Search

Abstract Teachers often recommend their students to generate test questions and answers as a means of preparing for an exam. There is a paucity of research on the effects of this instructional strategy. Two recent studies showed positive effects of generating test questions relative to restudy, but these studies did not control for time on task. Moreover, the scarce research available has been limited to the effects of generating open-ended questions. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate whether generating multiple-choice test questions would foster retention (as measured by a multiple-choice test) relative to restudy when time would be kept constant across conditions. Using a 2 × 2 design, university students (N = 143) studied a text with the intention of either generating test items or performing well on a test, and then either generated multiple-choice items or restudied the text. Retention was measured by means of a multiple-choice test, both immediately after learning and after a one-week delay. Results showed no effects of study intention. Generating multiple-choice items resulted in lower test performance than restudying the text for the same amount of time. Highlights • We investigated whether generating multiple-choice (MC) test questions would foster retention. • University students studied a text and then either generated MC test questions or restudied. • Time on task was kept constant and an immediate and delayed posttest administered. • Generating MC test questions resulted in lower test performance than restudy. • When time is limited, students are better off engaging in restudy or other generative strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Learning from (video) modeling examples in which a model demonstrates how to perform a task is an effective instructional strategy. The model-observer similarity (MOS) hypothesis postulates that (perceived) similarity between learners and the model in terms of age or expertise moderates the effectiveness of modeling examples. Findings have been mixed, however, possibly because manipulations of MOS were often associated with differences in example content and manipulations of (perceived) expertise confounded with age. Therefore, we investigated whether similarity with the model in terms of age and putative expertise would affect cognitive and motivational aspects of learning when the example content is kept equal across conditions. Adolescents ( N = 157) watched a short video in which a peer or adult model was introduced as having low or high expertise, followed by two video modeling examples in which the model demonstrated how to troubleshoot electrical circuit problems. Results showed no effects of putative expertise. In contrast to the MOS hypothesis, adult models were more effective and efficient to learn from than peer models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Two experiments investigated whether acting as a peer model for a video-based modeling example, which entails studying a text with the intention to explain it to others and then actually explaining it on video, would foster learning and transfer. In both experiments, novices were instructed to study a text, either with the intention of being able to complete a test (condition A), or being able to explain the content to others (condition B and C). Moreover, students in condition C actually had to explain the text by creating a webcam-video. In Experiment 1 (N = 76 secondary education students) there was no effect of study intention on learning (A = B), but explaining during video creation significantly fostered transfer performance (C > B; C > A). In Experiment 2 (N = 95 university students), study intention did have an effect on learning (C > A; B > A), but only actual video creation significantly fostered transfer performance (C > A). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research with adolescent and university students has shown that after studying a text, teaching its content to a fictitious peer on camera fosters learning compared to restudying. We investigated the effects of generating a teaching video during homework in a sample of primary school students (N = 131) in comparison to restudying and summarizing. Students were provided with a text and a homework assignment over the weekend. The Restudy Condition was instructed to study the text as often as necessary. The Summarizing and Video Condition were instructed to study the text as often as necessary and to then generate a summary or teaching video about the text, respectively. Teaching on video was perceived as more enjoyable than restudying or summarizing, and improved test performance compared to restudying. Teaching on video was not more effective than summarizing; however, summarizing did not improve test performance compared to restudying, as teaching did. • Teaching on video entails explaining learning material to a fictitious student on camera. • We compared effects of teaching on video and summarizing as homework activities for children. • Summarizing did not lead to better test performance than restudy; teaching on video did. • Teaching on video was perceived as more enjoyable than restudying or summarizing. • Teaching on video can be an effective and enjoyable homework activity for children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research has demonstrated that oral explaining to a fictitious student improves learning. Whether these findings replicate, when students are writing explanations, and whether instructional explaining is more effective than other explaining strategies, such as self-explaining, is unclear. In two experiments, we compared written instructional explaining to written self-explaining, and also included written retrieval and a baseline control condition. In Experiment 1 (N = 147, between-participants-design, laboratory experiment), we obtained no effect of explaining. In Experiment 2 (N = 50, within-participants-design, field-experiment), only self-explaining was more effective than our control conditions for attaining transfer. Self-explaining was more effective than instructional explaining. A cumulating meta-analysis on students' learning revealed a small effect of instructional explaining on conceptual knowledge (g = 0.22), which was moderated by the modality of explaining (oral explaining > written explaining). These findings indicate that students who write explanations are better off self-explaining than explaining to a fictitious student. • We compared writing instructional explanations to self-explaining and retrieval. • Self-explaining lead to better test performance than retrieval. • Self-explaining was also more effective than instructional explaining. • Meta-analytic evidence showed only benefits for oral but not written explaining. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]