Toolkit: Fade the Worked Example (and Know When to Let Go)
We turned three sources into one routine. Show a full solution, then remove steps one by one until students solve it alone.
Editorial material Toolkit, n/a (draws on one n = 93 experiment and two reviews) · 60 min to build one faded set · 1st year, with exit ramps for others
About this evidence
- Evidence label
- Editorial material
- Source type
- Toolkit · n/a (draws on one n = 93 experiment and two reviews)
- Design
- Editorial toolkit built on Young et al. 2014, Mostyn 2012 and Halabi et al. 2005
- What we read
- Full text
- Works for
- Any size (print or LMS)
- Time to try
- 60 min to build one faded set
- Level
- 1st year, with exit ramps for others
You've written the perfect worked example on supplies adjustments. Every step is there, colour-coded, with a cheeky note about debits on the left. Six weeks later, though, the same students still want the full solution before they'll pick up a pen.
The good news is that the three papers in this issue suggest the example was the right place to start. So rather than scrapping it, you just need to remove the steps on purpose.
A worked example shows every solution step before students try similar problems. Fading means that support starts full and then shrinks as students gain expertise.
Try this first: solve one adjustment completely, then hand out a version with the last two steps blank. It's our synthesis, not a tested sequence, and the full routine is at the end.
What they found
Young et al. describe a sequence that runs from a worked example to completion problems and then to problem-solving. Completion problems are partly solved, so students fill in the missing steps.
They also describe the expertise-reversal effect. Worked examples help novices, but they may interfere for more advanced learners, who learn more from solving conventional problems.
Mostyn shows what this looks like in accounting. His faded example starts with a $500 opening balance and $6,500 of purchases, with 60% unused at year-end.
Step 1 gives the $7,000 total and step 2 gives the $4,200 remaining, and students fill in the adjustment. Then step 2 is removed as well.
He says the greatest benefit comes when faded examples are paired with an unsolved problem that has a full solution available. For mixed-background classes, he recommends learner control, so students can move on when they're ready.
Halabi et al., meanwhile, found worked examples cut reported effort for novices, with no significant difference for students with prior accounting.
What they did
We read all three papers in full and pulled them together into one routine. Young and colleagues' AMEE Guide (2014) sets out cognitive load theory, which deals with the mind's limited working space.
The guide lists fading guidance and progressive completion among its techniques. Mostyn (2012) then gives an accounting version, which is a supplies adjustment with steps progressively omitted.
Finally, Halabi, Tuovinen and Farley (2005) tested worked examples against problem-solving with 93 introductory accounting students at Monash University.
It's worth being honest about how far that evidence goes.
The reality check: only Halabi et al. is an experiment, and it tested a fixed set of three solved items before five to solve, not a step-by-step faded sequence.
That means fading itself is supported here only by the two reviews' accounts of wider research. And none of the sources tested this exact routine in accounting.
Try this in class next week
- Stage 1, full example: solve one adjustment completely, numbering each step.
- Stage 2, last two steps blank: same structure, new numbers; students work out the adjustment and the entry, then check.
- Stage 3, only step 1 given: if a student gets it wrong, point back to the example.
- Stage 4, solo with a solution: give an unsolved problem with a slight variation in wording, such as "no credit entries in the account". Add a full solution to check against afterwards.
- Exit ramp: open with a short check problem. Anyone who gets it right can go straight to Stage 4.
These suggestions are ours, not the authors'.
After you try it, ask yourself…
- At which faded step did most students first get stuck?
- Did students with prior accounting use the 'skip ahead' check, and did they pass it?
- What would you remove next time, and for whom?
Source card
Young, J. Q., Van Merrienboer, J., Durning, S., & Ten Cate, O. (2014). Cognitive Load Theory: Implications for medical education: AMEE Guide No. 86. Medical Teacher, 36(5), 371–384. Read the paper (doi.org)
Mostyn, G. R. (2012). Cognitive Load Theory: What It Is, Why It's Important for Accounting Instruction and Research. Issues in Accounting Education, 27(1), 227–245. Read the paper (doi.org)
Halabi, A. K., Tuovinen, J. E., & Farley, A. A. (2005). Empirical evidence on the relative efficiency of worked examples versus problem-solving exercises in accounting principles instruction. Issues in Accounting Education, 20(1), 21–32. Read the paper (doi.org) · What we read: full text of all three.
Get next week's ideas in your inbox.
Four evidence-based reads for accounting lecturers, every Friday. Confirm by email; unsubscribe any time. Prefer feeds? RSS.