Abstract

The no-subgoal-worked examples and the subgoal-worked examples are “one problem and two solutions.” Previous studies have found that the effect of subgoal-worked examples learning is better than that of no-subgoal-worked examples. However, there is still ambiguity around the subgoal-worked examples learning effect and mechanism of the subgoal labeling form. To address this issue, the current study recruited a total of 130 Chinese children (Mage = 8.78 years) to mathematical online learning under different worked example forms. The results revealed that, as compared with the no-subgoal-worked example, the subgoal-worked example increased primary school students’ working memory resource depletion. However, it did not improve their scores. Moreover, as compared with the subgoal-worked example, the focused subgoal-labeled worked example did not promote primary school students’ learning effectiveness in mathematics. However, the individual choice subgoal-labeled worked example improved primary school students’ near-transfer scores. It also reduced their mental effort and working memory resource depletion. It, therefore, appears to be a more effective subgoal-labeled worked example learning approach.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.