Learning by explaining after pauses in video lectures: Are provided visuals a scaffold or a crutch?

Fiorella, Logan

doi:10.1002/acp.3994

Cited by 8 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Separate from our predictions, we found that students who taught with provided visuals or words engaged in greater knowledge building than students who taught with generated visuals or words, though this did not translate into better performance on the post‐tests. This pattern is aligned with recent work showing that explaining from provided representations may at times serve as a crutch (e.g., Fiorella, 2022), supporting higher quality explanation performance during learning but not supporting better learning outcomes. Provided representations may make it easier to generate inferences when the representations are available, but learners may not internalize this knowledge.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Fostering knowledge building in learning by teaching: A test of the drawing‐facilitates‐explaining hypothesis

Fiorella

2023

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Undergraduates (n = 132) learned about the human respiratory system and then taught what they learned by explaining aloud on video. Following a 2 × 2 design, students either generated their own words or visuals on paper while explaining aloud, or they viewed instructor‐provided words or visuals while explaining aloud. One week after teaching, students completed explanation, drawing, and transfer tests. Teaching with provided or generated visualizations resulted in significantly higher transfer test performance than teaching with provided or generated words. Furthermore, teaching with provided visuals led to significantly higher drawing test performance than teaching with generated visuals. Finally, the number of elaborations in students' explanations during teaching did not significantly differ across groups but was significantly associated with subsequent explanation and transfer test performance. Overall, the findings partially support the hypothesis that visuals facilitate learning by explaining, yet the benefits appeared stronger for instructor‐provided visuals than learner‐generated drawings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Fostering knowledge building in learning by teaching: A test of the drawing‐facilitates‐explaining hypothesis

Fiorella

2023

Applied Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An alternative approach is asking students to make judgments about their ability to engage in effective sensemaking tasks, or generative learning activities (Fiorella & Mayer, 2016, 2022. For example, students may be prompted to rate how well they can explain the learning material to themselves or to a friend.…”

Section: Types Of Jols: Test Performance Explaining and Drawingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…First, the findings suggest that instructors cannot assume students will productively make use of visualizations for assessing their own level of comprehension. Students may not engage in the generative processing necessary for internalizing a visual representation and integrating it with their own mental model (Fiorella, 2022;Fiorella et al, 2021). Future research should consider interventions aimed at increasing attention to and engagement with instructional visualizations like combining drawing tasks and provided visualizations.…”

Section: Practical Implicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacognitive effects of instructional visuals: the role of cue use and judgment type

Jaeger,

Fiorella

2023

Metacognition Learning

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Prior research suggests most students do not glean valid cues from provided visuals, resulting in reduced metacomprehension accuracy. Across 4 experiments, we explored how the presence of instructional visuals affects students’ metacomprehension accuracy and cue-use for different types of metacognitive judgments. Undergraduates read texts on biology (Study 1a and b) or chemistry (Study 2 and 3) topics, made various judgments (test, explain, and draw) for each text, and completed comprehension tests. Students were randomly assigned to receive only texts (text-only condition) or texts with instructional visualizations (text-and-image condition). In Studies 1b, 2 and 3, students also reported the cues they used to make each judgment. Across the set of studies, instructional visualizations harmed relative metacomprehension accuracy. In Studies 1a and 2, this was especially the case when students were asked to judge how well they felt they could draw the processes described in the text. But in Study 3, this was especially the case when students were asked to judge how well they would do on a set of comprehension tests. In Studies 2 and 3, students who reported basing their judgments on representation-based cues demonstrated more accurate relative accuracy than students who reported using heuristic based cues. Further, across these studies, students reported using visual cues to make their draw judgments, but not their test or explain judgments. Taken together, these results indicate that instructional visualizations can hinder metacognitive judgment accuracy, particularly by influencing the types of cues students use to make judgments of their ability to draw key concepts.

show abstract

“…However, empirical findings are yet to converge on the effect of generating drawings to support explanations. For instance, studies by Fiorella and Kuhlmann (2020) and Fiorella (2022a) found that drawing can support the instructional explanation compared to using the sole strategy (Fiorella, 2022a; Fiorella & Kuhlmann, 2020). Specifically, Fiorella and Kuhlmann (2020) found that when undergraduates studied a lesson about the human respiratory system, generating drawings enhanced instructional explanation compared to only drawing or instructional explanation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How does drawing influence the effectiveness of oral self‐explanation versus instructional explanation in video learning?

Zhang,

Liu,

Xing

et al. 2023

Brit J Educational Tech

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the effects of two types of oral explanations (ie, self‐explanation vs. instructional explanation) and drawing activity (no drawing vs. drawing) on video learning outcomes. These outcomes were measured by visual attention to the video (indexed by fixation time on text and diagram areas), explanation quality (indexed by personal references, concepts, and elaborations), drawing quality, behaviour patterns and overall learning performance gain. A total of 116 undergraduate and graduate students watched a 4‐min video on the human body's respiratory system. They were randomly assigned to one of four conditions (explanation generation: self‐explanation vs. instructional explanation × drawing activity: no drawing vs. drawing). Results indicated that without a drawing requirement, students in the self‐explanation condition displayed fewer personal references and exhibited a lower learning performance gain than those in the instructional explanation condition. Conversely, when drawing was required, self‐explanation students demonstrated higher drawing quality and better learning performance gain. Additionally, students in the drawing condition directed more attention to the diagram area than those in the no drawing condition. These findings suggest that in video learning (1) educators should encourage students to produce oral instructional explanations and (2) if the goal is for students to generate self‐explanations, they should also be prompted to draw to bolster their self‐explanation efforts.

show abstract

Learning by explaining after pauses in video lectures: Are provided visuals a scaffold or a crutch?

Cited by 8 publications

References 47 publications

Fostering knowledge building in learning by teaching: A test of the drawing‐facilitates‐explaining hypothesis

Fostering knowledge building in learning by teaching: A test of the drawing‐facilitates‐explaining hypothesis

Metacognitive effects of instructional visuals: the role of cue use and judgment type

How does drawing influence the effectiveness of oral self‐explanation versus instructional explanation in video learning?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About