Multiple Examples¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 6 claims (4 for, 2 mixed) · 11 studies (5 causal, 3 quant-synthesis, 1 review, 1 associational, 1 theoretical), q2–q4 · 2 of 11 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

When teaching a new technique, providing multiple examples helps students understand and apply the technique in their own writing. A single example risks learners encoding surface features rather than the underlying principle; multiple varied examples support abstraction of the deep structure. Definition alone is insufficient — learners need to see the technique instantiated in different contexts before they can deploy it flexibly.

Design Implications¶

Multiple examples work because comparing across cases directs attention to the structural features shared by examples rather than their idiosyncratic details Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction of deep structure. [+M]. The benefit depends on variation: examples differing in surface context but sharing the target structure produce better transfer than near-duplicates Gick & Holyoak, 1983 [+M]. Examples are most powerful when paired with prompts to explain why the technique works in each case Self-explanation improves conceptual understanding. [+S], and when followed by practice rather than presented alone Example-based sequences outperform problem-only practice for novices, and fading support is argued to aid transfer [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Preparation of multiple examples of the technique, deliberately varied in surface features but consistent in structure
• Time for analysis, comparison, and practice in class
• A supportive environment where students feel comfortable experimenting with new techniques
• Comparison or self-explanation prompts that direct attention to what the examples share (Comparing Cases, Think-Aloud)

Constraints¶

• May be time-consuming; each additional example competes for instructional time
• Students may become overwhelmed by too many examples or by examples with high extraneous load Example–problem sequences reduce cognitive load relative to problem-only practice. [~M]
• Unprompted passive reading of examples produces shallow processing and illusions of understanding Example-based sequences outperform problem-only practice for novices, and fading support is argued to aid transfer [-S]
• Requires careful selection: examples that are irrelevant or inaccessible to students waste the variation advantage
• Learners with strong prior knowledge may find extensive example sets redundant Worked-example guidance becomes less effective as learner expertise increases. [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Contrasting cases: present examples side by side and ask what differs and why Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction of deep structure. [+M]
• Example–problem pairs: alternate one example with one practice problem rather than presenting all examples first Example–problem sequences reduce cognitive load relative to problem-only practice. [+M]
• Erroneous examples: include a flawed example for students to diagnose Erroneous examples build conceptual knowledge. [+M]
• Student-generated examples: after analysis, students produce their own instances, which doubles as assessment evidence

Target Learners¶

• Novices encountering a technique for the first time, who otherwise encode only surface features Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction of deep structure. [+M]
• Struggling writers and students new to a genre, who benefit from seeing the technique applied in multiple accessible contexts
• Less beneficial for advanced learners, who can abstract structure from a single example and may find multiple examples inefficient Worked-example guidance becomes less effective as learner expertise increases. [~M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Conceptual understanding: recognizing the defining features of a technique across contexts
• Transfer: applying the technique to novel writing situations Multiple contrasting cases support abstraction of deep structure. [+M]
• Discrimination: distinguishing when a technique works well from when it is misapplied (via Non-Examples)

Instructions¶

1. Select 3–4 examples that vary in surface context but share the target structure; include at least one Non-Examples if discrimination matters
2. Open with a Demonstration of one example, making the technique's moves explicit
3. Have students Comparing Cases across the remaining examples, prompted to articulate what stays constant
4. Provide Practice — ideally an example–problem alternation rather than examples-then-problems Example–problem sequences reduce cognitive load relative to problem-only practice. [+M]
5. Move to Application: students apply the technique in their own writing and optionally generate a new example

Related Strategies¶

• Use Worked Examples — the single-example core case; multiple examples extend it to support abstraction
• Think-Aloud Modeling — narration method that makes each example's reasoning visible

Examples¶

• Teaching figurative language: provide several metaphors drawn from different genres and registers, then ask students what makes each a metaphor before writing their own
• Teaching essay organization: show introductions from three different disciplines, comparing how each establishes context and thesis
• Quilici & Mayer's statistics categorization studies: students who saw word problems with varied story contexts learned to categorize problems by solution structure far better than students who saw near-identical cover stories Quilici & Mayer, 1996
• Rittle-Johnson & Star's algebra study: students comparing multiple worked solution methods gained more conceptual knowledge than students studying the same methods sequentially Rittle-Johnson & Star, 2007

Key Sources¶

• Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15(1), 1–38. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(83)90002-6
• Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(1), 144–161. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.88.1.144
• Rittle-Johnson, B., & Star, J. R. (2007). Does comparing solution methods facilitate conceptual and procedural knowledge? An experimental study on learning to solve equations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(3), 561-574. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.561
• Renkl, A. (2014). Toward an instructionally oriented theory of example-based learning. Cognitive Science, 38(1), 1–37. doi:10.1111/cogs.12086
• 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. doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3