Example-based learning: Effects of model expertise in relation to student expertise

• Published in: British journal of educational psychology 2010-12, Vol.80 (4), p.557-566
• Main Authors: Boekhout, Paul, van Gog, Tamara, van de Wiel, Margje W. J., Gerards-Last, Dorien, Geraets, Jacques
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Academic achievement; Achievement; Adolescent; Advanced Students; Allied Health Occupations Education; Biological and medical sciences; Case Records; College students; Comparative Analysis; Curriculum; Educational psychology; Expertise; Faculty; Female; Fundamental and applied biological sciences. Psychology; Health education; Health participants; Humans; Instructional Effectiveness; Learning; Male; Medical History Taking - methods; Medical sciences; Mental effort; Mobility Limitation; Netherlands; Novices; Peer Group; Physical Therapy; Physical Therapy Specialty - education; Physiotherapy; Professional Competence; Psychoeducational Methods; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry; Psychology. Psychophysiology; Public health. Hygiene; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine; Pupil and student. Academic achievement and failure; Recall; Retention; Retention (Psychology); Stroke Rehabilitation; Teaching - methods; Therapy; Transfer (Psychology); Young Adult
• ISSN: 0007-0998; 2044-8279
• DOI: 10.1348/000709910X497130

Background. Worked examples are very effective for novice learners. They typically present a written‐out ideal (didactical) solution for learners to study. Aims. This study used worked examples of patient history taking in physiotherapy that presented a non‐didactical solution (i.e., based on actual performance). The effects of model expertise (i.e., worked example based on advanced, third‐year student model or expert physiotherapist model) in relation to students' expertise (i.e., first‐ or second‐year) were investigated. Sample. One hundred and thirty‐four physiotherapy students (61 first‐year and 73 second‐year). Methods. Design was 2×2 factorial with factors ‘Student Expertise’ (first‐year vs. second‐year) and ‘Model Expertise’ (expert vs. advanced student). Within expertise levels, students were randomly assigned to the Expert Example or the Advanced Student Example condition. All students studied two examples (content depending on their assigned condition) and then completed a retention and test task. They rated their invested mental effort after each example and test task. Results. Second‐year students invested less mental effort in studying the examples, and in performing the retention and transfer tasks than first‐year students. They also performed better on the retention test, but not on the transfer test. In contrast to our hypothesis, there was no interaction between student expertise and model expertise: all students who had studied the Expert examples performed better on the transfer test than students who had studied Advanced Student Examples. Conclusions. This study suggests that when worked examples are based on actual performance, rather than an ideal procedure, expert models are to be preferred over advanced student models.