Over the last decade an unfolding cognitive-psychology research program on how learners use examples to develop effective problem-solving expertise has yielded well-established empirical findings. Chi et al., Renkl, Reimann, and Neubert (in various papers) have confirmed statistically significant differences in how good and poor learners inferentially elaborate ("self-explain") example steps as they study. Such example elaboration is highly relevant to software documentation and training, yet largely neglected in the current literature.This paper summarizes the neglected research on example use and puts its neglect in a disciplinary perspective. I then show that differences in support for example elaboration in commercial software documentation reveal previously overlooked usability issues. These issues involve example summaries, using goals and goal structures to reinforce example elaborations, and prompting readers to recognize the role of example parts.Secondly, I show how these same example elaboration techniques can build cognitive maturity among underperforming high-school students who study technical writing. Principle-based elaborations, condition elaborations, and role recognition of example steps all have their place in innovative, high-school-level, technical-writing exercises, and all promote far-transfer problem solving.Finally, I use these studies to clarify the constructivist debate over what writers and readers contribute to text meaning. I argue that writers can influence how readers elaborate on examples, and that because of the great empirical differences in example-study effectiveness (and reader choices) writers should do what they can (through within-text design features) to encourage readers to elaborate examples in the most successful ways.
展开▼
