Prompts affect the learning-by-teaching process and learning outcome in multimedia learning*

doi:10.3724/SP.J.1041.2024.00469

Abstract

Abstract:

This study mainly explores the effects of different types of prompts on the learning-by-teaching process and learning outcomes. Experiment 1 replicated learners who used learning-by-teaching strategies performed better than those who restudied. Experiment 2 included four conditions: picture prompts, text prompts, keyword prompts, and no prompts. The results showed that picture prompts and keyword prompts can effectively improve retention performance, while keyword prompts can also improve transfer performance. In experiment 3, the effects of receiving and generating prompts were compared. The results showed that, on retention test, learners performed better in keyword prompts group and generated prompts group than in the control group, while on transfer test, learners in the generated prompts group perform better than those in the control group. In addition, both experiment 2 and experiment 3 found that the number of idea units played a mediating role in the effect of prompts on learning performance. The conclusions are as follows: (1) Providing picture prompts in learning-by-teaching can promote retention while providing keyword prompts can promote both retention and transfer; (2) Compared to receiving prompts, learners who actively generate prompts can promote transfer better; (3) The number of idea units generated by learners plays a mediating role in the effect of prompts on learning. Above all, the study verified the effectiveness of RPT and GLT in the process of learning by teaching in a multimedia learning environment.

Key words: learning by teaching, prompts, retrieval practice, keyword, generative learning

WANG Fuxing, HUANG Yu, ZHANG Yang, ZHU Wanling, LENG Xiaoxue. (2024). Prompts affect the learning-by-teaching process and learning outcome in multimedia learning^*. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 56(4), 469-481.

Figures/Tables 12

References 53

[1]	Adesope, OO, & Nesbit, JC (2013). Animated and static concept maps enhance learning from spoken narration. Learning and Instruction, 27, 1-10. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.02.002 URL
[2]	Butler, AC, & Roediger, HL (2007). Testing improves long-term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19 (4 - 5), 514-527. doi: 10.1080/09541440701326097 URL
[3]	Cheng, M., Kuang, Z., Leng, X., Zhang, Y., Wang, F. (2023). Teaching to promote learning: the impact of learners’ learning by teaching on learning. Advances in Psychological Science, 31 (5), 769-782. doi: 10.3724/SP.J.1042.2023.00769 URL
[4]	Eitel, A., Scheiter, K., Schüler, A., Nyström, M., & Holmqvist, K. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48-63. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.002 URL
[5]	Fiorella, L. (2022). Learning by explaining after pauses in video lectures: Are provided visuals a scaffold or a crutch? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36 (5), 1142-1149. doi: 10.1002/acp.v36.5 URL
[6]	Fiorella, L., & Kuhlmann, S. (2020). Creating drawings enhances learning by teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (4), 811-822. doi: 10.1037/edu0000392 URL
[7]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, RE (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38 (4), 281-288. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001 URL
[8]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, RE (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. Cambridge University Press.
[9]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, RE (2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28 (4), 717-741. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9 URL
[10]	Fiorella, L., & Mayer, RE (2022). The generative activity principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 339-350). Cambridge University Press.
[11]	Fiorella, L., Pyres, M., & Hebert, R. (2021). Explaining and drawing activities for learning from multimedia: The role of sequencing and scaffolding. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 35 (6), 1574-1584. doi: 10.1002/acp.v35.6 URL
[12]	Fiorella, L., Stull, AT, Kuhlmann, S., & Mayer, RE (2020). Fostering generative learning from video lessons: Benefits of instructor-generated drawings and learner-generated explanations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112 (5), 895-906. doi: 10.1037/edu0000408 URL
[13]	Gallagher, S. E., Dulain, M., Mahony, N., Kehoe, C., McCarthy, F., & Morgan, G. (2017). Instructor-provided summary infographics to support online learning. Educational Media International, 54 (2), 129-147. doi: 10.1080/09523987.2017.1362795 URL
[14]	Harris, PL, Koenig, MA, Corriveau, KH, & Jaswal, VK (2018). Cognitive foundations of learning from testimony. Annual Review of Psychology, 69 (1), 251-273. doi: 10.1146/psych.2018.69.issue-1 URL
[15]	Hiller, S., Rumann, S., Berthold, K., & Roelle, J. (2020). Example-based learning: Should learners receive closed-book or open-book self-explanation prompts? Instructional Science, 48, 623-649. doi: 10.1007/s11251-020-09523-4
[16]	Hoogerheide, V., Deijkers, L., Loyens, SM, Heijltjes, A., & van Gog, T. (2016). Gaining from explaining: Learning improves from explaining to fictitious others on video, not from writing to them. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 44-45, 95-106. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.02.005 URL
[17]	Hoogerheide, V., Loyens, SM, & van Gog, T. (2014). Effects of creating video-based modeling examples on learning and transfer. Learning and Instruction, 33, 108-119. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2014.04.005 URL
[18]	Hoogerheide, V., Renkl, A., Fiorella, L., Paas, F., & van Gog, T. (2019). Enhancing example-based learning: Teaching on video increases arousal and improves problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (1), 45-56. doi: 10.1037/edu0000272
[19]	Horovitz, T., & Mayer, R. E. (2021). Learning with human and virtual instructors who display happy or bored emotions in video lectures. Computers in Human Behavior, 119, 106724. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.106724 URL
[20]	Jacob, L., Lachner, A., & Scheiter, K. (2020). Learning by explaining orally or in written form? Text complexity matters. Learning and Instruction, 68, 101344. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101344 URL
[21]	Kang, SHK, McDermott, KB, & Roediger, HL (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long-term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19 (4-5), 528-558. doi: 10.1080/09541440601056620 URL
[22]	Karpicke, J. D., & Aue, W. R. (2015). The testing effect is alive and well with complex materials. Educational Psychology Review, 27 (2), 317-326. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9309-3 URL
[23]	Karpicke, JD, & Blunt, JR (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331 (6018), 772-775. doi: 10.1126/science.1199327 pmid: 21252317
[24]	Karpicke, J. D., Blunt, J. R., & Smith, M. A. (2016). Retrieval-based learning: Positive effects of retrieval practice in elementary school children. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 350. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00350 pmid: 27014156
[25]	Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24 (3), 401-418. doi: 10.1007/s10648-012-9202-2 URL
[26]	Karpicke, J. D., Lehman, M., & Aue, W. R. (2014). Retrieval-based learning:An episodic context account. In BH Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation (pp. 237-284). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
[27]	Kobayashi, K. (2019). Learning by preparing-to-teach and teaching: A meta-analysis. Japanese Psychological Research, 61 (3), 192-203. doi: 10.1111/jpr.12221
[28]	Koh, A. W. L., Lee, S. C., & Lim, S. W. H. (2018). The learning benefits of teaching: A retrieval practice hypothesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32 (3), 401-410. doi: 10.1002/acp.v32.3 URL
[29]	Kuhlmann, S., & Fiorella, L. (2022). Effects of instructor-provided visuals on learner-generated explanations. Educational Psychology, 42 (9), 1068-1088.
[30]	Lachner, A., Jacob, L., & Hoogerheide, V. (2021). Learning by writing explanations: Is explaining to a fictitious student more effective than self-explaining? Learning and Instruction, 74, 101438. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101438 URL
[31]	Leopold, C., & Leutner, D. (2012). Science text comprehension: Drawing, main idea selection, and summarizing as learning strategies. Learning and Instruction, 22 (1), 16-26. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2011.05.005 URL
[32]	Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
[33]	Mayer, R. E. (2014). The cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43-71). Cambridge University Press.
[34]	Mayer, R. E. (2020). Multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
[35]	Mayer, R. E. (2022). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In RE Mayer & L. Fiorella (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed., pp. 57-72). Cambridge University Press.
[36]	McCabe, J. A. (2015). Learning the brain in introductory psychology: Examining the generation effect for mnemonics and examples. Teaching of Psychology, 42 (3), 203-210. doi: 10.1177/0098628315587617 URL
[37]	Paas, F. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skills in statistics: A cognitive load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84 (4), 429-434. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429 URL
[38]	Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Xu, K., Chen, Y., Yang, J., & Zhao, Q. (2021). Learning by explaining to oneself and a peer enhances learners' theta and alpha oscillations while watching video lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52 (2), 659-679. doi: 10.1111/bjet.v52.2 URL
[39]	Ponce, H. R., Mayer, R. E., & Méndez, E. E. (2022). Effects of learner-generated highlighting and instructor-provided highlighting on learning from text: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 34, 989-1024. doi: 10.1007/s10648-021-09654-1
[40]	Rittle-Johnson, B., & Loehr, A. M. (2017). Eliciting explanations: Constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24 (5), 1501-1510. doi: 10.3758/s13423-016-1079-5 URL
[41]	Roelle, J., & Berthold, K. (2017). Effects of incorporating retrieval into learning tasks: The complexity of the tasks matters. Learning and Instruction, 49, 142-156. doi: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.01.008 URL
[42]	Roelle, J., & Nückles, M. (2019). Generative learning versus retrieval practice in learning from text: The cohesion and elaboration of the text matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111 (8), 1341-1361. doi: 10.1037/edu0000345 URL
[43]	Roscoe, R. D. (2014). Self-monitoring and knowledge-building in learning by teaching. Instructional Science, 42, 327-351. doi: 10.1007/s11251-013-9283-4 URL
[44]	Rowland, C. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140 (6), 1432-1463. doi: 10.1037/a0037559 pmid: 25150680
[45]	Sibley, L., Fiorella, L., & Lachner, A. (2022). It's better when I see it: Students benefit more from open-book than closed-book teaching. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36 (6), 1347-1355. doi: 10.1002/acp.v36.6 URL
[46]	Smith, M. A., Blunt, J. R., Whiffen, J. W., & Karpicke, J. D. (2016). Does providing prompts during retrieval practice improve learning? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30 (4), 544-553. doi: 10.1002/acp.v30.4 URL
[47]	Sweller, J. (2010). Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous and germane cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 22, 123-138. doi: 10.1007/s10648-010-9128-5 URL
[48]	Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J. J, & Paas, F. (2019). Cognitive architecture and instructional design: 20 years later. Educational Psychology Review, 31, 261-292. doi: 10.1007/s10648-019-09465-5
[49]	Waldeyer, J., Heitmann, S., Moning, J., & Roelle, J. (2020). Can generative learning tasks be optimized by incorporation of retrieval practice? Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9 (3), 355-369. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.05.001 URL
[50]	Wittrock, M. C. (1974). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 11 (2), 87-95. doi: 10.1080/00461527409529129 URL
[51]	Wittrock, M. C. (2010). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 45 (1), 40-45. doi: 10.1080/00461520903433554 URL
[52]	Zhang, Q., & Fiorella, L. (2019). Role of generated and provided visuals in supporting learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 59, 101808. doi: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101808 URL
[53]	Zhang, Q., & Fiorella, L. (2021). Learning by drawing: When is it worth the time and effort? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 66 (3), 101990.

Outcome variables		Teaching		Restudy		F	t	p
Outcome variables		M	SD	M	SD	F	t	p
Prior knowledge	Pretest	3.82	1.52	4.64	1.06	5.51	—	0.023
Learning outcome	Retention	14.63	3.08	12.11	3.70	10.83	—	0.002
Learning outcome	Transfer	16.22	4.63	13.65	4.37	5.18	—	0.027
Subjective feelings	Mental effort	7.50	1.11	7.29	1.19	—	0.70	0.487
	Difficulty	6.54	1.38	5.57	1.37	—	2.63	0.011
	Interest	5.39	1.71	5.61	1.93	—	?0.44	0.662
	Motivation	6.21	2.08	6.29	1.68	—	?0.14	0.888

Outcome variables		Teaching		Restudy		F	t	p
Outcome variables		M	SD	M	SD	F	t	p
Prior knowledge	Pretest	3.82	1.52	4.64	1.06	5.51	—	0.023
Learning outcome	Retention	14.63	3.08	12.11	3.70	10.83	—	0.002
Learning outcome	Transfer	16.22	4.63	13.65	4.37	5.18	—	0.027
Subjective feelings	Mental effort	7.50	1.11	7.29	1.19	—	0.70	0.487
	Difficulty	6.54	1.38	5.57	1.37	—	2.63	0.011
	Interest	5.39	1.71	5.61	1.93	—	?0.44	0.662
	Motivation	6.21	2.08	6.29	1.68	—	?0.14	0.888

Outcome variables	Picture		Text		Keyword		Control		F	p
Outcome variables	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
Pretest	4.76	1.30	4.21	1.34	4.17	1.28	4.21	1.48	1.24	0.300
Retention	16.36	2.23	13.79	3.00	16.34	2.44	14.09	3.18	7.70	<.001
Transfer	17.21	4.34	14.94	5.15	18.97	4.35	14.87	4.59	7.04	<.001
Idea units	17.59	2.44	15.57	2.85	17.86	2.08	14.64	3.48	8.58	<.001
Elaborations	0.88	1.13	0.89	1.17	0.90	1.18	0.30	0.57	2.36	0.076
Monitoring	2.38	1.93	2.05	1.36	3.12	1.86	1.57	1.37	4.77	0.004
Mental effort	7.38	0.90	7.29	0.90	7.14	1.25	7.36	1.13	0.23	0.876
Difficulty	6.10	1.63	6.46	1.58	6.17	1.37	6.46	1.50	0.41	0.746
Interest	5.28	1.85	4.64	1.37	4.93	1.94	5.32	1.87	0.94	0.425
Motivation	6.28	1.44	5.75	1.65	5.93	1.56	6.39	1.81	0.94	0.425

Outcome variables	Picture		Text		Keyword		Control		F	p
Outcome variables	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
Pretest	4.76	1.30	4.21	1.34	4.17	1.28	4.21	1.48	1.24	0.300
Retention	16.36	2.23	13.79	3.00	16.34	2.44	14.09	3.18	7.70	<.001
Transfer	17.21	4.34	14.94	5.15	18.97	4.35	14.87	4.59	7.04	<.001
Idea units	17.59	2.44	15.57	2.85	17.86	2.08	14.64	3.48	8.58	<.001
Elaborations	0.88	1.13	0.89	1.17	0.90	1.18	0.30	0.57	2.36	0.076
Monitoring	2.38	1.93	2.05	1.36	3.12	1.86	1.57	1.37	4.77	0.004
Mental effort	7.38	0.90	7.29	0.90	7.14	1.25	7.36	1.13	0.23	0.876
Difficulty	6.10	1.63	6.46	1.58	6.17	1.37	6.46	1.50	0.41	0.746
Interest	5.28	1.85	4.64	1.37	4.93	1.94	5.32	1.87	0.94	0.425
Motivation	6.28	1.44	5.75	1.65	5.93	1.56	6.39	1.81	0.94	0.425

Outcome variable	Generate prompts		Keyword prompts		No prompts		F	p
Outcome variable	M	SD	M	SD	M	SD	F	p
Pretest	4.21	2.23	4.90	1.40	4.52	1.48	1.14	0.324
Retention	16.00	2.73	16.21	2.86	13.10	3.21	10.96	<.001
Transfer	19.72	3.49	17.31	5.12	14.35	5.59	10.02	<.001
Idea units	17.66	2.13	17.86	1.68	15.17	3.01	12.23	<.001
Elaborations	0.83	0.97	0.48	0.69	0.38	0.86	2.39	0.098
Monitoring	2.69	2.00	2.07	1.65	1.91	1.30	1.78	0.176
Mental effort	7.55	0.95	7.21	1.29	7.10	1.26	2.28	0.109
Difficulty	5052	1.64	6.00	1.10	6.10	0.82	1.21	0.304
Interest	5.97	1.96	5.90	1.59	5.34	1.65	1.22	0.302
Motivation	6.55	1.86	6.24	1.77	6.76	1.70	0.79	0.456