Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Room
Browse By Unit
Browse By Session Type
Browse Sessions by Descriptor
Browse Papers by Descriptor
Browse Sessions by Research Method
Browse Papers by Research Method
Search Tips
Annual Meeting Housing and Travel
Personal Schedule
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
We explore underlying mechanisms of incorrect worked examples, which have shown to be particularly effective for students with low prior mathematics knowledge. Students use a computerized tutor to complete a pretest, worked examples manipulation (designed to target fraction misconceptions), and posttest. Students are randomly assigned to one of five conditions that vary correctness of examples compared to a problem-solving control. Problem-solving practice with feedback was as effective as a combination of correct and incorrect examples. One example type alone was not as effective as a combination. Studying a combination of incorrect and correct examples reduced misconception strength which partially explained improvements on posttest. Further analyses reveal whether varying example types differentially evokes correct reflections which may also explain condition effects.