Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Scaffolding problem solving with learners’ own self explanations of subgoals

  • Published:
Journal of Computing in Higher Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Procedural problem solving is an important skill in most technical domains, like programming, but many students reach problem solving impasses and flounder. In most formal learning environments, instructors help students to overcome problem solving impasses by scaffolding initial problem solving. Relying on this type of personalized interaction, however, limits the scale of formal instruction in technical domains, or it limits the efficacy of learning environments without it, like many scalable online learning environments. The present experimental study explored whether learners’ self-explanations of worked examples could be used to provide personalized but non-adaptive scaffolding during initial problem solving to improve later performance. Participants who received their own self-explanations as scaffolding for practice problems performed better on a later problem-solving test than participants who did not receive scaffolding or who received expert’s explanations as scaffolding. These instructional materials were not adaptive, making them easy to distribute at scale, but the use of the learner’s own explanations as scaffolding made them effective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aleven, V. A. W. M. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26, 147–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkins, S. M., Sprenger, A. M., Colflesh, G. J. H., Briner, T. L., Buchanan, J. B., Chavis, S. E., Chen, S. Y., Iannuzzi, G. L., Kashtelyan, V., Dowling, E., Harbison, J. I., & Dougherty, M. R. (2014). Measuring working memory is all fun and games: A four-dimensional spatial game predicts cognitive task performance. Experimental Psychologist, 61(6), 417–438.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. K., Catrambone, R., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Aiding transfer in statistics: Examining the use of conceptually oriented equations and elaborations during subgoal learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 762–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of the Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R. (2005). Using hypermedia as a metacognitive tool for enhancing student learning? The role of self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 40(4), 199–209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azevedo, R., Moos, D. C., Greene, J. A., Winters, F. I., & Cromley, J. G. (2008). Why is externally-facilitated regulated learning more effective than self-regulated learning with hypermedia? Educational Technology Research and Development, 56(1), 45–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone, R. (1995). Aiding subgoal learning: Effects on transfer. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone, R. (1996). Generalizing solution procedures learned from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1020–1031. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.22.4.1020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone, R. (1998). The subgoal learning model: Creating better examples so that students can solve novel problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 127, 355–376. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.127.4.355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Catrambone, R. (2011, June). Task analysis by problem solving (TAPS): Uncovering expert knowledge to develop highquality instructional materials and training. In 2011 Learning and technology symposium (Vol. 47, pp. 132–139).

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conati, C., & VanLehn, K. (2000). Toward computer-based support of meta-cognitive skills: A computational framework to coach self-explanation. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 11, 389–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czerniewicz, L., Deacon, A., & Walji, S. (2018). Educators, copyright and open education resources in Massive Open Online Courses. In Bajić M, Dohn NB, de Laat M, Jandrić P, Ryberg T (Eds.) Proceedings of the 11th international conference on networked learning (pp. 264–271).

  • Downes, S. (2013). The role of open educational resources in personal learning. International seminar of the UNESCO chair in e-learning. Universitat Oberta de Catalunya.

  • Delen, E., Liew, J., & Willson, V. (2014). Effects of interactivity and instructional scaffolding on learning: Self-regulation in online video-based environments. Computers & Education, 78, 312–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • García Espinosa, B. J., Tenorio Sepúlveda, G. C., & Ramírez Montoya, M. S. (2015). Self-motivation challenges for student involvement in the Open Educational Movement with MOOC. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 12, 91–103. https://doi.org/10.7238/rusc.v12i1.2185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grover, S., & Pea, R. (2013). Computational thinking in K–12 a review of the state of the field. Educational Researcher, 42(1), 38–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hill, J. R., & Hannafin, M. J. (2001). Teaching and learning in digital environments: The resurgence of resource-based learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(3), 37–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hmelo-Silver, C. E., Duncan, R. G., & Chinn, C. A. (2007). Scaffolding and achievement in problem-based and inquiry learning: A response to Kirschner, Sweller, and. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hundhausen, C. D., Farley, S. F., & Brown, J. L. (2009). Can direct manipulation lower the barriers to computer programming and promote transfer of training?: An experimental study. ACM Transactions in CHI, 16(3), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/1592440.1592442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. C., & Hannafin, M. J. (2011). Scaffolding problem solving in technology-enhanced learning environments (TELEs): Bridging research and theory with practice. Computers & Education, 56(2), 403–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kizilcec, R. F., Pérez-Sanagustín, M., & Maldonado, J. J. (2017). Self-regulated learning strategies predict learner behavior and goal attainment in Massive Open Online Courses. Computers & Education, 104, 18–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Littlejohn, A., Falconer, I., & Mcgill, L. (2008). Characterising effective eLearning resources. Computers & Education, 50(3), 757–771.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maloney, J. H., Peppler, K., Kafai, Y., Resnick, M., & Rusk, N. (2008). Programming by choice: Urban youth learning programming with scratch (Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 367–371). ACM.

  • Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2016). Improving problem solving with subgoal labels in procedural instructions and worked examples. Learning and Instruction, 42, 58–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.12.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Margulieux, L. E., & Catrambone, R. (2019). Finding the best types of guidance for constructing self-explanations of subgoals in programming. Journal of the Learning Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508406.2018.1491852

  • Margulieux, L. E., Catrambone, R., & Guzdial, M. (2016). Employing subgoals in computer programming education. Computer Science Education, 26(1), 44–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/08993408.2016.1144429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrison, B. B., Decker, A., & Margulieux, L. E. (2016). Learning loops: A replication study illuminates impact of HS courses. In Proceedings of the 12th annual international conference on international computing education research (pp. 221–230). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2960310.2960330

  • Morrison, B. B., Dorn, B., & Guzdial, M. (2014). Measuring cognitive load in introductory CS: Adaptation of an instrument. In Proceedings of the 10th annual conference on international computing education research (pp. 131–138).

  • Morrison, B. B., Margulieux, L. E., & Guzdial, M. (2015). Subgoals, context, and worked examples in learning computing problem solving. In Proceedings of the 11th annual international conference on international computing education research (pp. 21–29). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2787622.2787733.

  • Ossiannilsson, E., Williams, K., Camilleri, A. F., & Brown, M. (2015). Quality models in online and open education around the globe: State of the art and recommendations. International Council for Open and Distance Education (ICDE).

  • Palmiter, S., Elkerton, J., & Baggett, P. (1991). Animated demonstrations versus written instructions for learning procedural tasks: A preliminary investigation. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/0020-7373(91)90019-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1303_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 235–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rohs, M., & Ganz, M. (2015). MOOCs and the claim of education for all: A disillusion by empirical data. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(6), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rountree, N., Rountree, J., Robins, A., & Hannah, R. (2004). Interacting factors that predict success and failure in a CSI course. SIGCSE Bulletin, 33(4), 101–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Saye, J. W., & Brush, T. (2002). Scaffolding critical reasoning about history and social issues in multimedia-supported learning environments. Educational Technology Research and Development, 50(3), 77–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M., Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark. Educational Psychologist, 42(2), 91–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smyth, R., Bossu, C., & Stagg, A. (2016). Toward an open empowered learning model of pedagogy in higher education. In Open learning and formal credentialing in higher education: curriculum models and institutional policies (pp. 205–222). AEMAL. IGI Publishing (IGI Global).

  • Soloway, E. (1986). Learning to program = learning to construct mechanisms and explanations. Communications of the ACM, 29(9), 850–858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22(2), 123–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (Eds.). (2009). Constructivist instruction: Success or failure?. Routledge.

  • Tulving, E. (1962). Subjective organization in free recall of “unrelated” words. Psychological Review, 69(4), 344–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanLehn, K. (2011). The relative effectiveness of human tutoring, intelligent tutoring systems, and other tutoring systems. Educational Psychologist, 46(4), 197–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society. . Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 17(2), 89–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, R., & Chi, M. T. H. (2014). The self-explanation principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.) The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp.413–432). Cambridge University Press.

  • Yelland, N., & Masters, J. (2007). Rethinking scaffolding in the information age. Computers & Education, 48(3), 362–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Learning Sciences, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, 30302-3978, USA

    Lauren E. Margulieux

  2. School of Psychology, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332-0170, USA

    Richard Catrambone

Authors
  1. Lauren E. Margulieux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Catrambone
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lauren E. Margulieux.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Margulieux, L.E., Catrambone, R. Scaffolding problem solving with learners’ own self explanations of subgoals. J Comput High Educ 33, 499–523 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09275-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-021-09275-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation