Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-2
How does virtual peer presence relate to learning from video lectures and subsequent explanation generation? The moderated mediating roles of motivation and explanation characteristics
Finding effective ways to improve students’ learning from video lectures will not only improve online education efficacy, it will also play an important role in the digital transformation of education. Generating written explanations has shown some benefits for learning, and peer presence may be an implementation-related boundary condition. This study tested the impacts of virtual peer presence (presence vs. absence) and generative tasks (generating explanations vs. no generation) on students’ learning in a video-based learning context. Students’ attention, meta-comprehension accuracy, motivation, cognitive load, learning achievements, and explanation characteristics were measured. Results showed some benefits of having a virtual peer, and of generating written explanations on students’ learning. Moreover, mediating analyses revealed the mediating role of motivation between peer presence and learning achievement, and moderated mediating analyses revealed the moderating role of explanation characteristics between peer presence and motivation. Our findings not only extend the understanding of the positive effects of generating written explanations in video-based learning contexts, they also provide implications for improving students’ learning from video lectures as well as optimizing online video lectures.
AlemdagE. (2022). Effects of instructor-present videos on learning, cognitive load, motivation, and social presence: A meta-analysis. Education and Information Technologies, 27(9), 12713–12742. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11154-w
2.
BörgerJ.SpillesM.KrullJ.HagenT.HennemannT. (2022). Fostering university students’ learning performance using the one-take video approach. Active Learning in Higher Education, 24, 305–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/14697874211069524
3.
BuckR.LosowJ.MurphyM. M.CostanzoP. (1992). Social facilitation and inhibition of emotional expression and communication. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 63(6), 962–968. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.6.962
4.
CarpenterS. K. (2009). Cue strength as a moderator of the testing effect: The benefits of elaborative retrieval. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 35(6), 1563–1569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017021
5.
ChenY. T.HoM. C. (2022). Eye movement patterns differ while watching captioned videos of second language vs. mathematics lessons. Learning and Individual Differences, 93, 102106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102106
6.
Cohen, 1988. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates.
7.
CottrellN. B.WackD. L.SekerakG. J.RittleR. H. (1968). Social facilitation of dominant responses by the presence of an audience and the mere presence of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 9(3), 245–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025902
8.
De GrezL.ValckeM.RoozenI. (2012). How effective are self- and peer assessment of oral presentation skills compared with teachers' assessments?Active Learning in Higher Education, 13(2), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1469787412441284
9.
DuranD. (2017). Learning-by-teaching: Evidence and implications as a pedagogical mechanism. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 54(5), 476–484. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2016.1156011
EitelA. (2016). How repeated studying and testing affects multimedia learning: Evidence for adaptation to task demands. Learning and Instruction, 41, 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.10.003
13.
EitelA.ScheiterK.SchülerA.NyströmM.HolmqvistK. (2013). How a picture facilitates the process of learning from text: Evidence for scaffolding. Learning and Instruction, 28, 48–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.05.002
14.
EndresT.CarpenterS.MartinA.RenklA. (2017). Enhancing learning by retrieval: Enriching free recall with elaborative prompting. Learning and Instruction, 49, 13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.010
15.
FangH.XinS.PangH.XuF.GuiY.SunY.YangN. (2021). Evaluating the effectiveness and efficiency of risk communication for maps depicting the hazard of COVID-19. Transactions in GIS, 26(3), 1158–1181. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12814
FiorellaL. (2022). Learning by explaining after pauses in video lectures: Are provided visuals a scaffold or a crutch?Applied Cognitive Psychology, 36(5), 1142–1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3994
FiorellaL.StullA. T.KuhlmannS.MayerR. E. (2020). Fostering generative learning from video lessons: Benefits of instructor-generated drawings and learner-generated explanations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 895–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000408
HoogerheideV.DeijkersL.LoyensS. M. M.HeijltjesA.van GogT. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104469
22.
HoogerheideV.RenklA.FiorellaL.PaasF.van GogT. (2019). Enhancing example-based learning: Teaching on video increases arousal and improves problem-solving performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(1), 45–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000272
23.
HoogerheideV.ViseeJ.LachnerA.van GogT. (2019). Generating an instructional video as homework activity is both effective and enjoyable. Learning and Instruction, 64, 101226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101226
24.
ItoI.KakihanaS. (2009). Why does explanation improve student tutors’ understanding? Effect of presence of a peer. Japanese Journal of Educational Psychology, 57(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.5926/jjep.57.86
JacobL.LachnerA.ScheiterK. (2021). Does increasing social presence enhance the effectiveness of writing explanations?PLoS One, 16(4), e0250406. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0250406
27.
JacobL.LachnerA.ScheiterK. (2022). Do school students’ academic self-concept and prior knowledge constrain the effectiveness of generating technology-mediated explanations?Computers & Education, 182, 104469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104469
28.
KarpickeJ. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412443552
29.
KobayshiK. (2019). Learning by preparing-to-teach and teaching: A meta-analysis. Japanese Psychological Research, 61(3), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1111/jpr.12221
30.
KohA. W. L.LeeS. C.LimS. W. H. (2018). The learning benefits of teaching: A retrieval practice hypothesis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 32(3), 401–410. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3410
31.
LachnerA.BackfischI.HoogerheideV.van GogT.RenklA. (2020). Timing matters! Explaining between study phases enhances students’ learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 841–853. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000396
32.
LachnerA.BurkhartC.NücklesM. (2017). Formative computer-based feedback in the university classroom: Specific concept maps scaffold students’ writing. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 459–469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.03.008
33.
LachnerA.JacobL.HoogerheideV. (2021). Learning by writing explanations: Is explaining to a fictitious student more effective than self-explaining. Learning and Instruction, 74, 101438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101438
34.
LachnerA.NeuburgC. (2019). Learning by writing explanations: Computer-based feedback about the explanatory cohesion enhances students’ transfer. Instructional Science, 47, 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-018-9470-4
35.
LarsenD. P.ButlerA. C.RoedigerH. L. (2013). Comparative effects of test-enhanced learning and self-explanation on long-term retention. Medical Education, 47(7), 674–682. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12141
36.
LiewT. W.ZinN. A. M.SahariN.TanS. M. (2016). The effects of a pedagogical agent’s smiling expression on the learner’s emotions and motivation in a virtual learning environment. International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 17(5), 248–266. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i5.2350
37.
MayerR. E. (2021). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
38.
McCartyM. K.KarauS. J. (2017). Social inhibition. In HarkinsS. G.WilliamsK. D.BurgerJ. M. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence (pp. 165–181). Oxford University Press.
39.
Mendieta-AragónA.Arguedas-SanzR.Ruiz-GómezL. M.Navío-MarcoJ. (2022). Tackling the challenge of peer learning in hybrid and online universities. Education and Information Technologies, 28(4), 4505–4529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11397-7
40.
MilliganC.LittlejohnA. (2017). Why study on a MOOC? The motives of students and professionals. International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 18(2), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i2.3033
41.
NickersonR. S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one's own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737–759. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.737
NücklesM.RoelleJ.GloggerI.WaldeyerJ.RenklA. (2020). The self-regulation-view in writing-to-learn: Using journal writing to optimize cognitive load in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology Review, 32, 1089–1126. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-020-09541-1
44.
PaasF. G. W. C.Van MerriënboerJ. J. G. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 122–133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122
45.
PiZ.LiuC.MengQ.YangJ. (2022). Co-learner presence and praise alters the effects of learner-generated explanation on learning from video lectures. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19, 58. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-022-00363-5
46.
PiZ.ZhangY.ShiD.GuoX.YangJ. M. (2022). Is self-explanation better than explaining to a fictitious student when learning from video lectures?British Journal of Educational Technology, 53(6), 2012–2028. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13230
47.
PiZ.ZhuF.ZhangY.ChenL.YangJ. M. (2022). Complexity of visual learning material moderates the effects of instructor’s beat gestures and head nods in video lectures. Learning and Instruction, 77, 101520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101520
48.
RoscoeR. D.ChiM. T. (2008). Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science, 36(4), 321–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251- 007-9034-5
49.
RowlandC. A. (2014). The effect of testing versus restudy on retention: A meta-analytic review of the testing effect. Psychological Bulletin, 140(6), 1432–1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559
50.
SchoberM. F.BrennanS. E. (2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In GraesserA. C.GernsbacherM. A.GoldmanS. R. (Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 123–164). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
51.
SerraM. J.DunloskyJ. (2010). Metacomprehension judgements reflect the belief that diagrams improve learning from text. Memory, 18(7), 698-711. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2010.506441
52.
ShibanY.SchelhornI.JobstV.HörnleinA.PuppeF.PauliP.MühlbergerA. (2015). The appearance effect: Influences of virtual agent features on performance and motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 49, 5–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.01.077
53.
SperlingM. (1996). Revisiting the writing-speaking connection: Challenges for research on writing and writing instruction. Review of Educational Research, 66(1), 53–86. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170726
54.
SullivanN. J.LiR.HuettelS. A. (2022). Peer presence increases the prosocial behavior of adolescents by speeding the evaluation of outcomes for others. Scientific Reports, 12, 6477. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-10115-0
55.
WaldeyerJ.HeitmannS.MoningJ.RoelleJ. (2020). Can generative learning tasks be optimized by incorporation of retrieval practice?Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 9(3), 355–369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2020.05.001
56.
WangY.GongS.CaoY.FanW. (2023). The power of affective pedagogical agent and self-explanation in computer-based learning. Computers & Education, 195, 104723. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104723
57.
WeiC. W.ChenN. S.Kinshuk. (2012). A model for social presence in online classrooms. Educational Technology Research and Development, 60, 529–545. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-012-9234-9
ZhuF.YangJ.PiZ. (2022). The interaction effects of an instructor’s emotions in instructional videos and students’ emotional intelligence on L2 vocabulary learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 70(5), 1695–1718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-022-10148-2
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
