Learning by writing explanations: Is explaining to a fictitious student more effective than self-explaining?
Adults / lifelong learning Learning from other people
Links to claims
Limits (1)
| Claim | Basis |
|---|---|
| C15 | Cumulating meta-analysis (18 studies): explaining to a fictitious student helped conceptual knowledge when spoken (g = 0.34) but not when written (g = −0.07, 6 comparisons); immediate and delayed tests pooled. Cited in open question 13. |
Review state: first-pass draft, pending human review.
Source note
Syntes: Learning by writing explanations: Is explaining to a fictitious student more effective than self-explaining? (2021)
Källa: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101438 (Learning and Instruction 74, 101438)
Verified content
- [full text] Experiment 1 (N = 147 German university students, lab): written explaining to a fictitious student, written self-explaining, written retrieval and a no-activity control after studying a text; immediate posttest; no significant differences on conceptual knowledge or transfer.
- [full text] Experiment 2 (N = 50, within-participants field experiment): only self-explaining beat the control conditions on transfer; self-explaining beat explaining to a fictitious student (d = 0.59).
- [full text] Cumulating meta-analysis of all published, peer-reviewed English studies the authors knew that compared explaining to a fictitious student after a study phase with a control such as restudy or retrieval (12 articles, 18 studies; 23 conceptual-knowledge comparisons, 6 written and 17 oral): conceptual knowledge g = 0.222 (95% CI 0.064 to 0.380, p = .006; Q(22) = 56.13); modality moderated it (QM(1) = 6.42, p = .011): oral g = 0.336 (0.158 to 0.513), written g = −0.070 (−0.292 to 0.152, p = .535). Transfer (13 comparisons): g = 0.155 (−0.026 to 0.335, p = .093), no modality moderation (p = .227).
- [full text] The authors note their own posttests were immediate and that generative activities may show more after a delay.
Limits
- [assessment] The meta-analysis pools immediate and delayed tests and does not split them; most written comparisons used immediate tests; only six written comparisons. Controls mix restudy and retrieval.
- [assessment] Bears on C15: points to a modality limit (spoken, not written, explaining helps) but does not test C15's delayed outcome directly; held as open question 13 (2026-10-20).
Added 2026-10-20 by the project (nightly attack run, widened search for C15). [abstract] = from the published abstract; [full text] = read in the full text; [assessment] = the project's own assessment.
Metadata as recorded
- ID
- PEER-009
- Tier
- experiment (two experiments plus a continuously cumulating meta-analysis of 18 studies)
- Titel
- Learning by writing explanations: Is explaining to a fictitious student more effective than self-explaining?
- Författare
- Lachner, A.; Jacob, L.; Hoogerheide, V.
- År
- 2021
- Källa/DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101438
- Tidskrift
- Learning and Instruction 74, 101438
- Typ
- peer-reviewed article (lab experiment N = 147; field experiment N = 50; cumulating meta-analysis, 12 articles, 18 studies, 23 conceptual-knowledge comparisons, 6 of them written)
- Åldersgrupp
- vuxen-livslangt
- Teman
- larande-fran-andra
- Hämtad
- 2026-10-20
- Verifierad
- Crossref metadata (title, three authors, Learning and Instruction 74, article 101438, 2021) checked 2026-10-20
- Tillagd
- nightly attack run 2026-10-20 (C15, held as open question 13); links pending human review
The original files (PDF or abstract) are kept in the project archive and are not published here.