Learning by writing explanations: Is explaining to a fictitious student more effective than self-explaining?
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Research demonstrated that oral explaining to a fictitious student improves learning. Whether these findings replicate in written contexts, and whether instructional explaining is more effective than other explaining strategies such as self-explaining is unclear. In two experiments, we compared written instructional explaining to written self-explaining, and also included written retrieval and a baseline control condition. In Experiment 1 (N = 147, between-participants-design, laboratory experiment), we obtained no effect of explaining. In Experiment 2 (N = 51, within-participants-design, field-experiment), only self-explaining was more effective than our control conditions for attaining transfer. Self-explaining was more effective than instructional explaining. A cumulating meta-analysis on students’ learning revealed a small effect of instructional explaining (conceptual knowledge: g = 0.29, transfer: g = 0.22), which was moderated by the modality of explaining (oral explaining > written explaining). These findings indicate that when students writing explanations are better off self-explaining than explaining to a fictitious student.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Explaining to others (even fictitious peers) is a powerful learning strategy, as it requires individuals to monitor and organize information coherently.
“although explaining to others (even fictitious peers) is a powerful learning strategy, as it requires individuals to monitor and organize information coherently (Lachner et al., 2021)”
From Enhancing School Students' Self-Regulated Learning through Generative AI Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial (2026) · cites this paper as Lachner et al., 2021
The Introduction and Section 1.1 describe explaining to a fictitious student as beneficial for learning and link it to organizing information coherently. Section 1.1 says explaining might allow students to monitor their comprehension; it does not establish that monitoring is required, as the citing sentence claims. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 99 · Cited by 77
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- [14]14. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 35-53). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
- [33]33. Hox, J. J. (2010). Quantitative methodology series. Multilevel analysis: Techniques and applications (2nd ed.). New York, NY, US: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.
- [37]37. Klein, P., Boscolo, P., Kirkpatrick, L., & Gelati, C. (Eds.). (2014). Writing as a learning activity. Leiden: Brill.
- [46]46. Lakoff, R. T. (1982). Some of my favorite writers are literate: The mingling of oral and literate strategies in written communication. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp. 239-260). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
- [60]60. Plötzner, R., Dillenbourg, P., Preier, M., & Traum, D. (1999). Learning by explaining to oneself and to others. Collaborative learning: Cognitive and computational approaches. Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
- Authors
- Lachner, A., Jacob, L., & Hoogerheide, V.
- Affiliations
- Leibniz-Institut für Wissensmedien (DE)
- Utrecht University (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Lachner, Andreas
- Venue
- Learning and Instruction
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-08
- Volume
- 74
- Pages
- 101438
- ISSN
- 0959-4752 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3126673030
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 99
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 7
- FWCI
- 8.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Learning and Instruction (publishedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Educational Strategies and Epistemologies
- Keywords
- self-explanation, written explanations, verbal explanation, retrieval practice, transfer of learning, conceptual knowledge
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
