after training, and argumentation quality dipped immediately after training but rose clearly in the two delayed essays. Self-reported cognitive load was not correlated with any learning outcome.
Methodology
Psychology undergraduates completed an online training of about 5 hours on epistemic beliefs, combining information from multiple documents, and argumentative thinking, delivered partly through segmented videos of student models with self-explanation prompts. Students were randomly assigned so that the example videos used either course topics they would be examined on (such as media violence and school tracking) or familiar but irrelevant topics (such as athletes' wages); the irrelevant group then read the course content separately. The researchers measured cognitive load after each module, knowledge tests and epistemic beliefs after training, and argumentation quality before, right after, about 1 week after, and about 9 weeks after training.
Limitations
Students' perception of which topics were relevant was never measured, so the 'relevant' and 'irrelevant' conditions may not have differed psychologically as intended, which could explain the null effects. There was no untrained control group, so the improvement in delayed essays could reflect practice, course teaching or higher stakes (the delayed essays were graded course assignments) rather than the training. Argumentation topics were not counterbalanced, inter-rater reliability for scoring was only moderate, cognitive load was self-reported, and the online, self-paced format meant time on task could not be controlled.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.
- Does choosing when to watch yourself help you learn a skill?
- Do we form habits from repetition or just our last action?
- Do food cues trigger actions more in obese than healthy-weight people?
- How do learning progress and novelty drive human curiosity?
- How does stress affect how we learn about safety and danger?