2012 5

1001-4918 2012 05-0495-501 G441 A

116029

1 8 300
1
4 2 8
3
7 4

example
1



Natalie Olinghouse 2008 Paas1992
Scardamalia RenklAtkinson
Bereitert 1996 Maier2002 Renkl Atkinson2003
2003
2007
2005











complete 8
worked-example incomplete worked- 1

* 30970888 2009JD45
E-maili zq55822@ 163 com

495
 2012 5

2 1 2
3 3
4 5
4 6
7 8
5 Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory 6 + 1
6 6 + 1

7
6 + 1
1 2
6 3 4 5
8 6 7
6
6 5 3 1
6
+ 1

1 6 + 1




2 1


1
2

2
2. 1
10
85 90
300 10 30
9

Natalie 2008
8 8

2. 2

10
496


8

2. 3
30

2. 5
4 1
6
2
3
4
1
8

1
2. 4
10 10
1. 1 3
3
2 0 3
1 3
3.

1. 1


2.
30 1. 0. 1
2. 0. 25

3. 0. 3
30 4. 1
10

0. 86p 0. 001



3

3. 1

2

10
5
F 9
299 = 1. 63p 0. 05
10

F 9
299 = 3. 29p 0. 05
30 Dunnett' T3
497
 2012 5

ps
0. 05 F 9
299 = 0. 94p 0. 05

ps 0. 05

t t 2 299 = 8. 96p 0. 01
F 9
Dunnett'T3
9 ps
2 0. 05
t
t t 3
n t
M SD M SD 9
30 4. 25 0. 63 4. 75 0. 84 0. 54
30 4. 05 0. 77 5. 55 0. 40 2. 48 *

30 3. 95 0. 83 5. 25 0. 65 2. 47 *
30 4. 15 0. 58 5. 05 0. 84 2. 75 3. 3
30 4. 54 0. 46 5. 50 0. 51 1. 98 *


30 4. 68 0. 25 4. 40 0. 75 0. 54 4

4
30 4. 36 0. 66 4. 52 0. 75 1. 36

t

30 4. 45 0. 91 4. 76 0. 79 1. 76

n t
30 4. 43 0. 62 4. 26 0. 76 1. 36 M SD M SD
30 4. 21 0. 57 5. 90 0. 85 3. 98 30 3. 45 0. 59 2. 95 0. 71 1. 44
*
p 0. 05 p 0. 01 30 3. 52 0. 72 5. 10 0. 80 2. 54 *
30 3. 55 0. 52 3. 68 0. 78 0. 70
3. 2 30 3. 15 0. 72 4. 75 0. 74 2. 57 *
30 3. 54 0. 83 4. 98 0. 87 4. 68

3 30 3. 68 0. 68 4. 10 0. 83 1. 28

3
30 3. 06 0. 28 4. 52 0. 68 1. 96 *

t

30 3. 45 0. 70 4. 76 0. 98 3. 25

n t
M SD M SD 30 3. 65 0. 73 4. 26 0. 61 3. 52
30 2. 45 0. 59 2. 85 0. 71 0. 52 30 3. 89 0. 54 5. 02 0. 85 5. 73
30 2. 25 0. 72 4. 45 0. 80 5. 84 *
p 0. 05 p 0. 01
30 2. 95 0. 52 3. 98 0. 78 2. 85
30 2. 15 0. 72 4. 05 0. 74 3. 25
30 2. 54 0. 83 4. 98 0. 87 4. 52


30 2. 68 0. 68 3. 40 0. 83 1. 96 *

F 9
299 = 1. 29p 0. 05
30 3. 36 0. 28 3. 52 0. 68 5. 37


*

30 2. 45 0. 70 3. 76 0. 98 1. 99
30 2. 65 0. 73 3. 26 0. 61 1. 97 *

30 2. 89 0. 54 5. 10 0. 85 8. 93
F 9
299 = 5. 62p 0. 05
*
p 0. 05 p 0. 01
Dunnett'T3

498


ps 0. 05
single-content
ps 0. 05 examples double-content examples
Schworm Renkl2007 RenklHilbert
t t 4 Schworm2009

learning domain
learning domain exemplifying
domain
3. 4
Renkl 2009
5
5


t n
M SD M SD
30 0. 29 0. 46 0. 40 0. 65
30 0. 10 1. 36 0. 55 1. 23

30 0. 32 0. 94 0. 74 0. 35
30 0. 31 3. 12 0. 08 2. 98
30 0. 76 0. 23 0. 07 0. 64
30 0. 97 1. 24 0. 99 1. 95

30 1. 02 0. 27 0. 79 0. 24
30 0. 96 0. 10 0. 17 0. 04
30 0. 69 1. 36 0. 38 1. 23
30 0. 96 1. 23 0. 92 2. 44 4. 2



F 9
299 = 1. 88p 0. 05

10


F 9
299 = 1. 26p 0. 05

4

4. 1
8

4


6


499
 2012 5

2 /3
5
1


4
2

2 /3 3
2 /3 7

4

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory 2010 6 + 1 Traits of
Analytic Writing Assessment Scoring Guide Rubric Http / /

educationnorthwest org / resource /464

Natalie G OlinghouseT 2008 Student and instruction-level

predictors of narrative writing in third-grade studentsReading and
writing21 6 412 423
PassF 1992 Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-
solving skill in statistic a cognitive load approach Journal of

Educational Psychology84 4 429 434

4. 3
RenklA AtkinsonR K MaierU H 2002 From example
study to problem solving Smooth transitions help learning The
Journal of Experimental Education70293 315
RenklA AtkinsonR K 2003 Structuring the transition from
example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition A

cognitive load perspective Educational Psychologist3815 27

RenklA HilbertT SchwormS 2009 Example-Based
Learning in Heuristic Domains A Cognitive Load Theory Account
Educational Psychological Review2167 78
SchwormS RenklA 2007 Learning argumentation skills

through the use of prompts for self-explaining examples Journal of

Educational Psychology99285 296

2007
39 2
257 263
2003
1 4 274 277
2005

28 5 1139 1143

500


Reading Model Essay Influenced Pupils' Composition Achievements

WANG Yao ZHANG Qi
Psychology DepartmentLiaoning Normal UniversityDalian 116029

Abstract
Introduction In composition instruction teachers generally recommended for pupils to read some complete model
essaysand rarely used incomplete model essays Howeverthe authors were inspired by the incomplete worked-
example and believed that the results of reading some types of incomplete model essays as well as or may be better
than the results of reading a complete model essay
Method In order to verify the hypothesisthe authors established an evaluating indicator of pupils' narrative
writingand designed one complete model essay and 8 different types of incomplete model essays 300 third-grade
pupils were randomly divided into 10 groups one group was the control group and other 9 groups were
experimental groups All the pupils were asked to write a narrative with the same subject during the first phase of
the experiment in 30 minutes and then tock rest for10 minutes After10 minutesthe pupils of one experimental
group read the complete model essayother 8 experimental group separately read one types of incomplete model
essaysand the control group studied by oneself in scheduled time but did not read anything model essay during the
second phase of the experiment in 10 minutes and then tock rest for10 minutes After10 minutes all the pupils
of the 10 groups pupils were asked to rewrite a narrative with the same subject as the same as before during the third
phase of the experiment in 30 minutes
Results Each composition of the pre and post was assessed by three graduate students which master the evaluating
indicator of pupils' narrative writing and calculated the sub-scores The results showed that the article content post
scores of the experimental groups were all significantly batter than the per scores and the control group The article
frame post scores of the complete model essay groups and 4 incomplete model essays groups were remarkable batter
than the per scores and the control groupand other 4 incomplete model essays groups were not remarkable The
post scores of the good words and sentences of the complete model essay groups and 6 incomplete model essays
groups were remarkable batter than the per scores and the control groupand other 2 incomplete model essays
groups were not remarkable But the post scores with the per scores of the writing mistakes scores of the all
experimental groups and the control groupthere were not significantly difference
Conclusions Third-grade pupils which reading some types of incomplete model essays could improve their
composition achievements as well as or may be better than the results of reading a complete model essaybut some
types of incomplete model essays were not Howeverreading model essays complete or incomplete couldn't
improve the writing mistakes
Key words pupils narrative complete model essay incomplete model essay

501