Mechanisms to prepare for future learning: A think-aloud study

IF 5.7 1区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH

Learning and Instruction Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-27 DOI:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102309

Katharina Ockl, Inga Glogger-Frey

{"title":"Mechanisms to prepare for future learning: A think-aloud study","authors":"Katharina Ockl, Inga Glogger-Frey","doi":"10.1016/j.learninstruc.2025.102309","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Preparation-for-learning is expected to foster learning-relevant cognitive processes to prepare learners for subsequent instruction. Various degrees of generation can prepare learners differently through such cognitive mechanisms. Open-problem-solving can make learners more aware of knowledge gaps, while self-explaining a solution of the same problem can help learners to process relevant learning content more deeply.</div></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><div>This study compares the cognitive processes during different forms of preparation and their influence on learning outcomes.</div></div><div><h3>Sample</h3><div>135 undergraduate psychology students participated in this study.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Participants were randomly assigned to a preparation condition and either invented a solution (inventing, <em>n</em> = 66) or self-explained a worked-out solution (worked example, <em>n</em> = 69). While working on the preparation task, participants were asked to think aloud. The cognitive process variables 'expressed knowledge gaps' and 'deep feature processing' were coded. After the preparation phase, participants watched an instructional video and completed a post-test targeting near and far transfer.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Students who self-explained a worked example processed deep features more deeply, which in turn had a positive effect on near transfer, but not on far transfer. Conversely, students expressed more knowledge gaps while inventing, but more expressed knowledge gaps revealed no effect on either near or far transfer. Overall, self-explaining a worked example led to better far transfer, but not to better near transfer.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study shows that a worked example can prepare learners for far transfer, and deep-feature processing even mediates outcomes in part. The various preparation activities foster different cognitive mechanisms.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48357,"journal":{"name":"Learning and Instruction","volume":"102 ","pages":"Article 102309"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning and Instruction","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959475225002336","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/12/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Preparation-for-learning is expected to foster learning-relevant cognitive processes to prepare learners for subsequent instruction. Various degrees of generation can prepare learners differently through such cognitive mechanisms. Open-problem-solving can make learners more aware of knowledge gaps, while self-explaining a solution of the same problem can help learners to process relevant learning content more deeply.

Aims

This study compares the cognitive processes during different forms of preparation and their influence on learning outcomes.

Sample

135 undergraduate psychology students participated in this study.

Methods

Participants were randomly assigned to a preparation condition and either invented a solution (inventing, n = 66) or self-explained a worked-out solution (worked example, n = 69). While working on the preparation task, participants were asked to think aloud. The cognitive process variables 'expressed knowledge gaps' and 'deep feature processing' were coded. After the preparation phase, participants watched an instructional video and completed a post-test targeting near and far transfer.

Results

Students who self-explained a worked example processed deep features more deeply, which in turn had a positive effect on near transfer, but not on far transfer. Conversely, students expressed more knowledge gaps while inventing, but more expressed knowledge gaps revealed no effect on either near or far transfer. Overall, self-explaining a worked example led to better far transfer, but not to better near transfer.

Conclusion

This study shows that a worked example can prepare learners for far transfer, and deep-feature processing even mediates outcomes in part. The various preparation activities foster different cognitive mechanisms.

查看原文本刊更多论文

为未来学习做准备的机制：一项有声思考研究

学习准备旨在促进与学习相关的认知过程，使学习者为后续教学做好准备。不同程度的生成可以通过这种认知机制使学习者做好不同的准备。开放式问题解决可以让学习者更加意识到知识空白，而自我解释同一问题的解决方案可以帮助学习者更深入地处理相关的学习内容。目的比较不同准备形式下的认知过程及其对学习效果的影响。样本：135名心理学本科生参与本研究。方法参与者被随机分配到一个准备条件下，要么发明一个解决方案（发明，n = 66），要么自我解释一个解决方案（工作示例，n = 69）。在准备任务时，参与者被要求大声思考。认知过程变量“表达的知识差距”和“深度特征处理”被编码。在准备阶段结束后，参与者观看了一段教学视频，并完成了一项针对近距离和远距离迁移的后测试。结果自我解释的学生对深层特征的处理更深入，这对近迁移有积极影响，而对远迁移没有积极影响。相反，学生在发明过程中表达了更多的知识差距，但更多的知识差距对近距离和远距离迁移没有影响。总的来说，自我解释一个有效的例子导致更好的远迁移，但不是更好的近迁移。结论本研究表明，一个工作实例可以为学习者的远程迁移做准备，深度特征处理甚至在一定程度上调节了结果。不同的准备活动培养不同的认知机制。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Learning and Instruction Multiple-

CiteScore

11.30

自引率

4.80%

发文量

109

期刊介绍： As an international, multi-disciplinary, peer-refereed journal, Learning and Instruction provides a platform for the publication of the most advanced scientific research in the areas of learning, development, instruction and teaching. The journal welcomes original empirical investigations. The papers may represent a variety of theoretical perspectives and different methodological approaches. They may refer to any age level, from infants to adults and to a diversity of learning and instructional settings, from laboratory experiments to field studies. The major criteria in the review and the selection process concern the significance of the contribution to the area of learning and instruction, and the rigor of the study.