Enhancing Teaching Strategies through Cognitive Load Theory: Process vs. Product Worked Examples
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe research presents an innovative approach by applying Cognitive Load Theory in ill-structured learning domains. Congratulations on the work done.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
| Please see the attachment. |
|
|
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper investigated the use of ProcessWE and ProductWE in an ill-structured learning domain (namely the New South Wales Quality Teaching Model (NSW QTM)) from the perspective of the cognitive load theory (CLT). The findings of the study came with the conclusion that process-oriented worked examples enhanced cognitive schema construction and automation, resulting in better performance than product-oriented worked examples. More specifically, the study demonstrated that the use of ProcessWE in an ill-structured learning domain aided participants in developing relevant schemas for understanding and applying knowledge in the NSW QTM element of substantive communication. Similarly, ProductWE were found to be more effective than conventional problem-solving methods for learning about substantive communication in the NSW QTM.
It should be noted that there were many places at which many claims were made with no references, all of which are specified in a separate document attached to the online review page. For example, the author made many claims that ‘the use of ProcessWE and ProductWE have been extensively researched [emphasis added] and validated [in well-structured learning domains] [emphasis added] such as Mathematics, Science and Economics [1]’ – by giving only one reference by Sweller, Ayres and Kalyuga’s (2011) study, which is not an up-to-date study. The author made other claims in the paper which must be supported by evidence from literature. The author needs to build his/her discussion in the discussion section on comparing his/her findings with the findings of missing relevant studies that he/she claimed to exist and contradict or support his/her findings. The article needs to bear academic readers better in mind. The reference to old academic sources needs to be minimized, as background information to lead to the topic, and I suggest the author use most up-to-date relevant references.
Methodology
The author provided detailed explanations regarding the methodology of the study. However, the reader does not know the methodology the author followed; it has not been explicitly stated. Please be concise as to whether your work implemented a mixed method approach or not, and why.
Part of the hypothesis that this study was built on was considering the NSW QTM as an ill-structured learning domain, ‘as it lacks clearly defined problem states, solution pathways and predetermined correct answers’. Undoubtedly, the author needs empirical studies or official documents to provide research studies that back up his claims that the NSW QTM is an ill-structured learning domain.
Style
Your introduction seems to be too short and lacking some important elements such as originality, contribution, and more detailed explanations of the aims of the study. You are advised to integrate section 2 (as it includes the former elements) with the introduction.
Very long sentences throughout the paper: The author needs to work on the cohesion and coherence of his/her work. There were several instances of repetition that make the writing looks more like a narration than a scientific/academic argument. The author’s argument/discussions/ claims must be constructed in a more cohesive way by connecting ideas in order to strengthen his/her argument.
Referencing
The in-text-citation was given in the paper by referring to the studies from the literature by numbers instead of (Surname, year). If this - in-text-citation - is related to the journal style, then it is fine; otherwise, the author needs to follow the guidelines of the journal. The cited references used by the author were numbered in the reference list. They were 37 references and all of them were numbered except for three references. This implies that the author did not use those references. They dated back to the 50s, 70s, 80s and 90s. Only four new references were used in the paper and none of them refers to empirical research on the effectiveness of worked examples in general. Also, the author kept giving explanations and claims without supporting them with academic citations (clarifications were given in the attached manuscript of the peer review). Apparently, there is a need to add more relevant and up to date research studies to your study and compare them to your findings.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper investigated the use of ProcessWE and ProductWE in an ill-structured learning domain (namely the New South Wales Quality Teaching Model (NSW QTM)) from the perspective of the cognitive load theory (CLT). The findings of the study came with the conclusion that process-oriented worked examples enhanced cognitive schema construction and automation, resulting in better performance than product-oriented worked examples. More specifically, the study demonstrated that the use of ProcessWE in an ill-structured learning domain aided participants in developing relevant schemas for understanding and applying knowledge in the NSW QTM element of substantive communication. Similarly, ProductWE methods were found to be more effective than conventional problem-solving methods for learning about substantive communication in the NSW QTM.
It should be noted that there are still some parts in the author's paper that needs to be referenced by proper intext citations unless they represent the author's views or criticism. Accordingly, the author is advised to be clear in this matter (please see the attached reviewer's comment for more details).
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
