Research Article
The effects of part-task and whole-task
instructional approaches on acquisition
and transfer of a complex cognitive skill
Jung Lim,
Robert A. Reiser &
Zane Olina
Educational Technology Research and Development volume 57, pages61–
77(2009)Cite this article
1246 Accesses
33 Citations
Metricsdetails
Abstract
This study was designed to investigate the effects of two instructional
approaches (whole-task versus part-task) and two levels of learner prior
knowledge (lower versus higher) on learner acquisition and transfer of a
complex cognitive skill. Participants were 51 undergraduate pre-service
teachers. In the part-task condition, a complex skill (preparing a grade
book using Excel) was decomposed into a series of smaller tasks, each of
which was demonstrated and practiced separately. In the whole-task
condition, which was based on the 4C/ID-model (van Merriënboer 1997),
learners were exposed to the entire complex skill from the beginning of the
instruction and were required to practice performing a series of whole tasks
throughout the unit. Results indicated that the whole-task group performed
significantly better than the part-task group on a skill acquisition test and a
transfer test. Possible reasons for these findings and suggestions for future
research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
References
1. Byrnes, J. P. (1996). Cognitive development and learning in
instructional contexts. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Google Scholar
2. Carlson, R. A., Sullivan, M. A., & Schneider, W. (1989). Component
fluency in a problem-solving context. Human Factors, 31, 489–502.
Google Scholar
3. Collins, A., Brown, J. S., & Newman, S. E. (1989). Cognitive
apprenticeship: Teaching the craft of reading, writing and
mathematics. In L. B. Resnick (Ed.), Knowing, learning, and
instruction: Essays in honor of Robert Glaser (pp. 453–493).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
4. Cormier S. M., & Hagman, J. D. (Eds.). (1987). Transfer of learning:
Contemporary research and applications. San Diego: Academic
Press.
Google Scholar
5. de Croock, M. B. M., Paas, F., Schlanbusch, H., & van Merriënboer, J.
J. G. (2002). ADAPTit: Instructional design (ID) tools for training
design and evaluation. Educational Technology, Research and
Development, 50(4), 47–58.
Article Google Scholar
6. Ebel, R. L. (1951). Estimation of the reliability of
ratings. Psychometrika, 16, 407–424.
Article Google Scholar
7. Gagné, R. (1970). The conditions of learning (2nd ed.). New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Google Scholar
8. Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Siegel, D. (1989). Practice under changing
priorities: An approach to training of complex skills. Acta
Psychologica, 71, 147–179.
Article Google Scholar
9. Jonassen, D. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments.
In C. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: A
new paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. II, pp. 215–239).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Google Scholar
10.Jonassen, D. H., & Rohrer-Murphy, L. (1999). Activity theory as a
framework for designing constructivist learning
environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development,
47(1), 61–79.
Article Google Scholar
11. Kalyuga, S., Ayres, P., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2003). The
expertise reversal effect. Educational Psychologist, 38, 23–33.
Article Google Scholar
12.Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1998). Levels of expertise and
instructional design. Human Factors, 40, 1–17.
Article Google Scholar
13.Keller, J. M. (1987a). Strategies for stimulating the motivation to
learn. Performance and Instruction, 26(8), 1–7.
Article Google Scholar
14.Keller, J. M. (1987b). The systematic process of motivational
design. Performance and Instruction, 26(9), 1–8.
Article Google Scholar
15. Keller, J. M. (1993). Instructional material motivational survey.
Unpublished manuscript, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
16.Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer
agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.
Article Google Scholar
17. Merrill, M. D. (2002). First principles of instruction. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 50(3), 43–59.
Article Google Scholar
18.Merrill, M. D. (2007). First principles of instruction: A synthesis. In
R. A. Reiser & J. V. Dempsey (Eds.), Trends and issues in
instructional design and technology (2nd ed., pp. 62–71). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Google Scholar
19.Owen, E., & Sweller, J. (1985). What do students learn while solving
mathematics problems? Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,
272–284.
Article Google Scholar
20. Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, 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.
Article Google Scholar
21.Peck, A. C., & Detweiler, M. C. (2000). Training concurrent multistep
procedural tasks. Human Factors, 42, 379–389.
Article Google Scholar
22. Quilici, J. L., & Mayer, R. E. (1996). Role of examples in how
students learn to categorize statistics word problems. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 144–161.
Article Google Scholar
23. Schilling, M. A., Vidal, P., Ployhart, R. E., & Marangoni, A.
(2003). Learning by doing something else: Variation, relatedness,
and the learning curve. Management Science, 49, 39–56.
Article Google Scholar
24. Shapiro, D. C., & Schmidt, R. C. (1982). The schema theory:
Recent evidence and developmental implications. In J. A. S. Kelso &
J. E. Clark (Eds.), The development of movement control and
coordination (pp. 113–150). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
