Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163

4th World Congress on Technical and Vocational Education and Training (WoCTVET), 5th–6th
November 2014, Malaysia

Efficiency Comparisons between Example-Problem-Based Learning

and Teacher-Centered Learning in the Teaching of Circuit Theory
Noor Hisham Jalania, Lai Chee Sernb*
a
Advanced Technology Training Center (ADTEC), 83000 Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education, University of Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia, 86400 Parit Raja, Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia

Abstract

Two students can achieve the same performance in a test, but with different levels of mental effort in their respective learning
phases. Thus, the combination of mental effort and performance can determine the efficiency of learning, where high efficiency
is associated with high performance and low mental effort, while low performance alongside high mental effort is considered to
be of low efficiency. An experimental study with pre-test and post-test designs was conducted to investigate the effects of
Example-Problem-Based Learning (EPBL) in Circuit Theory teaching and learning on Malaysian first year vocational diploma
students’ performance and mental efforts as well as their efficiencies. The experiment was carried out for eight weeks on 38
students. The EPBL was used in the experimental group, while the existing teaching method based on Teacher-Centered
Learning (TCL) is maintained for the control group. The students completed the Circuit Theory Performance Test and the 9-Point
Mental Effort Rating Scale. The findings of this study indicated that EPBL enhances the students’ test performances with less
mental effort invested during their learning phase and hence, increases the 2-dimensional (2-D) instructional efficiency index in
the learning of Circuit Theory.
© 2015
2015TheTheAuthors.
Authors.Published
Published byby Elsevier
Elsevier Ltd.Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education, University of Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education, University of Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
Keywords: Example-problem-based learning; teacher-centered learning; performance; mental effort; learning efficiency

1. Main text

Most studies based on Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) do not actually measure cognitive load (Van Gog, Paas, &

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +6019-7466595

E-mail address:jnhisham@gmail.com

1877-0428 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of Faculty of Technical and Vocational Education, University of Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.08.128
154 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163

Van Merriënboer, 2008). An argument in support of this claim is that two students can achieve the same
performance in a test, but with different levels of mental effort in their respective learning phases (Van Gog et al.,
2008). For example, if a student is able to demonstrate that method A gives similar results to the learning outcomes
of students using method B, but method A requires less mental effort during learning, then it is more student
friendly to adopt method A in class (Paas & Van Merriënboer, 1993). Simple learning methods require little mental
effort; on the other hand, complex learning methods require more mental effort (Kirschner & Kirschner, 2012). The
combination of mental effort and performance can determine the learning efficiency index. High efficiency is
portrayed by high performance with low mental effort, while low performance with high mental effort in learning is
considered to be of low efficiency (Nievelstein, Van Gog, Van Dijck, & Boshuizen, 2013). Thus, mental effort
should be taken into account as a guide in designing effective learning methods. One of the common teaching
methods in learning theoretical knowledge is the Teacher-Centered Learning (TCL) method.
In the TCL method, activities in class are centered towards the teacher. A teaching method commonly practiced
is the “lecture-practice-test” (Brooks, 2009), where the instructor introduces problems to students through lectures,
followed by problem-solving exercises that must be completed either in class or at home. This learning method
requires lecturers to play an active role (Al-Zu’be, 2013) in presenting and explaining the material to be learned
through lectures and reference notes. However, TCL focuses less on the development of schema; therefore learning
becomes ineffective (Darabi, Sikorski, Nelson, & Palanki, 2006). Development of schema is very important because
the schema is a knowledge structure in long-term memory that allows students to identify problems and determine
the most appropriate measures to solve problems (Kalyuga, Chandler, Tuovinen, & Sweller, 2001; Sweller, 1988).
In addition, TCL is usually practiced without referring to the concept of cognitive load (Tarmizi & Bayat, 2012).
Cooper (1998) categorized cognitive load into three types, namely; intrinsic cognitive load (caused by the
complexity of learning contents), extraneous cognitive load (caused by poor instructional design and activities) and
germane cognitive load (caused by instructional events that enhance learning).
Commonly, TCL involves many extraneous activities (e.g., requiring learners to search out unfamiliar information
to solve problems) which are not directly related to learning (Tarmizi & Bayat, 2012). Those extraneous activities
might induce an extraneous cognitive load, which may deteriorate learning. This situation becomes even more
problematic if it involves a number of interacting elements at the same time, for instance, problem-solving for
Circuit Theory. Circuit Theory is one of the most common difficult theoretical knowledge (Streveler, Litzinger,
Miller, & Steif, 2008). This domain consists of combinations of mathematical formulas and electrical theories,
which causes difficulties in comprehending, leading to increased intrinsic cognitive load (Van Gog, Paas, & Van
Merriënboer, 2006) especially among novice students who have no prior knowledge of the domain. The complexity
of the content (intrinsic nature) causes novice students to use weak strategies such as means-ends-analysis in
problem-solving (Van Gog, Paas, & Van Merriënboer, 2004). According to CLT, means-ends-analysis involves
interaction between a lot of information. This situation will result in too many elements to be processed by the
novice students at a time. Interaction with many pieces of information, in which several of them are irrelevant, leads
to high extraneous cognitive load; hence, it takes high mental effort on the cognitive system (Paas & Van
Merriënboer, 1994; Van Gog et al., 2004). Therefore, revealing the problem-solving exercise to novice students
before they are given the relevant knowledge is likely to cause them to suffer from saturation in cognitive load. High
extraneous cognitive load results from the lack of cognitive resources, and this is the reason why beneficial
cognitive activities cannot be implemented (Van Gog et al., 2006). Since extraneous cognitive load has negative
effects on learning, it should be avoided.
Guidance must be provided to novice students, especially during the early phases of learning (Van Gog et al.,
2008; Renkl, 2005). Example-Based Learning (EBL) has been proposed to be used at initial learning stages because
it is believed that learning with examples might reduce the extraneous cognitive load during learning (Van
Merriënboer & Sweller, 2005). EBL is a problem-solving model that consists of three components: statement of the
problem, solution steps and the final solution to the problem (Renkl & Atkinson, 2003). Through EBL, students
study the worked examples and understand each step of the solution. However, worked examples alone did not
improve students’ performance. The combination of worked examples with self-explanatory prompts seem to
produce differences in performance, problem-solving skills, and self-efficacy (Crippen & Earl, 2007). The main
advantages of EBL are that it prevents students from finding irrelevant information processing methods, it helps
them to concentrate by studying the problem-solving steps provided and it supports them in building problem-
 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163 155

solving schemas in their long-term memories. The positive learning result is known as the worked-example effect
(Atkinson, Derry, Renkl, & Wortham, 2000; Sweller, Van Merriënboer, & Paas, 1998) which allows novice students
to develop stronger cognitive representation and appropriate problem-solving schema gradually (Van Gog et al.,
2006) until they reach expert levels.
However, in the case where students have attained expert levels, EBL may no longer be appropriate because the
positive effects of EBL will be lost when students have sufficient knowledge and skills in a specific domain
(Kalyuga, 2011). Increases in expertise among students will result in lower intrinsic loads imposed on the problems
to be solved; this leaves more space for the processing of cognitive information related to the problems. Expert
students may be familiar with the information given in worked examples and are not motivated to have better
understanding of the information; this results in a passive learning process. Thus, expert students no longer need
guidance as provided by EBL because the information received is considered redundant (Atkinson & Renkl, 2007).
As a result, EBL does not only has no positive effects on learning, it can also be detrimental to expert students (Van
Gog, Kester, & Paas, 2011). In short, at the early stages of knowledge acquisition, novice students will benefit more
from using EBL. After they have gained sufficient knowledge from studying worked examples, the positive effects
of worked examples will disappear. At this stage, learning through problem-solving should be applied since students
have already been equipped with profound domain knowledge. From the perspective of CLT, problem-solving
which imposes a higher cognitive load is more effective and efficient for students who are learning collaboratively
(Kirschner, Paas, Kirschner, & Janssen, 2011). The limited processing capacities of individual students can be
expended by learning in collaboration with other students. As a result, the freed-up cognitive capacities of group
members can consequently be devoted to activities that foster learning (Kirschner et al., 2011).
Theoretically speaking, combining both worked-examples (individual self-explanatory prompt) and problem-
solving (collaboratively discussed with group members) might be an effective learning strategy that guides learners
to go through several stages of cognitive development: starting from novice stages and advancing to expert stages.
This new approach is termed Example-Problem-Based Learning (EPBL). To date, there is not much empirical
evidence to support the claim that EPBL is beneficial in terms of efficiency compared to the TCL approach.

2. Methods

2.1. Participants

The participants of this study were 38 students from the DEM1313 Circuit Theory course at the Advanced
Technology Training Centre (ADTEC) in Malaysia. The experimental sample consisted of 5 (13.2%) females and
33 (86.8%) males. The average age of the participants is 20.82 years (SD = 0.87). The participants were randomly
assigned to one of the two treatment conditions: (a) EPBL as an experimental group (n = 19), and (b) TCL as a
control group (n = 19). All the participants have not yet been exposed to any forms of instruction on Circuit Theory
before participating in this study. Based on a pre-test administered one week prior to the learning phase, prior
knowledge concerning Circuit Theory related topics was found to be approximately equal for all participants.

2.2. Design

This study employed a true experimental research using pre-test and post-test designs. Participants (R) were
randomly assigned into either the experimental group (E1) or control group (E2). In the first week of the experiment,
a pre-test (Oa1) was conducted. The treatment phase began in the second week and lasted until the ninth week of the
experiment. Both groups were given treatments based on the two different learning methods, namely the Example-
Problem-Based Learning (XEPBL) method and the Teacher-Centered Learning (XTCL) method. At the end of each
learning session, the mental effort (b1) investment allocated to the learning process was measured. Finally, a post-
test (Oa2) was given out in the tenth week of experiment. The experimental pre-test and post-test results are
presented in Table 1.
156 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163

Table 1: An experimental design

Group Pre-Test Treatment Post-Test
E1 Oa1 XEPBL, b1 Oa2
E2 Oa1 XTCL, b1 Oa2

2.3. Materials

Sets of pencil-paper materials consisting of a demographic questionnaire, a pre-test, EPBL materials, and a post-test
were distributed among the participants.

Demographic questionnaire: The questionnaire collected basic demographic data (age, gender, and ethnicity). It
also asked the participants whether they had ever learned about Circuit Theory before.

Learning material: The EPBL process materials consist of the main learning concepts; its worked-example and
problem-solving methods are presented in Fig. 1. The explanations will be generated in a written form instead of
verbal form. This is because in a classroom setting, generating verbal explanations might prove disturbing and
distracting for other students (Lai, Spöttl, & Straka, 2011).

Parallel circuit is a circuit containing multi-loads with more than one path for the current to
flow from the voltage source. The current flows through loads and return to the source.
I
Main I1 I2 I3
The total value of resistance, RT for a
Concept
parallel circuit is as follows: R1 R2 R3
1 1 1 1
= + +
RT R1 R2 R3

Problem statement:
You have a stock of each of the resistors: 220Ÿ, 330Ÿ and 560Ÿ. If all resistors are
connected in parallel, determine the total value of the resistors.

Solution steps:
Step 1 - draw and label the circuit with 220Ÿ 330Ÿ 560Ÿ
resistors in parallel order.

Step 2 - identify the appropriate formula: total resistance in a parallel circuit is

1 1 1 1
Worked- = + +
Example RT R1 R2 R3
Step 3 - enter the value of each resistance to the formula for calculating resistance of the
parallel circuit.
1 1 1 1
= + +
RT 220 330 560
RT = 107Ω

Final Answer:
The total value of resistance connected in parallel is 107Ÿ.
You have a stock of each of the resistors: 470Ÿ, 560Ÿ and 680Ÿ. If all resistors are
Problem-
connected in parallel, determine the total value of the resistor. Show your solution with an
Solving
appropriate circuit.
Fig. 1. The example of EPBL process
 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163 157

Performance test: The performance test is divided into two parts: (a) the first part contained 20 multiple-choice
questions relating to the physical meaning of electrical current, voltage, resistance, and elementary properties of
electrical circuits. The participants could select from four choices to respond to each question; and (b) the second
part contained 10 complex problems; more specifically, five problems were designed to measure near-transfer
learning and the other five problems are to assess far-transfer learning.

Mental effort rating: The Paas mental effort rating (Paas, Tuovinen, Tabbers, & Van Gerven, 2003) was used to
measure cognitive load by recording the perceived mental effort expended in solving a problem in the learning
sessions. It was a 9-point symmetrical Likert scale measurement on which subjects rated their mental efforts used in
performing a particular learning task, ranging from (1) “very low mental effort” to (9) “very high mental effort”.
This scale is widely used in educational research (Paas et al., 2003;Van Gog & Paas, 2008).

2.4. Instruction

Experimental group: Each cycle of the EPBL process involves three stages of learning: (a) firstly, students are
given short lectures for each sub-topic by a facilitator to provide basic knowledge of the principles and concepts; (b)
students receive worked-examples on sub-topics complete with its solution steps and final answer. Students are
required to study and understand individually each of the steps, as they are self-explanatory; (c) finally, students are
given problem-solving exercises to improve their speed and accuracy on problem-solving. Students should solve the
problems collaboratively by discussing with group members. Then, the groups take turns in presenting their
proposed solutions. The facilitators provide immediate feedback to each group.
Control group: The procedures for the control group (TCL) were retained according to the existing setting: (a)
firstly, students are introduced with the main knowledge consisting of basic concepts, facts, and definitions on
Circuit Theory; (b) then, students worked on the to-be-solved problems which requires them to apply the knowledge
they attained from the lectures; (c) finally, the final answers are provided as practice feedback. The lectures were
conducted weekly (all together 8 weeks) for two hours in a classroom, in parallel with the experimental group’s time
frame.

2.5. Performance Test

In this study, the performance test consisted of two parts: (a) conceptual knowledge test (principles and
concepts); and, (b) procedural knowledge test (near-transfer and far-transfer). The performance test scores were
cumulative of both conceptual knowledge test and procedural knowledge test. The conceptual knowledge test had
comprised of 20 multiple-choice questions based on topics of serial, parallel, serial-parallel circuit, Ohm's Law,
Kirchhoff's Voltage Law, and Kirchhoff’s Current Laws, which had to be answered within thirty minutes. The
overall total score of the conceptual knowledge test was 20. The reliability index using the Kunder-Richardson 20
(KR-20) coefficient was 0.54. Meanwhile, the procedural knowledge test had comprised of 10 open-ended
questions. Specifically, 5 items were for near-transfer (ability of students to apply content knowledge and concepts
learnt to the same work situation); and 5 items were for far-transfer (ability of students to apply content knowledge
and concepts learnt even if the work environment is not the same as in learning sessions). For a correct solution in
near-transfer questions, three points were awarded. Partial marks were given for partially correct solutions (between
0 and 3 points). For a correct solution in far-transfer questions, five points were awarded. Partial marks were given
for partially correct solutions (between 0 and 5 points). We obtained sufficient reliability (Cronbach’s Alpha) for the
transfer scales; 0.74, which is acceptable for research purposes (Ary, Jacobs, & Sorensen, 2010). An example of a
performance test item is described in Fig. 2.

2.6. Mental Effort Rating Scale

Mental effort reflects the actual cognitive load, that is, the cognitive capacity allocated by individuals to meet the
requirements of the task (Paas et al., 2003). At the end of each learning session, students were required to indicate
the amount of mental effort expended for that particular question by responding to a 9-point symmetrical scale. With
regard to the reliability of mental-effort rating scale, the present study had obtained sufficient reliability (Cronbach’s
Alpha) of 0.79.
158 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163

Knowledge Acquisition Learning Transfer

Near-Transfer:
You have a stock of each of the resistors:
120Ÿ, 120Ÿ and 180Ÿ. If all resistors are
connected in parallel, determine the total value
of the resistor.
If a connection follows the above method, determine the Far-Transfer:
voltage of these bulbs A technician has a stock of the following
A. Voltage for bulb X, Y and Z are equal at 1.5 volt. colour-coded resistors: four 68Ÿ, five 82Ÿ, two
B. Voltage for bulb X is 1.5 volt, while bulb Y and Z are 120Ÿ, three 180Ÿ, two 330Ÿ, and one each of
0 volt. 470Ÿ, 560Ÿ, 680Ÿ, and 820Ÿ. A circuit being
C. The value of voltage in bulb Z is bigger than the designed needs a 37Ÿ resistance. Find the
voltage in bulb X. combination of resistors, using the least
D. The value of voltage in bulb X is bigger than the possible number of components that will satisfy
voltage in both bulbs Y and Z. the design requirements.
(Masek, 2012)
Fig. 2. The example of performance test item

2.7. Learning Efficiency

Learning efficiency can be determined based on the ratio of test performance to mental effort invested (Paas &
Van Merriënboer, 1993). Scores of test performance and mental effort invested during the learning phase are
standardized by calculating revenue minus raw data (r) with the mean value (M) and divided by the standard
deviation (SD) of raw data as shown in Equation 1.

r−M
z= (1)
SD
Then, learning efficiency (E) was assessed based on the average standard score (z-score) test performance (zP)
achieved by students and mental effort exerted during the learning task (zR) (Van Gog & Paas, 2008) as shown in
Equation 2. Note that square root 2 in this formula comes from the general formula for the calculation of distance
from a point, p(x, y), to a line, ax+by+c=0. Refer to Table 2 for z-score and efficiency calculation.

zP − zR
E= (2)
2
The sign for learning efficiency (E) is dependent on (zP) and (zR), according to the following rules: If (zP-zR) > 0,
then (E) is positive; if (zP-zR) < 0, then (E) is negative; and if (zP=zR), then (E) is zero. Subsequently, graphics are
used to display the information on a 2-dimensional (2-D) Cartesian axis, with (zR) on the x-axis and (zP) on the y-
axis.
 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163 159

Table 2: The calculation of z-score and efficiency

Raw Data z-score Raw Data z-score

Efficiency

Efficiency
Performance

Performance

Performance

Performance
Student

Student
Group

Group
Mental

Mental

Mental

Mental
Effort
Effort

Effort

Effort
Test

Test

Test

Test
1 36.25 5.00 -0.70 0.44 -0.81 1 36.25 4.75 -0.70 0.25 -0.67
2 70.00 4.63 1.45 0.15 0.92 2 35.00 3.75 -0.78 -0.55 -0.17
3 58.75 2.75 0.73 -1.34 1.47 3 42.50 5.50 -0.30 0.84 -0.81
4 65.00 2.50 1.13 -1.54 1.89 4 40.00 5.75 -0.46 1.04 -1.06
5 67.50 3.00 1.29 -1.14 1.72 5 20.00 5.63 -1.74 0.94 -1.90
6 75.00 2.00 1.77 -1.94 2.62 6 27.50 4.63 -1.26 0.15 -1.00
7 47.50 4.50 0.01 0.05 -0.02 7 35.00 6.13 -0.78 1.34 -1.50
8 50.00 3.63 0.17 -0.64 0.58 8 62.50 6.00 0.97 1.24 -0.19
Experimental

9 38.75 3.50 -0.54 -0.75 0.14 9 82.50 4.88 2.25 0.35 1.35

Control
10 65.00 2.25 1.13 -1.74 2.03 10 40.00 5.50 -0.46 0.84 -0.92
11 66.25 3.38 1.21 -0.84 1.45 11 30.00 4.63 -1.10 0.15 -0.89
12 30.00 6.00 -1.10 1.24 -1.66 12 41.25 5.13 -0.38 0.55 -0.66
13 38.75 5.25 -0.54 0.64 -0.84 13 42.50 4.75 -0.30 0.25 -0.39
14 43.75 5.25 -0.23 0.64 -0.61 14 46.25 2.38 -0.07 -1.63 1.11
15 75.00 3.50 1.77 -0.75 1.78 15 38.75 5.38 -0.54 0.75 -0.91
16 42.50 4.75 -0.30 0.25 -0.39 16 27.50 5.25 -1.26 0.64 -1.35
17 67.50 3.25 1.29 -0.94 1.58 17 45.00 6.25 -0.15 1.44 -1.12
18 48.75 2.75 0.09 -1.34 1.02 18 32.50 5.88 -0.94 1.14 -1.48
19 52.50 2.88 0.33 -1.24 1.11 19 32.50 5.63 -0.94 0.94 -1.34
Grand Mean (M) 40.17 4.83
Standard Deviation (SD) 10.90 1.09

3. Results

This section presents the results for prior knowledge (pre-test performance), mental effort invested during the
learning phase and achievements (post-test performance). The effect size was determined according to d Cohen
(Cohen, 1992) .

3.1. Pre-Test Phase

The pre-test was employed in order to assess the students’ prior knowledge of Circuit Theory. The pre-test was
administrated to all participants one week prior to the learning phase. The participants’ average score was 25.66 (SD
= 4.94) and 26.32 (SD = 5.87) for the experimental group and control group, respectively. There were no
statistically significant differences between the average score in both pre-tests assigned to the two treatment groups,
[t (36) = -.374, p > 0.05]. Therefore, prior knowledge concerning Circuit Theory was found to be approximately
equal for all participants.
160 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163

3.2. Learning Phase

The calculation for mental effort was obtained by dividing the perceived mental effort by the total number of
lesson sessions for each student during the learning phase. Out of a possible 9-points rating of mental effort, the
participants’ mean scores and standard deviation for the learning phase problems was 3.72 (SD = 1.16) and 5.15 (SD
= 0.92) for experimental and control group, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the
average mental effort used during the learning phase based on the scores of participants assigned to the two
treatment groups, [t (36) = -4.19, p < 0.05]. The effect size was large (d Cohen = 1.36). The results showed that
there was a significant main effect of instructional strategy on mean mental effort invested during the learning
phase.

3.3. Post-Test Phase

The exploratory data analysis was conducted for all data collected in this phase. Students’ performance was
measured using the post-test. The participants’ average score was 56.67 (SD = 14.12) and 39.87 (SD = 13.71) for
the experimental group and control group, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between the
average pre-test scores of the participants assigned to the two treatment groups, [t (36) = 3.279, p < 0.05]. The effect
size was large (d Cohen = 1.21). The results showed that there was a significant main effect of instructional strategy
on test performance concerning Circuit Theory.

3.4. Efficiency

The mean score on learning efficiency for the experimental group was 0.74 (SD = 1.18) and for the control group
was -0.73 (SD = 0.82). Hence, this indicates that the experimental group performed better on the learning transfer
test as compared to the control group. The t-test performed on learning efficiency showed a significant main effect
of the type of instructional strategy, [t (36) = 4.44, p < 0.05]. The effect size was large (d Cohen = 1.44). The results
showed that there was a significant main effect of instructional strategy on learning efficiency. The 2-D learning
efficiency is indicated at the octant when the test performance z-scores are greatest and the mental effort z-score are
the least. The z-score of test performance and learning task's mental effort are presented in Table 3. Then, the z-
scores quantities are plotted on a 2-D graph; mental effort on the x-axis and performance on the y-axis, as presented
in Fig. 3. In this case, the EPBL strategy (experimental group) is plotted in the positive efficiency (0.47, -0.56),
while the TCL strategy (control group) is plotted in the negative efficiency (-0.47, 0.56). This means the EPBL
strategy is better than the TCL strategy because it shows high test performance with low mental effort. On the other
hand, TCL strategy showed low test performance with high mental effort.

Table 3: z-score of variables

z-score Mean
Variables
Experimental Control
Test Performance
0.47 -0.47
(M = 40.17; SD = 10.90)
Mental Effort
-0.57 0.56
(M = 4.83; SD = 1.09)
 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163 161

Test
Performance
Z-Score

Zero Efficiency
High Efficiency
1

Experimental Group
(0.47, -0.57)

Mental Effort
Z-Score

-1 1

(-0.47, 0.56)
Control Group

-1
Low Efficiency

Fig. 3. The 2-D learning efficiency

4. Discussion

The aim of the current study is to compare the effects of EPBL and TCL strategies on performance, specifically
on knowledge acquisition, learning transfer, mental effort, and learning efficiency of vocational diploma-level
students on Circuit Theory.
Performance test: We predicted that students in the EPBL group would outperform their peers in the TCL group
on the performance test. This prediction was confirmed and the results of this study reaffirmed earlier studies
(Lewis, 2008; Rourke & Sweller, 2009), where combinations of worked-examples and problem-solving contribute
in increasing students’ knowledge acquisition; in which the knowledge acquired have been more strongly
entrenched and better automatized, allowing it to be used on novel problems. Worked-examples provide novice
students with the relevant domain-specific knowledge and organize the information in a manner that increases the
probability of schema development and students' success in problem-solving. Participants in the EPBL group are
able to apply parts of the relevant procedures to new problems. They also have a deeper understanding of the
rationale behind the solution steps; they not only know the procedural steps to complete the task, but also understand
when to use the different steps and how they work.
Mental effort: In the context of this study, low mental effort in the EPBL group can be justified from several
perspectives. First, the use of means-ends analysis that generates extraneous cognitive load can be avoided through
worked-examples. Extraneous load rate is reduced by preventing students from irrelevant search processes so that
students can concentrate all their working-memory capacity to study the problem-solving and built schemes in their
long-term memory. Second, extraneous load of 'search-and-match' processes that cause split-attention effects was
also reduced by integrating learning information. Circuit Theory presented in an integrated format aims to prevent
students from dividing their attention from their mental skills in combining such information. Third, the problem-
solving phase in EPBL conducted in groups also contributed to the reduction of mental effort rather than individual
learning (Kirschner et al., 2011; Tabatabaee et al., 2013). According to the CLT, members of a group will form a
working-memory capacity larger than an individual when completing a task. Individuals’ working-memory is
limited in terms of storage and processing of information. Therefore, the limitations of working-memory capacity at
the individual level are considered as an important reason why the complex learning task must be completed in
162 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163

groups rather than individually.

Learning efficiency: Finally, in terms of learning efficiency, EPBL was instructionally more efficient compared
to the TCL strategy. Learning performance is not dependent on the quantity of mental effort invested to learning
tasks (Lai, 2010). Thus, the use of EPBL has enhanced learning conditions and has reduced extraneous cognitive
load which in turn can create optimal learning conditions. Learning by studying worked-examples would lead to
better learning outcomes and is more efficient for novice students, whereas learning by problem-solving would lead
to better learning outcomes (effectiveness) and is more efficient for expert students.
Overall, this finding indicates that the use of EPBL has improved learning and reduced extraneous cognitive load
which in turn can create optimal learning conditions. EPBL enables students to acquire the cognitive schema that
can guide them in solving given problems. Students are better equipped to filter out extraneous information and
optimize the cognitive resources available to develop problem-solving schema in their long-term memory. Teaching
will be effective if the achievement is maximized and at the same time the required amount of cognitive load is
minimized (Reisslein, Atkinson, Seeling, & Reisslein, 2006). Thus, EPBL instructional methods are more efficient
than TCL.
Future Research: Metrics in determining the learning efficiency (E) in this study was limited to 2-dimensional
(2D), i.e., test performance (ZP) and mental effort (ZR) during the learning phase. Future research is proposed to
consider a third dimension, namely the amount of time (ZT) for the learning phase. The metric combination of 3-
dimensional (3D) can be written as Equation 3:

z P − z R − zT
E= (3)
3
3D metric is more accurate because there is a time factor. Cognitive load is related to the amount of time
involved during learning.

5. Conclusion

The current research findings proves that EPBL leads to better test performance (Jalani & Lai, 2014a, 2015) with
less mental effort invested during learning (Jalani & Lai, 2014b) as well as more efficient learning. As a conclusion,
more efficient and effective instructional designs can be developed if the limited capacity of working-memory is
taken into consideration.

References

Al-Zu’be, A. F. M. (2013). The difference between the learner-centred approach and the teacher-centred approach in teaching English as a
foreign language. Educational Research International, 2(2), 24–31.
Ary, D., Jacobs, L. C., & Sorensen, C. (2010). Introduction to research in education. 8th Edition. Wadswoth, USA: Cencage Learning. Pp. 249.
Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples
research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214.
Atkinson, R. K., & Renkl, A. (2007). Interactive example-based learning environments: Using interactive elements to encourage effective
processing of worked examples. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 375–386.
Brooks, C. D. (2009). Effects of process-oriented and product-oriented worked examples and prior knowledge on learner problem solving and
attitude: A study in the domain of microeconomics. PhD Thesis, The Florida State University.
Cohen, J. (1992). Quantitative methods in psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159.
Cooper, G. (1998). Research into cognitive load theory and instructional design at UNSW. University of New South Wales, (December).
Crippen, K. J., & Earl, B. L. (2007). The impact of web-based worked examples and self-explanation on performance, problem solving, and self-
efficacy. Computers & Education, 49(3), 809–821. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2005.11.018
Darabi, A. A., Sikorski, E. G., Nelson, D. W., & Palanki, S. (2006). Efficient, motivational, and effective strategies for complex learning:
Computer-based simulation. Tech. Inst. Cognition and Learning, 3, 233–247.
Jalani, N. H., & Lai, C. S. (2014a). Effects of example-problem based learning on transfer performance in Circuit Theory. Journal of Technical
Education and Training (JTET), 6(2), 28–37.
Jalani, N. H., & Lai, C. S. (2014b). Kesan pembelajaran berasaskan contoh-masalah dan pembelajaran pemusatan guru terhadap usaha mental
pelajar dalam domain Teori Litar. JuKu: Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, 2(4), 10–19.
Jalani, N. H., & Lai, C. S. (2015). Perbandingan kesan pembelajaran berasaskan contoh-masalah dan pembelajaran pemusatan-guru terhadap
pemerolehan pengetahuan pelajar. JuKu: Jurnal Kurikulum & Pengajaran Asia Pasifik, Januari 20(1).
 Noor Hisham Jalani and Lai Chee Sern / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 204 (2015) 153 – 163 163

Kalyuga, S. (2011). Informingௗ: A cognitive load perspective. Informing Science: The International Journal of an Emerging Transdiscipline, 14.
Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., Tuovinen, J. E., & Sweller, J. (2001). When problem solving is superior to studying worked examples. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 93(3), 579–588.
Kirschner, F., Paas, F., Kirschner, P., & Janssen, J. (2011). Differential effects of problem-solving demands on individual and collaborative
learning outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 587–599.
Kirschner, P., & Kirschner, F. (2012). Mental effort. Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning. Retrieved February 07, 2013, from
http://dspace.ou.nl/bitstream/1820/4713/1/Mental Effort - Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning - Kirschner-Kirschner.pdf
Lai, C. S. (2010). Learning with worked-out problems: The impacts of instructional explanation and self-explanation prompts on transfer
performance. Journal of Technical Education and Training (JTET), 2(2), 1–14.
Lai, C. S., Spöttl, G., & Straka, G. A. (2011). Learning with worked-out problems in manufacturing technology: The effects of instructional
explanations and self-explanation prompts on acquired knowledge,. Universitat Bremen.
Lewis, D. (2008). The acquisition of procedural skills: An analysis of the worked-example effect using animated demonstrations. PhD Thesis,
University of South Florida.
Masek, A. (2012). The effects of problem based learning on knowledge acquisition, critical thinking ability, and intrinsic motivation of electrical
engineering students. PhD Thesis. Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia.
Nievelstein, F., Van Gog, T., Van Dijck, G., & Boshuizen, H. P. a. (2013). The worked example and expertise reversal effect in less structured
tasks: Learning to reason about legal cases. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(2), 118–125. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2012.12.004
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. M. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load
theory. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 63–71.
Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. . (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load
approach. Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133.
Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (1993). The efficiency of instructional conditions: An approach to combine mental effort and performance
measures. Human Factors, 35(4), 737–743.
Reisslein, J., Atkinson, R. K., Seeling, P., & Reisslein, M. (2006). Encountering the expertise reversal effect with a computer-based environment
on electrical circuit analysis. Learning and Instruction, 16(2), 92–103.
Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out-example principle in multimedia learning. In R. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning .
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.
Renkl, A., & Atkinson, R. K. (2003). Structuring the transition from example study to problem solving in cognitive skill acquisition: A cognitive
load respective. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 15–22.
Rourke, A., & Sweller, J. (2009). The worked-example effect using ill-defined problems: Learning to recognise designers’ styles. Learning and
Instruction, 19(2), 185–199. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.03.006
Streveler, R. A., Litzinger, T. A., Miller, R. L., & Steif, P. S. (2008). Learning conceptual knowledge in the engineering sciences: Overview and
future research directions. Journal of Engineering Education, (July), 279–294.
Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–285.
Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology
Review, 10(3), 251–296.
Tabatabaee, S. M., Rajabpour, M., Abdoos, F., Malekirad, A., & Samadi, F. (2013). The impacts of individual and collaborative learning of
worked out examples on problem-solving transference and cognitive load. Advances in Applied Science Research, 4(6), 219–224.
Retrieved from http://pelagiaresearchlibrary.com/advances-in-applied-science/vol4-iss6/AASR-20130-4-6-219-224.pdf
Tarmizi, R. A., & Bayat, S. (2012). Collaborative problem-based learning in mathematics: A cognitive load perspective. Procedia Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 32(2011), 344–350.
Van Gog, T., Kester, L., & Paas, F. (2011). Effects of concurrent monitoring on cognitive load and performance as a function of task complexity.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(4), 584–587. doi:10.1002/acp.1726
Van Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2008). Instructional efficiency: Revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educational Psychologist,
43(1), 16–26.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2004). Process-oriented worked examples: Improving transfer performance through enhanced
understanding. Instructional Science, (32), 83–98.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2006). Effects of process-oriented worked examples on troubleshooting transfer performance.
Learning and Instruction, 16, 154–164.
Van Gog, T., Paas, F., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2008). Effects of studying sequences of process-oriented and product-oriented worked
examples on troubleshooting transfer efficiency. Learning and Instruction, 18, 211–222.
Van Merriënboer, J. J. G., & Sweller, J. (2005). Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions.
Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177.