Acceso usuarios
Andreas Lachner, Andreas Lachner, Vincent Hoogerheide, Tamara van Gog, Alexander Renkl
Previous research has shown that explaining is an effective activity to enhance learning. In prior studies, students were instructed to explain the contents after completing an entire learning phase. Explaining at the end of a learning phase, however, may be less apt to support comprehension monitoring and subsequent regulation activities. In 2 experiments, we investigated whether explaining in earlier phases of studying (i.e., in-between explaining) would foster learning more than explaining after the entire study phase (i.e., afterstudy explaining). In Experiment 1, university students (N = 91) read a text about combustion engines and either explained the contents between the study phases or at the end of the entire study phase. A third group recalled the learning contents aloud at the end of the study phase to control for retrieval-processes that may also be involved in explaining. Results showed no overall effect of explaining in comparison to retrieval practice. However, in-between explaining enhanced students’ conceptual knowledge as compared with afterstudy explaining. Verbal protocol analyses showed that this effect was due to students’ increased monitoring. Experiment 2 (N = 126), had a 2 × 2-factorial design with between-subjects factors timing (in-between vs. afterstudy) and learning activity (explaining vs. written retrieval practice). We found a cascaded trend: In-between learning activities were more effective than afterstudy learning activities, whereas explaining was more effective than written retrieval practice. These findings suggest that the timing of learning activities is crucial to improve learning. Additionally, our findings reveal that explaining is not simply a result of retrieval practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)
