Recent studies have shown that self‐explanation is an effective metacognitive strategy, but how can it be leveraged to improve students' learning in actual classrooms? How do instructional treatments that emphasizes self‐explanation affect students' learning, as compared to other instructional treatments? We investigated whether self‐explanation can be scaffolded effectively in a classroom environment using a Cognitive Tutor, which is intelligent instructional software that supports guided learning by doing. In two classroom experiments, we found that students who explained their steps during problem‐solving (...) practice with a Cognitive Tutor learned with greater understanding compared to students who did not explain steps. The explainers better explained their solutions steps and were more successful on transfer problems. We interpret these results as follows: By engaging in explanation, students acquired better‐integrated visual and verbal declarative knowledge and acquired less shallow procedural knowledge. The research demonstrates that the benefits of self‐explanation can be achieved in a relatively simple computer‐based approach that scales well for classroom use. (shrink)

In attempting to fit a model of analogical problem solving to protocol data of students solving physics problems, several unexpected observations were made. Analogies between examples and exercises (a form of case‐based reasoning) consisted of two distinct types of events. During an initialization event, the solver retrieved an example, set up a mapping between it and the problem, and decided whether the example was useful. During a transfer event, the solver inferred something about the problem's solution. Many different types of (...) initialization and transfer events were observed. Poor solvers tended to follow the example verbatim, copying each solution line over to the problem. Good solvers tried to solve the problem themselves, but referred to the example when they got stuck, or wanted to check a step, or wanted to avoid a detailed calculation. Rather than learn from analogies, both Good and Poor solvers tended to repeat analogies at subsequent similar situations. A revised version of the model is proposed (but not yet implemented) that appears to be consistent with all the findings observed in this and other studies of the same subjects. (shrink)