Example elaboration as a neglected instructional strategy

ABSTRACT

Over the last decade an unfolding cognitive-psychology research program on how learners use examples to develop effective problem-solving expertise has yielded well-established empirical findings. Chi et al., Renkl, Reimann, and Neubert (in various papers) have confirmed statistically significant differences in how good and poor learners inferentially elaborate ("self-explain") example steps as they study. Such example elaboration is highly relevant to software documentation and training, yet largely neglected in the current literature.This paper summarizes the neglected research on example use and puts its neglect in a disciplinary perspective. I then show that differences in support for example elaboration in commercial software documentation reveal previously overlooked usability issues. These issues involve example summaries, using goals and goal structures to reinforce example elaborations, and prompting readers to recognize the role of example parts.Secondly, I show how these same example elaboration techniques can build cognitive maturity among underperforming high-school students who study technical writing. Principle-based elaborations, condition elaborations, and role recognition of example steps all have their place in innovative, high-school-level, technical-writing exercises, and all promote far-transfer problem solving.Finally, I use these studies to clarify the constructivist debate over what writers and readers contribute to text meaning. I argue that writers can influence how readers elaborate on examples, and that because of the great empirical differences in example-study effectiveness (and reader choices) writers should do what they can (through within-text design features) to encourage readers to elaborate examples in the most successful ways.

REFERENCES

• 1: Y. Aoyama and J. Nakano. RS/6000 SP Practical MPI Programming (SG245380). IBM,Poughkeepsie, New York, 1999.
• 2: R. John Brockmann, Writing better computer user documentation: from paper to hypertext (version 2.0), John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1990
• 3: J. Carroll, editor. Minimalism Beyond the Nurnberg Funnel. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1998.
• 4: M. Chi, M. Bassock, M. Lewis, P. Reimann, and R. Glaser. Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13(2):145{182, March 1989.
• 5: R. Cutler, F. Armingard, E. Conejo, and K. Nagarajan. C and C++ Application Development on AIX (SG245674), Chapter 5, POSIX Threads. IBM, Poughkeepsie, New York, 2000.
• 6: M. Garay and S. Bernhardt, editors. Expanding Literacies. SUNY Press, Albany, NY, 1998.
• 7: Mark Guzdial, Supporting Learners as users, ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, v.23 n.2, p.3-13, May 1999 [doi>10.1145/311147.311148]
• 8: M. Jimmie Killingsworth , Martin E. Rosenberg, The evolution of document design since 1985: a response to Richard E. Mayer's “Structural analysis of scientific prose”, ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, v.19 n.3, p.31-35, Aug. 1995 [doi>10.1145/216708.216711]
• 9: D. Norman. The Psychology of Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York, 1988.
• 10: G. Perlman. Human-computer interaction resources. URL: www.hcibib.org, 2001.
• 11: P. Reimann and C. Neubert. The role of self-explanation in learning to use a spreadsheet through examples. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 16(4):316-325, 2000.
• 12: A. Renkl. Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21(1):1-29, January 1997.
• 13: Karen A. Schriver, Dynamics in document design: creating text for readers, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1997
• 14: P. Wright. Editing policies and procedures (Ch. 4). In T. Duffy and R. Waller, editors, Designing Usable Texts, pages 63-96. Academic Press, New York, 1985.
• 15: Patricia Wright, Reading strategies, mental models and text design, ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, v.19 n.3, p.38-45, Aug. 1995 [doi>10.1145/216708.216713]
• 16: Beverly B. Zimmerman, Linda Flower and social cognition: constructing a view of the writing process, ACM SIGDOC Asterisk Journal of Computer Documentation, v.22 n.3, p.25-37, Aug. 1998 [doi>10.1145/381808.381817]

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Software psychology

Additional Classification:
  G. Mathematics of Computing
  G.4 MATHEMATICAL SOFTWARE
      Subjects: User interfaces

  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Evaluation/methodology

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors, Performance

Keywords:
cognitive psychology, documentation, example design, self-explanation, teaching technical writing, usability