The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science-Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning

Cognitive Science

Volumn 36, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 757-798

  Koedinger, Kenneth R ^a   Corbett, Albert T ^a   Perfetti, Charles ^b  

^a Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive modeling; Cognitive task analysis; Education; Experimentation; Instructional principles; Knowledge representation; Learning principles

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; EDUCATION; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; MATHEMATICS; METHODOLOGY; SCIENCE; TEACHING;

EDUCATION; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; LANGUAGE; LEARNING; MATHEMATICS; SCIENCE; TEACHING; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 84863442345     PISSN: 03640213     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245.x     Document Type: Article

References (126)

1. Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. Th. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669-681.
2. Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based cognitive tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147-149.
3. Aleven, V., Roll, I., McLaren, B. M., & Koedinger, K. R. (2010). Automated, unobtrusive, action-by- action assessment of self-regulation during learning with an intelligent tutoring system. Educational Psychologist, 45(4), 224-233.
4. Alibali, M. W., & Koedinger, K. R. (1999). The developmental progression from implicit to explicit knowledge: A computational approach. (Commentary on Z. Dienes & J. Perner, A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge.). Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 10, 755-756.
5. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Rules of the mind. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
6. Anderson, J. R. (2002). Spanning seven orders of magnitude: A challenge for cognitive modeling. Cognitive Science, 26(1), 85-112.
7. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C., & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036-1060.
8. Anderson, J. R., Fincham, J. M., & Douglas, S. (1997). The role of examples and rules in the acquisition of cognitive skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23, 932-945.
9. Anderson, J. R., & Lebiere, C.. (1998). The atomic components of thought. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Anderson, J. R., & Schunn, C. D. (2000). Implications of the ACT-R learning theory: No magic bullets. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology: 5 (pp. 1-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Asterhan, C. S. C., & Schwarz, B. B. (2009). The role of argumentation and explanation in conceptual change: Indications from protocol analyses of peer-to-peer dialogue. Cognitive Science, 33, 373-399.
12. Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 774-783.
13. Barnett, S. M., & Ceci, S. J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 612-637.
14. Bloom, B. S. (Ed.) (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives. Handbook 1: Cognitive domain. New York: McKay.
15. Blum, A., & Mitchell, T. (1998). Combining labeled and unlabeled data with co-training. In S. Ben-David & P. Long (Eds.), Proceedings of Eleventh Annual Conference on Computational Learning Theory (COLT) (pp. 92-100). New York: ACM Press.
16. Booth, J. L., & Koedinger, K. R. (2008). Key misconceptions in algebraic problem solving. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 64-70). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
17. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking, R. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
18. Bransford, J. D., & Schwartz, D.. (1999). Rethinking transfer: A simple proposal with multiple implications. In A. Iran-Nejad, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 24, pp. 61-100). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
19. Bresnan, J., Cueini, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H. (2007). Predicting the dative alteration. In G. Bouma, I. Kramer, & J. Zwarts (Eds.), Cognitive foundations of interpretation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20. Bruner, J. S. (1966). Toward a theory of instruction. New York: W. W. Norton & Co.
21. Case, R., & Okamoto, Y. (1996). The role of central conceptual structures in the development of children's thought. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 61(1-2, Serial No. 246).
22. Catrambone, R. (1996). Generalizing solution procedures learned from examples. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22, 1020-1031.
23. Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006). Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354-380.
24. Chang, N. M. (2006). Learning to discriminate and generalize through problem comparisons. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pittsburgh PA: Carnegie Mellon University.
25. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D. (1999). All other things being equal: Children's acquisition of the control of variables strategy. Child Development, 70(5), 1098-1120.
26. Chen, Z., & Klahr, D., (2008). Remote transfer of scientific reasoning and problem-solving strategies in children. In R. V. Kail (Ed.) Advances in Child Development and Behavior, Vol. 36 (pp. 419-470). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
27. Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145-182.
28. Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & LaVancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18(3), 439-477.
29. Chi, M. T. H., Feltovich, P. J., & Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5, 121-152.
30. Clark, R. E., Feldon, D., van Merriënboer, J., Yates, K., & Early, S. (2007). Cognitive task analysis. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. J. G. van Merriënboer, & M. P. Driscoll (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed., pp. 577-593). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
31. Clark, R. C., & Meyer, R. E. (2003). e-Learning and the science of instruction. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.
32. Clement, J. (1987). Overcoming students' misconceptions in physics: Fundamental change in children's physics knowledge. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 28, 785-797.
33. Corbett, A. T., & Anderson, J. R. (2001). Locus of feedback control in computer-based tutoring: Impact on learning rate, achievement and attitudes. Proceedings of ACM CHI'2001 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (pp. 245-252). New York: ACM Press.
34. De Jong, N., & Perfetti, C. A. (2011). Fluency training in the ESL classroom: An experimental study of fluency development and proceduralization. Language Learning, 61(2), 533-568.
35. Dienes, Z., & Perner, J. (1999). A theory of implicit and explicit knowledge. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22(5), 735-808.
36. Donovan, J. J., & Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practise effect: Now you see it, now you don't. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 795-805.
37. Dunlap, S., Perfetti, C. A., Liu, Y., & Wu, S. M. (2011) Learning vocabulary in Chinese as a foreign language: Effects of explicit instruction and semantic cue reliability. Learning vocabulary.pdf
38. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. Eugene, OR: ADI Press.
39. Feng, M., Heffernan, N. T., & Koedinger, K. R. (2009). Addressing the assessment challenge in an online system that tutors as it assesses. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction: The Journal of Personalization Research (UMUAI), 19(3), 243-266.
40. Fox, M. C., & Charness, N. (2009). How to gain eleven IQ points in ten minutes: Thinking aloud improves Raven's Matrices performance in older adults. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 17(2), 191-204.
41. Frank, M. C., & Gibson, E. (2011). Overcoming memory limitations in rule learning. Language, Learning, & Development, 7, 130-148.
42. Frishkoff, G. A., Pavlik, P., Levin, L., & de Jong, C. (2008). Providing optimal support for robust learning of syntactic constructions in ESL. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (CogSci08) (pp. 64-70). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
43. Gagne, R. M. (1985). The conditions of learning and theory of instruction, 4th ed. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
44. Gentner, D., Loewenstein, J., Thompson, L., & Forbus, K. D. (2009). Reviving inert knowledge: Analogical abstraction supports relational retrieval of past events. Cognitive Science, 33, 1343-1382.
45. Gick, M. L., & Holyoak, K. J. (1983). Schema induction and analogical transfer. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 1-38.
46. Gobet, F. (2005). Chunking models of expertise: Implications for education. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 19, 183-204.
47. Graesser, A. C. (2009). Cognitive scientists prefer theories and testable principles with teeth. Educational Psychologist, 44(3), 193-197.
48. Graesser, A. C., McNamara, D. S., & VanLehn, K. (2005). Scaffolding deep comprehension strategies through Point&Query, AutoTutor, and iSTART. Educational Psychologist, 40, 225-234.
49. Greeno, J. G. (1998). The situativy of knowing, learning, and research. American Psychologist, 53(1), 5-26.
50. Hausmann, R. G. M., Nokes, T. J., VanLehn, K., & Gershman, S. (2009). The design of self-explanation prompts: The fit hypothesis. In N. Taatgern & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2626-2631). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
51. Hausmann, R. G. M., & VanLehn, K. (2007). Explaining self-explaining: A contrast between content and generation. In R. Luckin, K. R. Koedinger, & J. Greer (Eds.), Proceedings of AI in Education (pp. 417-424). Amsterdam: IOS Press.
52. Hebb, D. O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley
53. Heffernan, N., & Koedinger, K. R. (1997). The composition effect in symbolizing: The role of symbol production versus text comprehension. In M. G. Shafto, & P. Langley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 307-312). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
54. Hummel, J. E., & Holyoak, K. J. (2003). A symbolic-connectionist theory of relational inference and generalization. Psychological Review, 110, 220-264.
55. Jones, R. M., & Fleischman, E. S. (2001) CASCADE explains and informs the utility of fading examples to problems. In J. D. Moore & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 459-464). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
56. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23-32.
57. Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2005). Rapid dynamic assessment of expertise to improve the efficiency of adaptive e-learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 53, 83-93.
58. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. New York: Cambridge University Press.
59. Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12, 1-48.
60. Koedinger, K. R., & Aleven, V. (2007). Exploring the assistance dilemma in experiments with cognitive tutors. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 239-264.
61. Koedinger, K. R., Aleven, V., Roll, I., & Baker, R. (2009). In vivo experiments on whether supporting metacognition in intelligent tutoring systems yields robust learning. In D. J. Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. C. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in education. (pp. 383-412). New York: Routledge.
62. Koedinger, K. R., & McLaughlin, E. A. (2010). Seeing language learning inside the math: Cognitive analysis yields transfer. In S. Ohlsson & R. Catrambone (Eds.), Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 471-476). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
63. Koedinger, K. R., & Nathan, M. J. (2004). The real story behind story problems: Effects of representations on quantitative reasoning. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(2), 129-164.
64. Koedinger, K. R., & Terao, A. (2002). A cognitive task analysis of using pictures to support pre-algebraic reasoning. In C. D. Schunn, & W. Gray (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 542-547). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
65. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
66. Lee, R. L. (2003). Cognitive task analysis: A meta-analysis of comparative studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Los Angeles, California: University of Southern California.
67. Levine, M. (1966). Hypothesis behavior by humans during discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 331-338.
68. Lewis, C. H. (1988). Why and how to learn why: Analysis-based generalization of procedures. Cognitive Science, 12, 211-256.
69. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95(4), 492-527.
70. MacLaren, B., & Koedinger, K. R. (2002). When and why does mastery learning work: Instructional experiments with ACT-R "SimStudents." In S. A. Cerri, G. Gouarderes, & F. Paraguacu (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 355-366). Berlin: Springer-Verlag
71. Matsuda, N., Cohen, W., Sewall, J., Lacerda, G., & Koedinger, K. R. (2008). Why tutored problem solving may be better than example study: Theoretical implications from a simulated-student study. In B. Woolf, E. Aimeur, R. Nkambou, & S. P. LaJoie (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference of Intelligent Tutoring Systems (pp. 111-121). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
72. McClelland, J. L., & Cleeremans, A. (2009). Connectionist models. In T. Byrne, A. Cleeremans, & P. Wilken (Eds.), Oxford companion to consciousness. New York: Oxford University Press.
73. McClelland, J. L., Fiez, J. A., & McCandliss, B. D. (2002). Teaching the/r/-/l/discrimination to Japanese adults: Behavioral and neural aspects. Physiology & Behavior, 77, 657-62.
74. McNamara, D. S. (2001). Reading both high and low coherence texts: Effects of text sequence and prior knowledge. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 51-62.
75. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1-30.
76. McNamara, D. S., Kintsch, E., Songer, N., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Are good texts always better? Interactions of text coherence, background knowledge, and levels of understanding in learning from text. Cognition and Instruction, 14(1), 1-43.
77. Medin, D., & Schaffer, M. (1978). Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 85, 207-238.
78. van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(1), 147-177.
79. Michaels, S., O'Connor, C., & Resnick, L. B. (2008). Deliberative discourse idealized and realized: Accountable talk in the classroom and in civic life. Studies in the Philosophy of Education, 27(4), 283-297.
80. Minstrell, J. (2001). Facets of students' thinking: Designing to cross the gap from research to standards-based practice. In K. Crowley, C. D. Schunn, & T. Okada (Eds.), Designing for Science: Implications for Professional, Instructional, and Everyday Science (pp. 415-444). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
81. Mitchell, T. M., Keller, R. M., & Kedar-Cabelli, S. T. (1986). Explanation-based generalization: A unifying view. Machine Learning, 1, 47-80.
82. National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence- based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (00-4769). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health & Human Development.
83. Newell, A. (1990). Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
84. Ogan, A., Aleven, V., & Jones, C. (2009). Advancing development of intercultural competence through supporting predictions in narrative video. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 19(3), 267-288.
85. Ohlsson, S. (1996). Learning from performance errors. Psychological Review, 103(2), 241-262.
86. O'Reilly, R. C., & Munakata, Y. (2000). Computational explorations in cognitive neuroscience: Understanding the mind by simulating the brain. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
87. Paas, F. G. W. C., & Van Merrienboer, J. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.
88. Palincsar, A. S., & Brown, A. L. (1984). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1, 117-175.
89. Pashler, H., Bain, P., Bottge, B., Graesser, A., Koedinger, K., McDaniel, M., & Metcalfe, J. (2007). Organizing instruction and study to improve student learning (NCER 2007-2004). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
90. Pavlik., P. I. Jr (2007). Understanding and applying the dynamics of test practice and study practice. Instructional Science, 35, 407-441.
91. Posner, M. I. (in press). The expert brain. In J. Staszewski (Ed.), Expertise and skill acquisition: The impact of William G. Chase. New York: Psychology Press.
92. Quilici, J. H., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 144-161.
93. Rayner, K., Foorman, B. R., Perfetti, C. A., Pesetsky, D., & Seidenberg, M. S. (2001). How should reading be taught. Psychological Science, 2(2 suppl.), 31-74.
94. Rea, C. P., & Modigliani, V. (1985). The effect of expanded versus massed practise on the retention of multiplication facts and spelling lists. Human Learning: Journal of Practical Research & Applications, 4, 11-18.
95. Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1-29.
96. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works-a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59-82.
97. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Maier, U. H. (2000). From studying examples to solving problems: Fading worked-out solution steps helps learning. In L. Gleitman, & A. K. Joshi (Eds.), Proceeding of the 22nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 393-398). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
98. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., Maier, U. H., & Staley, R. (2002). From example study to problem solving: Smooth transitions help learning. Journal of Experimental Education, 70, 293-315.
99. Renkl, A., Stark, R., Gruber, H., & Mandl, H. (1998). Learning from worked-out examples: The effects of example variability and elicited self-explanations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 90-108.
100. Richman, H. B., Staszewski, J. J., & Simon, H. A. (1995). Simulation of expert memory with EPAM IV. Psychological Review, 102, 305-330.
101. Rissanen, J. (1978). Modeling by shortest data description. Automatica, 14, 465-471.
102. Rittle-Johnson, B., & Koedinger, K. R. (2001). Using cognitive models to guide instructional design: The case of fraction division. In J. D. Moore, & K. Stenning (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Third Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 857-862). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
103. Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). The power of testing memory: Basic research and implications for educational practice. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 181-210.
104. Rohrer, D., & Taylor, K. (2006). The effects of overlearning and distributed practice on the retention of mathematics knowledge. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1209-1244.
105. Salden, R. J. C. M., Aleven, V., Renkl, A., & Schwonke, R. (2008). Worked examples and tutored problem solving: Redundant or synergistic forms of support? In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 589-594). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
106. Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207-217.
107. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
108. Schoenfeld, A. (2004). The math wars. Educational Policy, 18(1), 253-286.
109. Schooler, J. W, Fiore, S., & Brandimonte, M. A. (1997). At a loss from words: Verbal overshadowing of perceptual memories. Psychology of Learning and Motivation: Advances in Research and Theory, 37, 291-340.
110. Servan-Schreiber, E., & Anderson, J. R. (1990). Learning artificial grammars with competitive chunking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 592-608.
111. diSessa, A. A. (1993). Toward an epistemology of physics. Cognition and Instruction, 10(2 & 3), 105-225.
112. Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.) (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
113. Shepard, R. N. (1987). Toward a universal law of generalization of psychological science. Science, 237, 1317-1323.
114. Slotta, J. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2006). The impact of ontology training on conceptual change: Helping students understand the challenging topics in science. Cognition and Instruction, 24, 261-289.
115. Snow, C., Burns, M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
116. Stamper, J., & Koedinger, K. R. (2011). Human-machine student model discovery and improvement using data. In J. Kay, S. Bull, & G. Biswas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Education (pp. 353-360). Berlin: Springer.
117. Stylianides, G. J., & Stylianides, A. J. (2009). Facilitating the transition from empirical arguments to proof. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 40(3), 314-352.
118. Sun, R., 1994. Integrating rules and connectionism for robust commonsense reasoning. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
119. Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. (1994). Why some material is difficult to learn. Cognition and Instruction, 12, 185-233.
120. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59-89.
121. Taft, M., & Chung, K. (1999). Using radicals in teaching Chinese characters to second language learners. Psychologia, 42, 243-251.
122. VanLehn, K. (1999). Rule learning events in the acquisition of a complex skill: An evaluation of cascade. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 8(1), 71-125.
123. Wang, M., Liu, Y., & Perfetti, C. A. (2004). The implicit and explicit learning of orthographic structure and function of a new writing system. Scientific Studies of Reading, 8(4), 357-379.
124. Wulf, G., & Shea, C. H. (2002). Principles derived from the study of simple skills do not generalize to complex skill learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 9, 185-211.
125. Wylie, R., Koedinger, K. R., & Mitamura, T. (2009). Is self-explanation always better? The effects of adding self-explanation prompts to an English grammar tutor. In N. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1300-1305). Amsterdam: The Netherlands.
126. Zhu, X., Lee, Y., Simon, H. A., & Zhu, D. (1996). Cue recognition and cue elaboration in learning from examples. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 93, 1346-1351.