## Key Ideas > [!abstract] Core Concepts > > - **Worked examples superior to discovery learning**: Step-by-step demonstrations produce better learning outcomes than problem-solving for novices > - **Immediate practice with similar problems**: Most effective when followed by near-identical practice questions rather than multiple examples first > - **Effect reverses with expertise**: As students become experts, worked examples become less beneficial and problem-solving becomes more effective ## Definition **Worked-example effect**: Improved learning outcomes when step-by-step demonstrations are used for instruction compared to discovery-based problem-solving approaches, effective for novice learners (Sweller & Cooper, 1985). ## Connected To [[Worked Examples]] | [[Non-Explicit Teaching]] | [[Expertise Reversal Effect]] | [[Self-Explanation Effect]] | [[Cognitive Load Theory]] | [[Scaffolding]] | [[Problem-Solving]] --- ## Implementation guidelines The worked-example effect requires careful sequencing (Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, & Wortham, 2000): **Optimal sequence**: 1. Present worked example with step-by-step demonstration 2. Provide practice with very similar questions immediately-not after multiple examples (Trafton & Reiser, 1993) 3. Gradually increase problem complexity as competence develops 4. Leverage [[Self-Explanation Effect]] during example study to deepen understanding (Chi, Bassok, Lewis, Reimann, & Glaser, 1989) **What to include** in each worked example: - Clear statement of the problem - Explicit demonstration of each solution step - Explanation of the reasoning behind each step - Connection to underlying principles where appropriate Effective instruction alternates individual examples with immediate practice rather than bundling examples together (Trafton & Reiser, 1993; McLaren, Lim, & Koedinger, 2008). ## Expertise reversal consideration The effectiveness of worked examples depends on learner expertise (Kalyuga, Ayres, Chandler, & Sweller, 2003). What helps novices can hinder experts. Novices lack solution schemas and need explicit guidance through worked examples followed by similar practice to avoid cognitive overload (Sweller & Cooper, 1985). Developing learners benefit from a mix of examples and guided practice as they build procedural fluency (Renkl & Atkinson, 2003). Expert learners have automated procedures and find worked examples redundant (Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen, & Sweller, 2001). For experts, problem-solving with complex examples is more effective. Instruction must adapt as students develop competence (Kalyuga et al., 2003). ## Key warnings and pitfalls Several common errors undermine the worked-example effect: - **Bundling examples**: Multiple worked examples before any practice reduces effectiveness (Trafton & Reiser, 1993). Interleave individual examples with immediate practice instead. - **Ignoring expertise**: Worked examples become redundant for experts who already know procedures (Kalyuga et al., 2001). This wastes time and creates frustration. - **Insufficient explanation**: Students may copy procedures without understanding if examples lack clear reasoning (Chi et al., 1989; Renkl, 1997). The steps alone are insufficient. - **Missing practice**: Examples must be followed by practice to consolidate learning (Sweller & Cooper, 1985). Studying examples alone does not build independent capability. The most common error is presenting several examples then asking for practice. Research shows this is the less effective problem-solving condition (Sweller & Cooper, 1985). ## Practical examples **Example 1**: Algebra - demonstrate solving 3x + 5 = 17, then immediate practice with 2x + 7 = 15, avoiding immediate progression to more complex equations **Example 2**: Fraction addition - work through 1/4 + 1/12 step-by-step, then practice with 1/15 + 1/3 rather than jumping to unlike denominators **Example 3**: Essay writing - model paragraph construction with topic sentence, evidence, explanation, then students write similar paragraph with different content ## References Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. *Review of Educational Research*, 70(2), 181-214. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181 Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M. W., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. *Cognitive Science*, 13(2), 145-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1 Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 23-31. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_4 Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, 93(3), 579-588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.579 McLaren, B. M., Lim, S. J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2008). When and how often should worked examples be given to students? New results and a summary of the current state of research. In *Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society* (pp. 2176-2181). Cognitive Science Society. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. *Cognitive Science*, 21(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2101_1 Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive load perspective. *Educational Psychologist*, 38(1), 15-22. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_3 Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. *Cognition and Instruction*, 2(1), 59-89. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3 Trafton, J. G., & Reiser, B. J. (1993). The contributions of studying examples and solving problems to skill acquisition. In *Proceedings of the 15th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society* (pp. 1017-1022). Cognitive Science Society.