View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

The Learning Benefits of Teaching: A Retrieval Practice Hypothesis

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: The Learning Benefits of Teaching: A Retrieval Practice Hypothesis
Language: English
Authors: Koh, Aloysius Wei Lun, Lee, Sze Chi, Lim, Stephen Wee Hun (ORCID 0000-0003-3636-7587)
Source: Applied Cognitive Psychology. May-Jun 2018 32(3):401-410.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2018
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Teaching Methods, Learning Strategies, Memory, Instructional Materials, Mathematics Activities, Instructional Effectiveness
DOI: 10.1002/acp.3410
ISSN: 0888-4080
Abstract: Teaching educational materials to others enhances the teacher's own learning of those to-be-taught materials, although the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. Here, we show that the learning-by-teaching benefit is possibly a retrieval benefit. Learners (a) solved arithmetic problems (i.e., they neither taught nor retrieved; "control" group), (b) taught without relying on teaching notes (i.e., they had to retrieve the materials while teaching; "teaching" group), (c) taught with teaching notes (i.e., they did not retrieve the materials while teaching; "teaching without retrieval practice" ["TnRP"] group), or (d) retrieved (i.e., they did "not" teach but only practised retrieving; "retrieval practice" group). In a final comprehension test 1 week later, learners in the teaching group, as did those in the retrieval practice group, outperformed learners in the TnRP and control groups. Retrieval practice possibly causes the learning benefits of teaching.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2020
Accession Number: EJ1265499
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGfTDfAfj4HVNj8Yex7z6aQAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDDWvKjy3ka-K9S_jnwIBEICBm1V5b0LFteToeUnLpxGd61_nj7KcwQolrY-lTdZj6A0SpH1BZP-1aaa_DR5jGJBhDFFziD1W4Y4YsyQjZnADdCaYK3cYUMJSElRJLxdH3VuiMLTtUhpjcTajM0rPN7iUTPKuSPBZgQFud8eEp4A5FieM6y3-j72_mALH7Dzztw4rYA__Gv6z8kO5pN4co2QWr1EQZpEMu77lOR6I
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0129512139;bu801may.18;2018May10.09:23;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0129512139-1">The learning benefits of teaching: A retrieval practice hypothesis </title> <p>Summary: Teaching educational materials to others enhances the teacher's own learning of those to‐be‐taught materials, although the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. Here, we show that the learning‐by‐teaching benefit is possibly a retrieval benefit. Learners (a) solved arithmetic problems (i.e., they neither taught nor retrieved; control group), (b) taught without relying on teaching notes (i.e., they had to retrieve the materials while teaching; teaching group), (c) taught with teaching notes (i.e., they did not retrieve the materials while teaching; teaching without retrieval practice [TnRP] group), or (d) retrieved (i.e., they did not teach but only practised retrieving; retrieval practice group). In a final comprehension test 1 week later, learners in the teaching group, as did those in the retrieval practice group, outperformed learners in the TnRP and control groups. Retrieval practice possibly causes the learning benefits of teaching.</p> <p>educational psychology; learning‐by‐teaching; retrieval practice; retrieval‐based learning; the testing effect</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-2">INTRODUCTION</hd> <p>The very act of teaching educational materials to others has been observed to enhance the teacher's own learning of those materials (e.g., Galbraith & Winterbottom, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref1">16</reflink>] ; Hoogerheide, Deijkers, Loyens, Heijltjes, & van Gog, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref2">19</reflink>] ; Roscoe & Chi, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref3">35</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref4">36</reflink>] ). This is known as the teaching effect (i.e., learning by teaching). The learning‐by‐teaching literature is dominated by studies examining the learning benefits in the context of peer tutoring (see Fiorella & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref5">14</reflink>] , for a discussion). A meta‐analysis of educational outcomes from 65 independent evaluations of school tutoring programmes (Cohen, Kulik, & Kulik, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref6">9</reflink>] ) revealed that peer tutors themselves gained a better understanding of the subject matter that they taught during the tutorials. The view is that peer tutors could learn from their teaching experiences as a result of reflective knowledge building via interactive processes of knowledge construction while teaching someone else (Roscoe & Chi, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref7">35</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref8">36</reflink>] ). Furthermore, studies (Fiorella & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref9">14</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>] ) have shown that the act of teaching led to significantly better learning—retention of knowledge—as compared with preparing to teach but without actually teaching. For instance, Hoogerheide et al. ([<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref11">19</reflink>] ; Experiment 2) tasked participants to study a text on syllogistic reasoning problems. Following that, participants were randomly assigned to three groups, in which they either restudied the materials, explained the text in writing, or explained via a video. Participants who taught the materials to others via video reportedly learned better than did those who wrote about or simply restudied the materials.</p> <p>Within the teaching process, a considerable amount of time and effort is devoted to retrieving the material acquired during teaching preparation. There are, therefore, grounds on which to speculate whether the learning benefits observed in the standard learning‐by‐teaching literature might not actually be attributed to retrieval practice. In other words, it may be the retrieval of educational materials involved during the teaching process that enhances learning. The benefits of retrieval practice (also known as the testing effect; Roediger & Karpicke, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref12">34</reflink>] ) on learning are well established and documented in the literature (e.g., Agarwal, Karpicke, Kang, Roediger, & McDermott, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>] ; Butler & Roediger, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref14">3</reflink>] ; Chan & McDermott, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref15">7</reflink>] ; Kang, McDermott, & Roediger, [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref16">21</reflink>] ; McDaniel, Howard, & Einstein, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref17">29</reflink>] ; see, also, Karpicke & Grimaldi, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref18">24</reflink>] , for a comprehensive review). In the standard retrieval‐based learning paradigm, learners either studied educational materials repeatedly or studied and then retrieved the materials, before taking a final test through which their learning was assessed. For example, in the highly cited study by Roediger and Karpicke ([<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref19">33</reflink>] ), students studied an expository text once and underwent three free recall tests about the material, studied the passage three times and took one test, or basically studied the passage four times. They then took a final retention test either 5 min or 1 week later. Students who studied the material repeatedly performed better when the retention test was administered immediately. The crucial finding, however, was that the knowledge of the studied materials was better retained over time (1 week later) by students who practised retrieving, as compared with those who merely restudied. This demonstrated the benefits of retrieval practice on longer term retention of educationally relevant knowledge (see, also, Carpenter, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref20">4</reflink>] ; Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh, Nathan, & Willingham, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref21">13</reflink>] ; Karpicke, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref22">22</reflink>] ; Rawson & Dunlosky, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref23">31</reflink>] ; Roediger & Butler, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref24">32</reflink>] ).</p> <p>The benefits of retrieval practice have been observed in a variety of learning tasks, including free recall of word lists (e.g., Tulving, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref25">37</reflink>] ), paired‐associate learning (e.g., Carpenter, Pashler, & Vul, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>] ), foreign language vocabulary learning (e.g., Carrier & Pashler, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref27">6</reflink>] ), learning content from prose passages (e.g., Roediger & Karpicke, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref28">33</reflink>] ), video‐based learning (e.g., Butler & Roediger, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref29">3</reflink>] ; Johnson & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref30">20</reflink>] ; Yong & Lim, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref31">40</reflink>] ), analogical problem solving (Wong, Ng, Tempel, & Lim, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref32">39</reflink>] ), and, of particular relevance to the present study, science‐based texts (e.g., Blunt & Karpicke, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref33">2</reflink>] ; de Jonge, Tabbers, & Rikers, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref34">10</reflink>] ; Dobson, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref35">11</reflink>] ; Hinze & Wiley, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref36">18</reflink>] ; Karpicke & Blunt, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref37">23</reflink>] ). For instance, in Blunt and Karpicke ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>] ; Experiment 2), undergraduate students studied science texts about “enzymes” and “domains of life.” After studying the materials, students performed tasks according to the learning conditions that they were randomly assigned to: (a) repeated study—concept mapping, (b) repeated study—paragraph writing, (c) retrieval practice—concept mapping, and (d) retrieval practice—paragraph writing. On a final test administered 1 week later, during which learners were assessed in terms of both their verbatim and inferential knowledge, those who actively retrieved the materials during learning, regardless of the activity format, performed better than did those who studied repeatedly. These data were corroborated by de Jonge et al. ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref39">10</reflink>] ; Experiment 2), in which undergraduate students studied an incoherent text on “black holes.” They then either restudied the text or practised retrieving via a fill‐in‐the‐blank test (see, also, Hinze & Wiley, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref40">18</reflink>] ). After the learning phase, participants took a final test either 5 min or 1 week later. Engaging in retrieval practice promoted long‐term knowledge retention.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-3">The present study</hd> <p>The critical question we asked was whether the learning benefits observed in learning‐by‐teaching are possibly attributable to retrieval practice, given that learners, as they teach, had to primarily retrieve the materials. Students studied and prepared to teach a science text on the Doppler effect. After studying the text material once, they (a) solved arithmetic problems (control group), (b) taught the material without using teaching notes (i.e., actively retrieved the material during teaching; teaching group), (c) taught the material with teaching notes (i.e., there was no active retrieval during teaching; teaching without retrieval practice [TnRP] group), or (d) practised retrieving (without teaching) the material (retrieval practice group). Critically, a direct comparison of the teaching versus TnRP conditions would reveal whether the learning‐by‐teaching educational strategy works only if it involved active retrieval of the studied material. The total duration across all the conditions was matched. One week later, participants were assessed on their ability to explain key concepts regarding the educational material to which they were earlier exposed.</p> <p>To the extent that the learning benefits arising from teaching are attributable to retrieval practice, we expected that final test performance in the teaching group would be as good as that in the retrieval practice group, relative to both the control and TnRP groups. Importantly, learners in the teaching group (as would those in the retrieval practice group) ought to outperform those in the TnRP group, even though both the teaching and TnRP groups had supposedly engaged in the act of teaching.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-4">METHOD</hd> <hd id="AN0129512139-5">Participants</hd> <p>One hundred and twenty‐four undergraduate students (57 were female), aged between 19 and 25 (M = 21.7, SD = 1.63), from the National University of Singapore (NUS) were recruited for this study. Participants received either credits for an introductory psychology class or monetary compensation ($10 for an hour of participation). All students majoring in physics and/or have taken courses on the Doppler effect were excluded. This research was conducted with the appropriate ethics review board approval by the NUS, and participants have granted their written informed consent.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-6">Design</hd> <p>A between‐subjects design was employed. The independent variable was learning strategy: (a) control (i.e., participants solved arithmetic problems, i.e., neither taught nor retrieved), (b) teaching (i.e., participants taught unaided from memory, i.e., with retrieval), (c) retrieval practice (i.e., participants did not teach but practised retrieving), and (d) TnRP (participants taught by reading a teaching script prepared by the experimenters beforehand). The dependent variable was the mean performance on the final comprehension test administered 1 week after. Each participant was randomly assigned to one of the four learning groups, with 31 participants in each group.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-7">Materials and tasks</hd> <hd id="AN0129512139-8">Demographics and prior knowledge questionnaire</hd> <p>Participants provided information relating to their age, gender, year of study, major of study, and faculty of study. They additionally indicated their prior knowledge of the Doppler effect on a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = very low, 5 = very high) and checked off any of the following items that were applicable to them: (a) “I have taken a University course in Physics.” (b) “I know what Hertz (Hz) means.” (c) “I have used an oscilloscope.” (d) “I know how radar works.” (e) “I know the basic characteristics of sound waves.” (f) “I know what relative motion is.” (g) “I know what the red shift is.” and (h) “I know what a sine curve is.” The self‐report on prior knowledge and the item checklist, combined, constituted the measure for participants' prior knowledge of the Doppler effect, with a total possible score of 13 (i.e., one point was allocated for each checked item on the list; the total score was derived by summing [a] the number of points arising from the checked items and [b] the knowledge rating of the Doppler effect). Finally, participants rated how well they thought they would perform on a test after undergoing a lesson on the Doppler effect via a 5‐point Likert scale: 1 = very poorly, 5 = very well (Fiorella & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>] ). This information was used to determine if the groups were equated in terms of their reported self‐efficacies.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-9">Instructions for preparing to teach</hd> <p>All participants received the same set of prestudy instructions to induce teaching preparation. This way, participants across all groups prepared to teach (unaided, i.e., without reference to any notes) after they had studied the materials, when in fact only those in the teaching group would be asked to actually teach eventually.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-10">Doppler effect lesson</hd> <p>We adapted the lesson material from Fiorella and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref42">14</reflink>] ), which conveyed foundational concepts of sound waves and discussed how the Doppler effect works. It comprised 585 words and five graphical figures.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-11">Arithmetic problems set</hd> <p>The set of arithmetic problems, adapted from Yong and Lim ([<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref43">40</reflink>] ), consisted of 55 multiplication questions.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-12">Free recall test</hd> <p>We designed the present free recall test in line with those used in standard retrieval‐based learning studies (e.g., Dobson & Linderholm, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>] ; Lim, Ng, & Wong, [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref45">26</reflink>] ; Roediger & Karpicke, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref46">33</reflink>] ; Yong & Lim, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref47">40</reflink>] ), which consisted of instructions and sufficient blank space for participants to write on.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-13">Teaching script</hd> <p>We developed the teaching script from the Doppler effect lesson, which the participants in the TnRP group narrated verbatim during the teaching phase. The script was constructed on the basis of how a scripted lecture would be delivered in an actual educational setting. A brief pilot test was conducted for the purposes of adjusting the ease of readability of the script as well as its length (i.e., the time taken to read the script clearly and thoroughly was approximately 5 min). The finalized teaching script comprised 829 words.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-14">Guiding diagrams</hd> <p>We prepared guiding diagrams taken from the Doppler effect lesson and mounted them on the wall for the participants in the TnRP group to make reference to (e.g., point to using their fingers) as they taught (read verbatim) from their teaching script.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-15">Postexperimental questionnaire</hd> <p>This questionnaire consisted of phenomenological items measuring participants' subjective experiences during, and opinions towards, the learning phase. Participants were requested to report how much they agreed with each of seven statements on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree): (a) “I felt the subject matter was difficult.” (b) “I enjoyed learning about the Doppler effect.” (c) “I would like to learn this way in the future.” (d) “I feel like I have a good understanding of how the Doppler effect works.” (e) “After this lesson, I would be interested in learning more about the Doppler effect.” (f) “I found the lesson about the Doppler effect to be useful to me.” and, finally, (g) “I felt stressed while I was learning about the Doppler effect.” In addition, participants rated the amount of mental effort they invested while learning about the Doppler effect on a 7‐point Likert scale (1 = very low effort, 7 = very high effort). At the end, participants recorded any additional comments they had about the study.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-16">Instructions for final comprehension test</hd> <p>Participants were informed of the test 1 week later, its expected duration, and format and nature of the test questions via the instructions formulated by the experimenters.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-17">Final comprehension test</hd> <p>The final comprehension test comprised six free‐response questions designed to assess participants' abilities to explain key concepts relating to the lesson on the Doppler effect (Fiorella & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref48">14</reflink>] ): (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref49">1</reflink>) “Explain how the Doppler effect works.” (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref50">2</reflink>) “How could you increase the intensity of the Doppler effect?” (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref51">3</reflink>) “Would the Doppler effect occur if the source was stationary and the observer was moving? Why or why not?” (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref52">4</reflink>) “What would happen to the Doppler effect if the observer was moving at the same speed and in the same direction as the source? Explain your answer.” (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref53">5</reflink>) “How would an observer experience sound if the speed of the source was traveling faster than the speed of sound?” and, finally, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref54">6</reflink>) “What would happen to the Doppler effect if the source and observer were both moving towards each other on a parallel path, at a constant speed? Explain your answer.” The six free‐response questions focused either on recall of facts (e.g., (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>) “Explain how the Doppler effect works.”) or on application in novel situations (e.g., (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref56">6</reflink>) “What would happen to the Doppler effect if the source and observer were both moving towards each other on a parallel path, at a constant speed? Explain your answer.”). A standardized marking rubric was applied in scoring all test responses from participants (see Appendix ). On the basis of the marking rubric, each point was awarded for a response on the basis of both its (a) content (i.e., memory representation of concepts) and (b) quality (i.e., demonstration of understanding). Specifically, in such a question that focused on recall of facts as Q1, participants were expected to (a) remember the concepts accurately (i.e., “The Doppler effect involves sound and movement.”) and (b) understand those concepts adequately (i.e., “The Doppler effect is due to the change in how sounds are perceived due to movement.”) when providing their responses. Similarly, in such a question that focused on application in novel situations as Q6, participants had to (a) remember the concepts accurately (i.e., “The Doppler effect would be more intense than if one was stationary.”) and (b) understand those concepts adequately (i.e., “Sound waves would change in frequency at a higher rate hence the Doppler effect would be more intense than if one was stationary.”) when providing their responses. One point was awarded for each response only when both the criteria for (a) content and (b) quality were satisfied. The resultant scores from the final comprehension test thus served as a measure of both (a) correct content and (b) adequate quality in participants' responses. The maximum possible score on the comprehension test was 25 points.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-18">Apparatus</hd> <p>Two smart phones with video‐recording capabilities—Apple iPhone 6 and Xiaomi Redmi 1S—were used to record the participants in the teaching group (as they taught unaided) and in the TnRP group (as they taught with the script).</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-19">Procedure</hd> <p>Participants underwent the first part of the experiment individually in cubicles. The experimenter verbally introduced the experiment briefly and handed out the consent forms to participants. Participants also filled out the demographics and prior knowledge questionnaire.</p> <p>Next, the experimenter handed out an instructions sheet with the goal of inducing teaching preparation in all participants. Specifically, participants were informed that they had a total of 10 min to study and prepare to teach a lesson on the Doppler effect, in a way as if they were teaching the material to a realistic audience and during which their teaching would be video‐recorded. Participants were also told that they could take notes during the study phase on a blank sheet of paper provided, although they knew that both the lesson material and any notes recorded had to be surrendered after the 10‐min study phase, as they were expected to teach the material unaided. The experimenter verbally reiterated the instructions where required and clarified any doubts that participants might have.</p> <p>After the study phase, the experimenter collected the lesson material and any notes recorded by the participants. For the subsequent 5 min, the participants across the different conditions completed their respective tasks: solving arithmetic problems (control group), delivering a video lecture unaided by any teaching script (teaching group), taking a free recall test (retrieval practice group), and delivering a video lecture with reference to a teaching script (TnRP group). All participants across groups were told to fully utilize the time allotted to them.</p> <p>Participants in the control group undertook a filler task that involved solving arithmetic problems for 5 min. The participants were told to prioritize accuracy over speed per se; thus, they did not have to feel pressured to finish all of the questions.</p> <p>Each participant in the teaching group taught individually for 5 min and was video‐recorded. Participants were requested to stand while teaching and were offered the option of using a blank flipchart mounted on the wall if they felt that would enhance the quality of their teaching.</p> <p>The retrieval practice group took a free recall test for 5 min, writing down as much information as they could remember from what they had earlier studied (see, e.g., Blunt & Karpicke, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref57">2</reflink>] ; Lim et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref58">26</reflink>] ; Roediger & Karpicke, [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref59">33</reflink>] ; Yong & Lim, [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref60">40</reflink>] ). Participants were allowed to write in point form and/or any intelligible short forms (e.g., f for frequency and λ for wavelength), write the points in any order, and draw diagrams to support their responses.</p> <p>The participants in the TnRP group taught individually for 5 min and were video‐recorded. Similar to participants in the teaching group, they were required to stand while teaching. The critical difference was that participants in the TnRP group taught by reading from the teaching script verbatim and, on the basis of designated prompts printed on the script, making references to the guiding diagrams mounted on the wall (rather than retrieving and drawing the diagrams by themselves). There was thus no need (grounds) for participants to retrieve any information from their memory while teaching.</p> <p>After participants completed their respective tasks, the experimenter administered the postexperimental questionnaire. Upon completing the questionnaire, participants were thanked and reminded about the second part of the study. Participants were not informed of the final comprehension test in advance.</p> <p>One week later, the participants returned for the second part of this experiment, sat away from one another at individual (partitioned) desks, and read the instructions individually for the final comprehension test on the Doppler effect. The experimenter reiterated the instructions and answered any administrative queries. Each test question on the final comprehension test was timed and completed independently from other questions. Three min were allowed in answering the first question, and 2 min for each of the remaining five questions. Participants were guided via short interim instructions on the test paper to keep working on each question until the allocated time expired. After the test was completed, the experimenter debriefed and thanked the participants.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-20">RESULTS</hd> <hd id="AN0129512139-21">Participant characteristics The analyses were carried out the same way as did Johnson and ...</hd> <p>Separate one‐way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were conducted, with learning strategy as the factor, on age, prior knowledge, and self‐efficacies reported by the participants, in order to assess statistical equivalence of these parameters across the four groups. Also, chi‐square analyses were conducted on gender and year of study, with learning strategy as the factor, to determine whether the distributions of gender and year of study were comparable across groups. All tests revealed no significant differences across groups on the respective variables, all ps > .05.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-22">Reading time</hd> <p>Although a pilot test was conducted to ensure that the narration of the teaching script (by the participants in the TnRP group) could be completed within approximately 5 min, individual differences in reading speeds did arise inevitably, resulting in varying reading durations. Consequently, participants' reading times were submitted to a single‐sample t test, in order to determine if the mean reading time significantly differed from the stipulated 5 min. The analysis showed that the mean reading time of the participants in the TnRP group (M = 4.98, SD = 0.446) was comparable with the intended duration of 5 min during the experimental phase, t(<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref61">30</reflink>) = −0.235, p = .816.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-23">Phenomenological item analyses</hd> <p>The ratings of the postexperimental phenomenological items were submitted to separate one‐way ANOVAs, with learning strategy as the factor. There were no significant differences across groups as a function of all questionnaire items (enjoyment, learn, understand, interest, usefulness, stress, and effort), all ps > .05. The mean ratings of the postexperimental questionnaire items appear in Table .</p> <p>Mean ratings of the postexperimental questionnaire items</p> <p> <ephtml> <table border="1" cellpadding="9"><tr><th>Groups</th><th>Ratings</th></tr><tr><th>Difficulty</th><th>Enjoyment</th><th>Learn</th><th>Understand</th><th>Interest</th><th>Usefulness</th><th>Stress</th><th>Effort</th></tr><tr><td>Control</td><td>3.03 (1.43)</td><td>5.00 (1.21)</td><td>4.71 (1.19)</td><td>5.23 (1.06)</td><td>4.26 (1.32)</td><td>4.87 (1.23)</td><td>3.45 (1.69)</td><td>4.39 (1.45)</td></tr><tr><td>Teaching</td><td>3.06 (1.15)</td><td>5.13 (1.28)</td><td>5.00 (1.55)</td><td>4.97 (1.49)</td><td>4.71 (1.66)</td><td>4.84 (1.44)</td><td>3.45 (1.65)</td><td>4.23 (1.43)</td></tr><tr><td>Retrieval Practice</td><td>2.35 (1.60)</td><td>5.16 (1.53)</td><td>4.71 (1.49)</td><td>5.58 (1.52)</td><td>4.19 (1.25)</td><td>4.55 (1.65)</td><td>3.58 (2.05)</td><td>4.45 (1.43)</td></tr><tr><td>TnRP</td><td>2.58 (1.29)</td><td>4.77 (1.36)</td><td>4.23 (1.75)</td><td>5.48 (1.36)</td><td>4.10 (1.33)</td><td>4.55 (1.46)</td><td>3.74 (1.84)</td><td>4.81 (1.51)</td></tr></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses. Participants were rated on a 7‐point Likert scale. TnRP = teaching without retrieval practice.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-24">Scoring</hd> <p>Two independent coders scored 15% of the comprehension test scripts (19 out of 124 scripts) on the basis of the standard marking rubric, and the Pearson product–moment correlation (r) between the two sets of scores was .99, p < .001. The small proportion of disagreements was resolved via discussions between the two coders to arrive at 100% consensus. As the interrater agreement was high, the remaining test scripts were scored by one of the coders subsequently.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-25">Organization of studied information</hd> <p>Preliminary analyses were conducted to elucidate differences, if any, in the way participants organized the studied information during their teaching or their retrieval across the different conditions. To facilitate these analyses, the sequence of the content in the Doppler effect lesson was first decomposed into its constituent components; the lesson was structured as follows: (a) a brief introduction on Doppler effect; (b) definitions and characteristics of sound waves, wave frequency, and wavelength; and (c) the application of the Doppler effect in real‐life situations (see Appendix ). The way in which individual participants across the teaching, TnRP, and retrieval practice groups actually organized the sequence of information during their teaching, or their retrieval, was then compared against that of the prescribed model (three‐part) sequence; these comparisons would have illuminated any deviation in the way participants organized the studied information during their teaching or their retrieval. A binary coding scheme was used; that is, participants either deviated or did not deviate from the prescribed model structure. It was observed that all participants in the TnRP and retrieval practice conditions modelled exactly after our prescribed model sequence during teaching or retrieval; all except two participants in the teaching condition modelled after the model sequence. In particular, these two participants did not introduce the Doppler effect; one of them started the teaching session with defining wave frequency, whereas the other began with a general statement “we hear a lot of sounds every day” and then proceeded with defining sound waves, although notably, the remainder sequence of each of their teaching sessions adhered with the prescribed model sequence (i.e., although they missed introducing the Doppler effect, they faithfully proceeded with definitions and characteristics of sound waves, wave frequency, and wavelength, and then the application of the Doppler effect in real‐life situations). Notwithstanding, subsequent main analyses were conducted (a) with versus (b) without these two participants (“deviant learners”) in the teaching condition, and effects persisted across both sets of analyses (see Section ).</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-26">Main analyses</hd> <p>A one‐way ANOVA revealed a significant effect of learning strategy on final comprehension test performance, both with the inclusion of the two deviant learners in the teaching group, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref62">3</reflink>, 120) = 5.82, MSE = 9.56, p = .001, η<sups>2</sups> = .127, and without them, F(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref63">3</reflink>, 118) = 5.60, MSE = 9.71, p = .001, η<sups>2</sups> = .125. Specifically, participants in both the teaching group (with the two deviant learners, M = 13.3, SD = 2.69, vs. without them, M = 13.3, SD = 2.78) and the retrieval practice group (M = 13.6, SD = 2.80) outperformed those in the control group (M = 10.9, SD = 3.07), t(<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref64">60</reflink>) = −3.30, p = .002, d = 0.839; t(<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref65">58</reflink>) = −3.16, p = .003, d = 0.817; and t(<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref66">60</reflink>) = −3.59, p = .001, d = 0.912, respectively, reflecting the effectiveness of both teaching and retrieval practice as educational strategies. Importantly, the performance of participants across the teaching (with the two deviant learners, M = 13.3, SD = 2.69, vs. without them, M = 13.3, SD = 2.78) and retrieval practice (M = 13.6, SD = 2.80) groups was comparable, t(<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref67">60</reflink>) = 0.370, p = 0.713, d = 0.095 and t(<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref68">58</reflink>) = 0.397, p = 0.693, d = 0.104, respectively, suggesting that both teaching and retrieval practice promoted learning to the same extent. Notably, the final performance of participants across the TnRP (M = 11.5, SD = 3.70) and control (M = 10.9, SD = 3.07) groups was comparable, t(<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref69">60</reflink>) = −0.616, p = 0.540, d = 0.156. This suggests that teaching from a script without retrieving the to‐be‐taught material did not enhance learning.</p> <p>Most crucially, participants in the teaching group (with the two deviant learners, M = 13.3, SD = 2.69, or without them, M = 13.3, SD = 2.78), as did those in the retrieval practice group (M = 13.6, SD = 2.80), outperformed participants in the TnRP group (M = 11.5, SD = 3.70), t(54.8) = 2.30, p = .026, d = 0.583; t(55.6) = 2.21, p = .031, d = 0.568; and t(55.9) = 2.57, p = .013, d = 0.653, respectively. Altogether, this set of results revealed that the benefits observed in the learning‐by‐teaching strategy are attributable to retrieval practice; that is, the robust learning‐by‐teaching strategy works but only when the teaching involves retrieving the to‐be‐taught materials.</p> <p>To ascertain whether prior knowledge influenced the present effects, a between‐subjects analysis of covariance was conducted. The independent variable was learning strategy (control, retrieval practice, teaching, and TnRP), and the dependent variable was final test scores, with prior knowledge entered as a continuous covariate. The main effect of prior knowledge did not reach significance, regardless whether the two deviant participants were included, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref70">1</reflink>, 116) = 1.26, MSE = 9.78, p = .26, η<sups>2</sups> = .011, or excluded, F(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref71">1</reflink>, 114) = 1.21, MSE = 9.94, p = .27, η<sups>2</sups> = .011, suggesting that prior knowledge did not predict test performance. The Learning Strategy × Prior Knowledge interaction did not reach significance also, regardless whether the two deviant participants were included or excluded, both Fs < 1, suggesting that prior knowledge did not influence the effect of learning strategy on test performance. These observations likely stemmed from the lack of variability in participants' prior knowledge across all conditions, given that prior knowledge has primarily been controlled for at the start of the experiment (i.e., all students majoring in physics and/or have taken courses on the Doppler effect were excluded from the experiment). To confirm this interpretation, two separate one‐way ANOVAs were conducted (in which the two deviant learners were either included or excluded, respectively), with learning strategy (control, retrieval practice, teaching, and TnRP) as the independent variable and prior knowledge as the dependent variable. Indeed, no significant effects emerged, both Fs < 1, implicating a lack of variability in prior knowledge in participants across conditions.</p> <p>Additionally, to ascertain that the present effects persisted across all six test questions attempted by the participants who adopted different learning strategies, two separate one‐factor multivariate ANOVAs (MANOVAs) were performed (in which the two deviant learners were either included or excluded, respectively), with learning strategy (teaching, TnRP, and retrieval practice) as the independent variable and participants' performance on the six test items as dependent variables. The MANOVAs indicated that the effects of learning strategy on test performance persisted across all six test items, regardless whether the two deviant learners were included, F(<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref72">12</reflink>, 170) = 1.38, p = .18, Wilks Λ = .83, η<sups>2</sups> = .089, or excluded, F(<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref73">12</reflink>, 166) = 1.34, p = .20, Wilks Λ = .83, η<sups>2</sups> = .088, suggesting that the present effects persisted across all test questions.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-27">DISCUSSION</hd> <p>We pursued the idea that the learning benefits observed in the standard learning‐by‐teaching literature could be attributed to retrieval practice, on the basis that successful teaching normally predicates on the teacher's ability to, first, remember and retrieve the to‐be‐taught material. We expected to observe good final test performances in both the teaching group and the retrieval practice group, in comparison with the control and TnRP groups. The crucial hypothesis was that learners in the teaching group, as well as those in the retrieval practice group, would outperform learners in the TnRP group. Our data supported the present predictions. The findings are compatible with those of Fiorella and Mayer ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref74">14</reflink>] ) and further illuminate the critical role of retrieval underpinning the learning‐by‐teaching educational strategy. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that learners in the teaching and retrieval practice groups did not differ from those in the TnRP and control groups in terms of any of their participant (e.g., prior knowledge and self‐efficacies) or phenomenological (e.g., perceived task difficulty and effort) characteristics.</p> <p>In adherence to the standard learning by teaching literature, the present study operationalized teaching as having participants stand while conveying the material, with the option of using flipcharts if these were deemed helpful in enhancing the teaching quality (see Fiorella & Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref75">14</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref76">15</reflink>] ). Roscoe and Chi ([<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref77">35</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref78">36</reflink>] ) argue, however, that effective teaching (and learning) predicates on the nature of teacher–student interactions, including the quality of the explanations, answers, and feedback provided by the teacher (see, also, Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref79">8</reflink>] ; Gartner, Kohler, & Riessman, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref80">17</reflink>] ; King, Staffieri, & Adelgais, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref81">25</reflink>] ). Specifically, the teacher's gains depend in part on whether he or she engages in reflective knowledge building (i.e., the extent to which teachers reflect on their own understanding of the material and integrate it with their own prior knowledge while teaching their students). In contrast, learning is, it has been argued, less likely to emerge when teachers engage in knowledge telling, where they simply summarize the material without integrating it with their prior knowledge (Mayer, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref82">27</reflink>] , [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref83">28</reflink>] ; Wittrock, [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref84">38</reflink>] ). Although the question of how we might best operationalize “teaching (and learning)” is beyond the intent and scope of our study, future studies should certainly assess the importance of retrieval practice across a variety of teaching scenarios and activities.</p> <p>On the one hand, that we found no observable differences across the teaching versus retrieval practice groups suggests the possibility that both teaching and retrieval practice have been effective owing to, for instance, reflective knowledge building. On the other hand, it is prudent to recognize that having similar performances in two conditions does not necessarily denote similar or the same mechanisms at work. Future studies should test all of these (competing) interpretations directly.</p> <p>Relatedly, teaching arguably involves a number of cognitive processes beyond retrieval. These include planning what material to (vs. not to) present, thinking about how to frame and express the material, and attempting to provide organizational structure (see, e.g., Nestojko, Bui, Kornell, & Bjork, 2014). In theory, any of these processes, which do not necessarily require retrieval, may boost comprehension performance. Additionally, it is conceivable that other potentially beneficial elaborative processes, such as self‐explanation, were impeded in the TnRP condition, as the teaching script was provided. Furthermore, it is possible that there are synergistic benefits of encoding to teach versus actually teaching. Thus, the retrieval condition that best evaluates whether the learning benefit is fundamentally a retrieval benefit might be a retrieval condition in which learners are given “standard” learning instructions and then retrieval practice. All of these interesting prospects potentially contribute toward the broader goal of understanding the extent to which retrieval is indeed a critical component in a learning‐by‐teaching benefit.</p> <p>That teaching can enhance learning particularly when the teaching involves active retrieval of the to‐be taught materials not only can have important implications for the teaching‐by‐learning literature but also can inspire new ways of designing real‐world educational activities involving teaching. For example, in order to insure that students and tutors learn and retain the educational material that they have prepared and presented in class, they ought to internalize the to‐be‐presented material prior to communicating it to an audience, rather than rely on study notes during the presentation process.</p> <p>There is a solid body of work showing that teaching educational materials promotes the learning of those materials, as discussed earlier in Section . This study attempted to extend that literature by exploring a possible underlying mechanism—retrieval practice (see, e.g., Dunlosky et al., [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref85">13</reflink>] , for a comprehensive review)—of the learning‐by‐teaching strategy in promoting long‐term learning, and has the potential to fundamentally transform the way in which both researchers and educators have previously understood and viewed the teaching‐by‐learning strategy.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-28">ACKNOWLEDGEMENT</hd> <p>This work was supported by a National University of Singapore Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences Heads and Deanery Research Support Scheme Grant (R‐581‐000‐150‐133) awarded to S.W.H.L.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-29">CONFLICT OF INTEREST</hd> <p>The authors declared that they had no conflicts of interest with respect to their authorship or the publication of this article.</p> <hd id="AN0129512139-30">AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION</hd> <p>The initial research concept came from S. W. H. L. and was developed by all authors. A. W. L. K. and S. C. L. performed the testing and data collection. A. W. L. K. and S. C. L. performed the data analysis and interpretation under the supervision of S. W. H. L.. A. W. L. K. and S. C. L. drafted the manuscript, and S. W. H. L. provided critical revisions. All authors approved the final version of the manuscript for submission.</p> <ref id="AN0129512139-31"> <title>REFERENCES</title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref13" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext>Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., & McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with open‐ and closed‐book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(7), 861–876. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1391 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref33" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext>Blunt, J. R., & Karpicke, J. D. (2014). Learning with retrieval‐based concept mapping. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 849–858. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035934 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref14" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext>Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Testing improves long‐term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 514–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440701326097 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref20" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext>Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(5), 279–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412452728 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext>Carpenter, S. K., Pashler, H., & Vul, E. (2006). What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13(5), 826–830. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194004 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref27" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext>Carrier, M., & Pashler, H. (1992). The influence of retrieval on retention. Memory and Cognition, 20(6), 633–642. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03202713 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref15" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext>Chan, J. C. K., & McDermott, K. B. (2007). The testing effect in recognition memory: A dual process account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33(2), 431–437. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278‐7393.33.2.431 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref79" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext>Cohen, J. (1986). Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 175–186. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref6" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext>Cohen, P. A., Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1982). Educational outcomes of tutoring: A meta‐analysis of findings. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 237–248. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019002237 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib10" idref="ref34" type="bt">10</bibl> <bibtext>de Jonge, M., Tabbers, H. K., & Rikers, R. M. J. P. (2015). The effect of testing on the retention of coherent and incoherent text material. Educational Psychology Review, 27(2), 305–315. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐015‐9300‐z </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib11" idref="ref35" type="bt">11</bibl> <bibtext>Dobson, J. L. (2013). Retrieval practice is an efficient method of enhancing the retention of anatomy and physiology information. Advances in Physiology Education, 37(2), 184–191. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00174.2012 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib12" idref="ref44" type="bt">12</bibl> <bibtext>Dobson, J. L., & Linderholm, T. (2015). Self‐testing promotes superior retention of anatomy and physiology information. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 20(1), 149–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459‐014‐9514‐8 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib13" idref="ref21" type="bt">13</bibl> <bibtext>Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students' learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib14" idref="ref5" type="bt">14</bibl> <bibtext>Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2013). The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.06.001 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib15" idref="ref10" type="bt">15</bibl> <bibtext>Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2014). Role of expectations and explanations in learning by teaching. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39(2), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.01.001 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib16" idref="ref1" type="bt">16</bibl> <bibtext>Galbraith, J., & Winterbottom, M. (2011). Peer‐tutoring: What's in it for the tutor? Educational Studies, 37(3), 321–332. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2010.506330 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib17" idref="ref80" type="bt">17</bibl> <bibtext>Gartner, A., Kohler, M. C., & Riessman, F. (1971). Children teach children: Learning by teaching. New York: Harper & Row. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib18" idref="ref36" type="bt">18</bibl> <bibtext>Hinze, S. R., & Wiley, J. (2011). Testing the limits of testing effects using completion tests. Memory, 19(3), 290–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658211.2011.560121 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib19" idref="ref2" type="bt">19</bibl> <bibtext>Hoogerheide, V., Deijkers, L., Loyens, S. M., Heijltjes, A., & van Gog, T. (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.cedpsych.2016.02.005 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib20" idref="ref30" type="bt">20</bibl> <bibtext>Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2009). A testing effect with multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 621–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015183 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib21" idref="ref16" type="bt">21</bibl> <bibtext>Kang, S. H. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L. (2007). Test format and corrective feedback modify the effect of testing on long‐term retention. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 19(4–5), 528–558. https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440601056620 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib22" idref="ref22" type="bt">22</bibl> <bibtext>Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval‐based learning: Active retrieval promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 157–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412443552 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib23" idref="ref37" type="bt">23</bibl> <bibtext>Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, 331(6018), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib24" idref="ref18" type="bt">24</bibl> <bibtext>Karpicke, J. D., & Grimaldi, P. J. (2012). Retrieval‐based learning: A perspective for enhancing meaningful learning. Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐012‐9202‐2 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib25" idref="ref81" type="bt">25</bibl> <bibtext>King, A., Staffieri, A., & Adelgais, A. (1998). Mutual peer tutoring: Effects of structuring tutorial interaction to scaffold peer learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 134–152. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib26" idref="ref45" type="bt">26</bibl> <bibtext>Lim, S. W. H., Ng, G. J. P., & Wong, G. Q. H. (2015). Learning psychological research and statistical concepts using retrieval‐based practice. Frontiers in Psychology: Educational Psychology, 6, 1484. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01484 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib27" idref="ref82" type="bt">27</bibl> <bibtext>Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 31–48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib28" idref="ref83" type="bt">28</bibl> <bibtext>Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib29" idref="ref17" type="bt">29</bibl> <bibtext>McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The read‐recite‐review study strategy: Effective and portable. Psychological Science, 20(4), 516–522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2009.02325.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib30" idref="ref61" type="bt">30</bibl> <bibtext>Nestojko, J. F., Bui, D. C., Kornell, N., & Bjork, E. L. (2014). Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1038–1048. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421‐014‐0416‐z </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib31" idref="ref23" type="bt">31</bibl> <bibtext>Rawson, K. A., & Dunlosky, J. (2012). When is practice testing most effective for improving the durability and efficiency of student learning? Educational Psychology Review, 24(3), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐012‐9203‐1 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib32" idref="ref24" type="bt">32</bibl> <bibtext>Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2011). The critical role of retrieval practice in long‐term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib33" idref="ref19" type="bt">33</bibl> <bibtext>Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006a). Test‐enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long‐term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐9280.2006.01693.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib34" idref="ref12" type="bt">34</bibl> <bibtext>Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006b). The power of testing memory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(3), 181–210. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐6916.2006.00012.x </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib35" idref="ref3" type="bt">35</bibl> <bibtext>Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (2007). Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge‐building and knowledge‐telling in peer tutors' explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research, 77(4), 534–574. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654307309920 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib36" idref="ref4" type="bt">36</bibl> <bibtext>Roscoe, R. D., & Chi, M. T. H. (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 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib37" idref="ref25" type="bt">37</bibl> <bibtext>Tulving, E. (1967). The effects of presentation and recall of material in free‐recall learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(2), 175–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022‐5371(67)80092‐6 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib38" idref="ref84" type="bt">38</bibl> <bibtext>Wittrock, M. C. (1989). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 24, 345–376. </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib39" idref="ref32" type="bt">39</bibl> <bibtext>Wong, S. S. H., Ng, G. J. P., Tempel, T., & Lim, S. W. H. (2017). Retrieval practice enhances analogical problem solving. The Journal of Experimental Education, 42, 1038–1048. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1409185 </bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib40" idref="ref31" type="bt">40</bibl> <bibtext>Yong, P. Z., & Lim, S. W. H. (2016). Observing the testing effect using Coursera video‐recorded lectures: A preliminary study. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 2064. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.02064 </bibtext> </blist> </ref> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Low‐frequency sound waves</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): High‐frequency sound waves</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Stationary bug [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): Bug moving to the right [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]</p> <p>PHOTO (COLOR): The Doppler effect of sound waves [Colour figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]</p> <aug> <p>By Aloysius Wei Lun Koh; Sze Chi Lee and Stephen Wee Hun Lim</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref64"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref65"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1265499
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: The Learning Benefits of Teaching: A Retrieval Practice Hypothesis
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Koh%2C+Aloysius+Wei+Lun%22">Koh, Aloysius Wei Lun</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lee%2C+Sze+Chi%22">Lee, Sze Chi</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lim%2C+Stephen+Wee+Hun%22">Lim, Stephen Wee Hun</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3636-7587">0000-0003-3636-7587</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Applied+Cognitive+Psychology%22"><i>Applied Cognitive Psychology</i></searchLink>. May-Jun 2018 32(3):401-410.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2018
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Strategies%22">Learning Strategies</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Memory%22">Memory</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Materials%22">Instructional Materials</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mathematics+Activities%22">Mathematics Activities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Instructional+Effectiveness%22">Instructional Effectiveness</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/acp.3410
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0888-4080
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Teaching educational materials to others enhances the teacher's own learning of those to-be-taught materials, although the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown. Here, we show that the learning-by-teaching benefit is possibly a retrieval benefit. Learners (a) solved arithmetic problems (i.e., they neither taught nor retrieved; "control" group), (b) taught without relying on teaching notes (i.e., they had to retrieve the materials while teaching; "teaching" group), (c) taught with teaching notes (i.e., they did not retrieve the materials while teaching; "teaching without retrieval practice" ["TnRP"] group), or (d) retrieved (i.e., they did "not" teach but only practised retrieving; "retrieval practice" group). In a final comprehension test 1 week later, learners in the teaching group, as did those in the retrieval practice group, outperformed learners in the TnRP and control groups. Retrieval practice possibly causes the learning benefits of teaching.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2020
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1265499
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1265499
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/acp.3410
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 401
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Strategies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Memory
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Materials
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mathematics Activities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Effectiveness
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: The Learning Benefits of Teaching: A Retrieval Practice Hypothesis
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Koh, Aloysius Wei Lun
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lee, Sze Chi
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lim, Stephen Wee Hun
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2018
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0888-4080
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 32
            – Type: issue
              Value: 3
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Applied Cognitive Psychology
              Type: main
ResultId 1