Syntes: Kobayashi (2024) — actually teaching helped only when learners had studied expecting to teach

Källa: Kobayashi, K. (2024). Interactive Learning Effects of Preparing to Teach and Teaching: a Meta-Analytic Approach. Educational Psychology Review 36(1), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-024-09871-4

Verified content

• [abstract] 39 studies: teaching after studying (with or without teaching expectancy) vs merely studying without teaching expectancy, g = 0.27, 95% CI [0.15, 0.39].
• [abstract] Teaching expectancy moderated the effect: teaching after studying with teaching expectancy g = 0.48 [0.34, 0.63]; teaching after studying without teaching expectancy g = −0.02 [−0.14, 0.11], not different from zero.
• [abstract] The moderator effect was independent of the comparison treatment (sophisticated vs unsophisticated learning strategy) and teaching mode (written vs unwritten).
• [abstract] 14 studies: teaching after studying with expectancy vs merely studying with expectancy, g = 0.38 [0.17, 0.60], so the benefit is not only from preparing to teach.

Limits

• [assessment] Abstract only: whether outcomes were immediate or delayed, and the age groups, are not stated in the abstract. The reference list includes children's studies (e.g. a dengue programme with children and parents) and many university experiments.
• [assessment] Same author as the 2018/2019 meta-analysis already in the library (PEER-002); this is a newer, larger analysis with a different question, not a duplicate.

Why it is in the library

Newest meta-analysis by the field's main meta-analyst. Its central result — teaching without having studied to teach gives about zero — is a condition C15's wording does not carry, so it is the strongest lead against C15 found so far.

Added 2026-10-18 by the project (weekly source sweep). [abstract] = from the published abstract; [full text] = read in the full text; [assessment] = the project's own assessment.