The Influence Of Worked Example Types And Explanations On Learning Effect Of Pupils’ "Encountering Problems"

Module worked example and modular worked example are two typical solutions to solving mathematical problems in education,explanation is a common way for elementary school students to learn mathematics.In the past,there was no conclusion about these two worked examples and their learning and mechanisms under additional explanations.In order to investigate the influence of worked example types and explanations on the online learning effect of primary school students in mathematics,three experiments were conducted with the third-grade primary school students as participants and mathematical "encounter problem" as the experimental materials:In Experiment 1,we chose 112 third-grade primary school students as participants.We compared the module worked example,modular worked example and mixed module-modular worked example.We looked at the students’ cognitive load,working memory capacity,test performance and test time.The result showed that: three worked example types were no significant difference in cognitive load;the mixed module-modular worked example achieved the lowest working memory capacity than the other two worked example types;Three worked example types were no significant difference in test performance,but the test time was significant variance.Specifically,in the transfer test,the module worked example and modular worked example achieved significantly shorter time than the mixed module-modular worked example.In Experiment 2,128 third-grade students were selected as participants,and 2(worked example type: module worked example and modular worked example)×2(teaching explanation push strategy: free choose teaching explanation and fixed push teaching explanation)between-subjects factorial design was adopted,and investigated the worked example type and teaching explanation push strategy on the effect of primary students’ mathematics learning.The result showed that there was no significant difference in mental effort,task difficulty and working memory capacity between the module worked example and the modular worked example.Compared with the free choose teaching explanation,the fixed push teaching explanation achieved significantly higher mental effort and lower working memory capacity.In near transfer test,the students’ performance in modular worked example was significantly better than that in module worked example,and the students’ performance in the free choose teaching explanation was significantly better than that in the fixed push teaching explanation.In far transfer test,there was no significant difference between the different worked example types and teaching explanation push strategies.In the transfer test time,the module worked example achieved significantly shorter time than the modular worked example,and there was no significant difference between the different teaching explanation push strategies.In Experiment 3,128 third-grade students were selected as participants,2(worked example type: module worked example and modular worked example)×2(self-explanation prompt strategy: selective self-explanation and prompt self-explanation)between-subjects factorial design was adopted,and investigated the worked example type and self-explanation prompt strategy on the effect of primary students’ mathematics learning.The result showed that in terms of mental effort,the prompt self-explanation strategy was significantly lower than that under the selective self-explanation strategy in the module worked example,and the mental effort under the selective self-explanation strategy was significantly lower than that under the prompt self-explanation strategy in the modular worked example.In terms of task difficulty,there was no significant difference between the different worked example types and self-explanatory prompt strategies.In terms of working memory capacity,there was no significant difference between the two worked example types.The working memory capacity which in the selective self-explanation strategy was significantly lower than that in the prompt self-explanation strategy.In near transfer test,the learning effect of the two self-explanation strategies were not significantly different in the module worked example.In the modular worked example,the result of the selective self-explanation strategy was significantly better than that of the prompt self-explanation strategy,and there was no significant difference between the different worked example types and self-explanatory prompt strategies in the near transfer test time.In far transfer test,there was no significant difference between worked example types and self-explanatory prompt strategies.But the module worked example achieved significantly shorter time than the modular worked example,the selective self-explanation strategy achieved significantly shorter time than the prompt self-explanation strategy.The following conclusions can be drawn from the three experiments:(1)Compared with the module worked example and modular worked example,the students’ working memory performance in the mixed module-modular worked example was the lowest and the test time was the longest.(2)Compared with the module worked example,modular worked example achieved better test performance in the near transfer test but the test time was longer.Compared with the free choose teaching explanation,the students under the fixed push teaching explanation had higher level of mental effort,lower working memory performance,and worse performance in the near transfer test.At the same time,they showed the resource depletion effect of working memory.(3)The strategy of selective self-explanation had greater depletion of working memory resource.Under the module worked example,the mental effort of the selective self-explanation strategy was higher than that of the prompt self-explanation strategy,and the performance was no significant difference between the two strategies.Under the modular worked example,compared with the prompt self-explanation strategy,the mental effort of the selective self-explanation strategy was lower,and the performance of the near transfer test was better.