Teaching expectancy may moderate the non-interactive teaching effect, but this moderation often fails to replicate¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Fiorella and Mayer (2014) found the non-interactive teaching effect was largest when preceded by a teaching expectancy rather than a test expectancy, but other studies could not replicate this moderation. → Lachner 2022

Evidence¶

Lachner 2022¶

Lachner, A., Hoogerheide, V., van Gog, T., & Renkl, A. (2022). Learning-by-Teaching Without Audience Presence or Interaction: When and Why Does it Work? Educational Psychology Review. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09643-4

q2 · i? · review · r3

The review's teaching-expectancy section describes Fiorella and Mayer's (2014) 2 × 2 between-subjects experiment with university students, and notes the moderation could often not be replicated. The review attributes this to the teaching expectancy effect being rather small and studies lacking sample sizes for reliably testing small interaction effects.

"this non-interactive teaching effect was largest when preceded by a teaching expectancy than by a test expectancy. This moderation effect, however, could often not be replicated in other studies (e.g., Hoogerheide et al., 2014, 2016a; Rhoads et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021)"

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Motivation — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

Related Claims¶

• Learning By Teaching Improves Tutor Learning — related
• The effectiveness of each generative learning strategy is subject to potential boundary conditions discussed in the review — a broader claim this one bears on
• Prior knowledge moderates non-interactive teaching: low conceptual knowledge learners profit more, but very low-knowledge learners may not benefit at all — related