Comparing alternative sequences of examples and problem-solving tasks: the case of conceptual knowledge

ABSTRACT

In cognitive load theory, the superiority of the Example-Problem sequence over the Problem-Example sequence has become a classic paradigm. The comparative effectiveness of these sequences, however, is subject to the influence of the factors of element interactivity and prior knowledge, and studies have examined these influences focused mostly on procedural rather than conceptual knowledge. This paper takes a deeper look at the effect of types of knowledge concentrating on conceptual knowledge. An experiment is reported comparing the Problem-Example and Example-Problem sequences on two levels of element interactivity, low versus high, which were associated with two types of conceptual knowledge (general principle knowledge and knowledge of principles underlying procedures, accordingly). Since there was no difference found between these sequences for either level of element interactivity, the paper discusses conditions of effectiveness of example-based instructions for different knowledge types in the broader context of Explicit Instruction First and Problem-Solving First approaches.

KEY POINTS

What is already known about this topic:

(1) Cognitive load effects, such as worked example effect, are more effective for learning procedures.

(2) The Example-Problem sequence is found to be superior to Problem-Example sequence.

(3) The Example-Problem sequence represents the explicit instruction first approach, whereas Problem-Example sequence represents the problem solving first approach.

What this topic adds:

(1) This is the 1^st experimental study testing cognitive load theory with conceptual knowledge learning.

(2) This study categorises types of conceptual knowledge by element interactivity.

(3) No significant differences were found between Example-Problem sequence and Problem-Example sequence for learning simple and complex conceptual knowledge.

KEYWORDS:

• Cognitive load theory
• example-based learning
• problem solving
• expertise and element interactivity
• procedural knowledge and conceptual knowledge

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).