Is There An Element Interactivity Effect for Learning by Teaching ?


Learning by teaching requires novices to instruct or imagine instructing naive strangers on a target concept. It is thought to work by encouraging learners to select relevant information, organize it into coherent representations, and integrate it with their prior knowledge. Across multiple domains and settings, variants of this technique can result in large and enduring learning gains. To date, the instructional content used in studies evaluating learning by teaching has been conceptually complex (e.g. Doppler effect). It is unclear whether its benefits extend to simpler content like vocabulary and anatomy. According to cognitive load theory, low complexity information like vocabulary can be learned effectively in ways that do not suit the learning of high complexity information like mathematical procedures. This well-replicated phenomenon is the element interactivity effect. In this 2X2 factorial study, information complexity was the between-subjects factor. Neuroanatomy was the low complexity domain and conditional probability was the high complexity domain. The within-subjects factor was learning technique (study-test vs. study-teach). All learners were told that testing or teaching would be expected later. Compared to study-test, it was hypothesized that study-teach would yield superior performance on a delayed post-test only for high complexity information. For low complexity information, both techniques would be equally effective. Results are evaluated against cognitive load theory and the SOI model of learning.


  1. Alexander Renkl. Learning for later teaching: An exploration of mediational links between teaching expectancy and learning results. Learning and Instruction 5, 21–36 Elsevier BV, 1995. Link

  2. Alexander Gregory, Ian Walker, Kevin Mclaughlin, Adam D. Peets. Both preparing to teach and teaching positively impact learning outcomes for peer teachers. Medical Teacher 33, e417–e422 Informa Healthcare, 2011. Link

  3. Logan Fiorella, Richard E. Mayer. The relative benefits of learning by teaching and teaching expectancy. Contemporary Educational Psychology 38, 281–288 Elsevier BV, 2013. Link

  4. Sandra Y. Okita, Daniel L. Schwartz. Learning by Teaching Human Pupils and Teachable Agents: The Importance of Recursive Feedback. Journal of the Learning Sciences 22, 375–412 Informa UK Limited, 2013. Link

  5. Logan Fiorella, Richard E. Mayer. Role of expectations and explanations in learning by teaching. Contemporary Educational Psychology 39, 75–85 Elsevier BV, 2014. Link

  6. John F. Nestojko, Dung C. Bui, Nate Kornell, Elizabeth Ligon Bjork. Expecting to teach enhances learning and organization of knowledge in free recall of text passages. Memory & Cognition 42, 1038–1048 Springer Nature, 2014. Link

  7. Logan Fiorella, Richard E. Mayer. Eight Ways to Promote Generative Learning. Educational Psychology Review 28, 717–741 Springer Nature, 2015. Link

  8. Krista R. Muis, Cynthia Psaradellis, Marianne Chevrier, Ivana Di Leo, Susanne P. Lajoie. Learning by preparing to teach: Fostering self-regulatory processes and achievement during complex mathematics problem solving.. Journal of Educational Psychology 108, 474–492 American Psychological Association (APA), 2016. Link

  9. Vincent Hoogerheide, Lian Deijkers, Sofie M.M. Loyens, Anita Heijltjes, Tamara van Gog. Gaining from explaining: Learning improves from explaining to fictitious others on video not from writing to them. Contemporary Educational Psychology 44-45, 95–106 Elsevier BV, 2016. Link

[Someone else is editing this]

You are editing this file