Worked examples improved the exchange of relevant information in the CDR process, driven by the initial-situation step¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The worked example group showed a stronger pretest-to-posttest improvement in the exchange of relevant information (CDR process quality) than the problem-solving group. → Rexhäuser 2026 q3 i? Exploratory analyses located the interaction in the clarification of the initial situation step, F(1,75) = 12.191, p < .001. → Rexhäuser 2026 (2)

Evidence¶

Rexhäuser 2026¶

Rexhäuser, D., Radkowitsch, A., Richters, C., Glogger-Frey, I., Vogel-Blaschka, D., Meier, J., & Abele, S. (2026). Effects of specificity of self-explanation prompts for worked examples on computer-supported learning of collaborative diagnostic reasoning. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-026-09468-9

q3 · i? · causal · r2

RM-ANOVA with time point as within-subjects factor and example condition as between-subjects factor in the pre-post experiment; the worked example group improved more than the problem-solving group on the "exchange of relevant information" process score, supporting H1.2. No effect size printed in the text provided.

"As expected, the worked example group demonstrated a stronger improvement in the exchange of relevant information, as indicator for the quality of the CDR process, than the problem-solving group from pretest to posttest (significant interaction between time point and condition)."

Rexhäuser 2026 (2)¶

Rexhäuser, D., Radkowitsch, A., Richters, C., Glogger-Frey, I., Vogel-Blaschka, D., Meier, J., & Abele, S. (2026). Effects of specificity of self-explanation prompts for worked examples on computer-supported learning of collaborative diagnostic reasoning. Intern. J. Comput.-Support. Collab. Learn. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11412-026-09468-9

q3 · i? · causal · r2

Exploratory RM-ANOVAs at the level of the four CDR process steps; dyads in the worked example condition exchanged more information in the initial-situation step, F (1,75) = 12.191, p <.001. The article also descriptively compared exchange of individual pieces of relevant information between groups.

"Our exploratory analyses demonstrated that this interaction effect is owing to dyads in the worked example condition exchanging more information about the process steps of the initial situation, F (1,75) = 12.191, p <.001"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Self-explaining worked examples improve declarative knowledge of CDR strategies more than solving problems — related
• Worked examples did not improve application of CDR strategy knowledge relative to problem-solving — related
• Adult players who studied worked examples scored significantly higher on a game-based problem-solving retention question than a control group — related