How does virtual peer presence relate to learning from video lectures and subsequent explanation generation? The moderated mediating roles of motivation and explanation characteristics

Abstract

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.

Keywords

explanation generation moderated mediation analysis motivation peer presence video lectures

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alemdag

(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

Börger

Spilles

Krull

Hagen

Hennemann

(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

Buck

Losow

Murphy

M. M.

Costanzo

(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

Carpenter

S. 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

Chen

Y. T.

M. 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

Cohen , 1988. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). L. Erlbaum Associates.

Cottrell

N. B.

Wack

D. L.

Sekerak

G. J.

Rittle

R. 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

De Grez

Valcke

Roozen

. (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

Duran

(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

10.

Denollet

(2005). DS14: Standard assessment of negative affectivity, social inhibition, and Type D personality. Psychosomatic Medicine, 67, 89–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000149256.81953.49

11.

Eisenkopf

(2010). Peer effects, motivation, and learning. Economics of Education Review, 29, 364–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2009.08.005

12.

Eitel

(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.

Eitel

Scheiter

Schüler

Nyström

Holmqvist

(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.

Endres

Carpenter

Martin

Renkl

(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.

Fang

Xin

Pang

Gui

Sun

Yang

(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

16.

Feinberg

J. M

Aiello

J. R.

(2006). Social facilitation: A test of competing theories. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(5), 1087–1109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00032.x

17.

Fiorella

(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

18.

Fiorella

Mayer

R. E.

(2016). Eight ways to promote generative learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9

19.

Fiorella

Stull

A. T.

Kuhlmann

Mayer

R. 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

20.

Fukaya

(2013). Explanation generation, not explanation expectancy, improves metacomprehension accuracy. Metacognition & Learning, 8(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-012-9093-0

21.

Hoogerheide

Deijkers

Loyens

S. M. M.

Heijltjes

van Gog

(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.

Hoogerheide

Renkl

Fiorella

Paas

van Gog

(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.

Hoogerheide

Visee

Lachner

van Gog

(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.

Ito

Kakihana

(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

25.

Jacob

Lachner

Scheiter

(2020). Learning by explaining orally or in written form? Text complexity matters. Learning and Instruction, 68, 101344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101344

26.

Jacob

Lachner

Scheiter

(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.

Jacob

Lachner

Scheiter

(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.

Karpicke

(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.

Kobayshi

(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.

Koh

A. W. L.

Lee

S. C.

Lim

S. 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.

Lachner

Backfisch

Hoogerheide

van Gog

Renkl

(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.

Lachner

Burkhart

Nückles

(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.

Lachner

Jacob

Hoogerheide

(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.

Lachner

Neuburg

(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.

Larsen

D. P.

Butler

A. C.

Roediger

H. 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.

Liew

T. W.

Zin

N. A. M.

Sahari

Tan

S. 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.

Mayer

R. E.

(2021). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

38.

McCarty

M. K.

Karau

S. J.

(2017). Social inhibition. In Harkins

S. G.

Williams

K. D.

Burger

J. M.

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of social influence (pp. 165–181). Oxford University Press.

39.

Mendieta-Aragón

Arguedas-Sanz

Ruiz-Gómez

L. M.

Navío-Marco

(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.

Milligan

Littlejohn

(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.

Nickerson

R. 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

42.

Nückles

Hübner

Renkl

(2009). Enhancing self-regulated learning by writing learning protocols. Learning and Instruction, 19(3), 259–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.05.002

43.

Nückles

Roelle

Glogger

Waldeyer

Renkl

(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.

Paas

F. G. W. C.

Van Merriënboer

J. 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.

Liu

Meng

Yang

(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.

Zhang

Shi

Guo

Yang

J. 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.

Zhu

Zhang

Chen

Yang

J. 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.

Roscoe

R. D.

Chi

M. 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.

Rowland

C. 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.

Schober

M. F.

Brennan

S. E.

(2003). Processes of interactive spoken discourse: The role of the partner. In Graesser

A. C.

Gernsbacher

M. A.

Goldman

S. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of discourse processes (pp. 123–164). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

51.

Serra

M. J.

Dunlosky

(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.

Shiban

Schelhorn

Jobst

Hörnlein

Puppe

Pauli

Mühlberger

(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.

Sperling

(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.

Sullivan

N. J.

Huettel

S. 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.

Waldeyer

Heitmann

Moning

Roelle

(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.

Wang

Gong

Cao

Fan

(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.

Wei

C. W.

Chen

N. 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

58.

Wittrock

M. C.

(2010). Learning as a generative process. Educational Psychologist, 45(1), 40–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520903433554.

59.

Zhu

Yang

(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.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB