Labeling and elaboration manipulations were used in examples to affect the likelihood of students learning to represent workers' rates and times in algebra word problems dealing with work. Learners studying examples with labels for rates and times were more likely to transfer and correctly modify the representations compared to learners who did not see the labels. An elaborative statement describing the possible representations for the different terms in the work equation did not reliably affect performance. These results extend prior work (Catrambone, 1994, 1995) on subgoal learning by demonstrating that representations, not just sets of steps, can be successfully transferred and modified through a manipulation (labeling) that has been shown to aid subgoal learning.

It is hypothesized that when a set of steps in an example solution are labeled, the label can serve as a cue to the learner to group those steps and to attempt to determine their purpose. The resulting subgoal that represents the steps' purpose can aid transfer to novel problems that involve the same subgoal but require new or modified steps to achieve it. The present experiment tested the label-asgrouping-cue hypothesis by examining transfer performance by learners with different math backgrounds who studied examples that used either no labels or labels that varied in meaningfulness. Learners with a stronger math background transferred equally well regardless of the meaningfulness of the label, and better than learners not receiving labels in their examples, while learners with weaker math backgrounds transferred successfully only when they studied examples using meaningful labels. This result is consistent with the claim that the presence of a label, rather that only its semantic content, can be sufficient to induce subgoal learning if the learner has sufficient background knowledge.

Competing theories of analogical reasoning have disagreed on the relative contributions of surface and structural features to the access of analogs. The present experiment attempted to systematically assess how access is affected by the number of surface and structural matches between a currently-read story and one that is presumably in memory. The results suggest that both surface and structural features affected access about equally.

Two views of problem solving procedure generalization are compared in an experiment: the Generalization by Applying Examples (GenApp) and Generalization by Studying Examples (GenStudy) views. The results suggest that learners can acquire a sufficiently general approach for solving novel problems by studying appropriately-designed examples that encourage one to form subgoals to represent a solution procedure. Learners who are led to form a more rote procedure show much less transfer. No evidence was found for generalization through application.

It is hypothesized that labels in examples help learners group a set of steps and to try to explain why those steps belong together. The result of these grouping and selfexplanation processes might be the formation of a subgoal. It is conjectured that the meaningfulness of the label itself might not be critical in order for the grouping and self-explanation processes to occur. This conjecture is supported in an experiment in which subjects studying examples in probability that had steps labeled transferred to novel problems more successfully than subjects whose examples did not contain labels. Furthermore, subjects who saw less meaningful labels transferred as successfully as subjects studying examples with more meaningful labels. Thus, it appears that the meaningfulness of the label does not seem to affect subgoal formation as much as the presence of a label. This result supports the interpretation that subgoal learning is affected by labels and that labels produce this benefit by helping learners group the steps into a purposeful unit, perhaps through a self-explanation process.

Situational interest is the positive affect and sustained attention triggered by particular contexts (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Some studies show interesting information enhances learning while others find it hinders learning, producing the seductive detail effect. Limited evidence suggests the seductive detail effect is weakened if emotionally interesting information is relevant to main ideas. The present research shows the seductive detail effect occurs only under certain conditions. Harp and Mayer (1997) proposed that generating cognitive, rather than emotional, interest is more effective for improving learning by cueing relationships among concepts for easier processing. Hidi and Renninger (2006) argue distinguishing between the emotional and cognitive might be artificial. Present research found benefits from cognitive interest but no support as to whether cognitive interest is necessarily a distinct type of interest from emotional interest. There were some challenges with operationalizing cognitive interest, as well as validating strategies utilized to manipulate cognitive interest levels.