Worked Examples Readings

You'll find 6 articles in your readings for Worked Examples. One of these articles, Atkinson & Renkl 2007, is a bonus reading (as indicated in the Cognition Readings 2010 PDF in your readings download folder). This leaves the usual 5 required readings of original research. However, I made a mistake with one of the articles. Specifically, the Watson et al. 2010 article can be ignored—leaving you only 4 required readings for the next class session. (BTW, the Watson et al. article is very interesting but was mistakenly placed with the worked examples research.)

The Atkinson & Renkl article is an overview of a very targeted research literature on worked examples and interactivity. For some of you this optional article will be a very interesting read. In their conclusion they state:

We have shown that interactive features such as gaps, prompts, and help devices in example-based learning environments can foster learning. However, it is not interactivity per se that is effective. Gaps or prompts that direct the learners’ attention away from the central aspects of the learning materials are of little use or can even harm. Also, interactive help devices can “corrupt” the learners so that they no longer actively process the central information. Interactive features are only effective when they induce learning processes that are directly relevant for reaching the central learning goals. It is not the “action” in inter-activity that is relevant but the processing induced by the “action.”