Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Embedding self-explanation prompts to support learning via instructional video

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Instructional Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Instructional videos have been widely used in online learning environments. Effective video learning requires self-regulation by learners, which can be facilitated by deliberate instructional design, such as through prompting. Grounded in the interactive, constructive, active, and passive (ICAP) framework, this study compared the effects of explanation prompts and explored how they affected the retention and transfer of learning. In an online experiment, 103 participants were randomly assigned to focused self-explanation, scaffolded self-explanation, and instructional explanation prompting conditions. The results indicated better retention performance from the scaffolded prompt than from the focused prompt. No differences were found in transfer performance across various forms of prompts. Regression analysis suggested that prior knowledge and cognitive load may have interacted with the effect of self-explanation prompts. Prior knowledge positively predicted transfer performance, and cognitive load negatively predicted transfer performance when focused or scaffolded prompts were implemented. Potential explanations concerning how self-explanation prompts affect learning were discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The datasets generated during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  • Acuña, S. R., Rodicio, H. G., & Sanchez, E. (2011). Fostering active processing of instructional explanations of learners with high and low prior knowledge. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 26, 435–452

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ainsworth, S., & Loizou, A. (2003). The effects of self-explaining when learning with text or diagrams. Cognitive Science, 27, 669–681

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aleven, V., & Koedinger, K. (2002). An effective metacognitive strategy: Learning by doing and explaining with a computer-based Cognitive Tutor. Cognitive Science, 26(2), 147–179

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashman, G., Kalyuga, S., & Sweller, J. (2020). Problem-solving or explicit instruction: Which should go first when element interactivity is high? Educational Psychology Review, 32, 229–247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson, R. K., Renkl, A., & Merrill, M. M. (2003). Transitioning from studying examples to solving problems: Effects of self-explanation prompts and fading 50 worked-out steps. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(4), 774–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berthold, K., Eysink, T. H., & Renkl, A. (2009). Assisting self-explanation prompts are more effective than open prompts when learning with multiple representations. Instructional Science, 37, 345–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bisra, K., Liu, Q., Nesbit, J. C., Salimi, F., & Winne, P. H. (2018). Inducing self-explanation: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 30(3), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9434-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boucheix, J. M., & Guignard, H. (2005). What animated illustrations conditions can improve technical document comprehension in young students? Format, signaling and control of the presentation. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 20(4), 369–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castro-Alonso, J. C., de Koning, B. B., Fiorella, L., & Paas, F. (2021). Five strategies for optimizing instructional materials: Instructor- and learner-managed cognitive load. Educational Psychology Review, 33(4), 1379–1407. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09606-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cheon, J., Chung, S., Crooks, S. M., Song, J., & Kim, J. (2014). An investigation of the effects of different types of activities during pauses in a segmented instructional animation. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 17(2), 296–306

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2000). Self-explaining: The dual processes of generating inference and repairing mental models. In R. Glaser (Ed.), Advances in Instructional Psychology: Educational Design and Cognitive Science (Vol. 5, pp. 161–238)

  • Chi, M. T. H. (2009). Active-constructive-interactive: A conceptual framework for differentiating learning activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P., & Glaser, R. (1989). Self-explanations: How students study and use examples in learning to solve problems. Cognitive Science, 13, 145–182

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T. H., de Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439–477. https://doi.org/10.1016/0364-0213(94)90016-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., & Wylie, R. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49, 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chi, M. T., Adams, J., Bogusch, E. B., Bruchok, C., Kang, S., Lancaster, M., & Wylie, R. (2018). Translating the ICAP Theory of Cognitive Engagement into Practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y. H., & Jonassen, D. H. (2012). Learning by self-explaining causal diagrams in high-school biology. Asia Pacific Education Review, 13(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-011-9187-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chularut, P., & DeBacker, T. K. (2004). The influence of concept mapping on achievement, self-regulation, and self-efficacy in students of English as a second language. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29(3), 248–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2003.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, R., & Mayer, R. (2011). e-Learning and the science of instruction (3d ed.). San Francisco: Pfeiffer

  • Crowley, K., & Siegler, R. S. (1999). Explanation and Generalization in Young Children’s Strategy Learning. Child Development, 70(2), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deslauriers, L., Schelew, E., & Wieman, C. (2011). Improved Learning in a Large-Enrollment Physics Class. Science, 332(6031), 862–864. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1201783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dochy, F., Segers, M., & Buehl, M. M. (1999). The relation between assessment practices and outcomes of studies: The case of research on prior knowledge. Review of Educational Research, 69, 145–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Kuhlmann, S. (2020). Creating drawings enhances learning by teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 811–822. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2015). Learning as a generative activity: Eight learning strategies that promote understanding. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107707085

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. (2016). Eight Ways to Promote Generative Learning. Educational Psychology Review, 28(4), 717–741. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9348-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2017). Spontaneous spatial strategy use in learning from scientific text. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.01.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorella, L., Stull, A. T., Kuhlmann, S., & Mayer, R. E. (2020). Fostering Generative Learning from Video Lessons: Benefits of Instructor-Generated Drawings and Learner-Generated Explanations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(5), 895–906. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000408

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerjets, P., Scheiter, K., Opfermann, M., Hesse, F. W., & Eysink, T. H. (2009). Learning with hypermedia: The influence of representational formats and different levels of learner control on performance and learning behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 360–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2008.12.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabowski, B. L. (2004). Generative learning contributions to the design of instruction and learning. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 719–743). New York, NY: Simon & Schuster MacMillan

    Google Scholar 

  • Hannus, M., & Hyönä, J. (1999). Utilization of illustrations during learning of science textbook passages among low- and high-ability children. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1998.0987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hasler, B. S., Kersten, B., & Sweller, J. (2007). Learner control, cognitive load and instructional animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 713–729

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R. G. M., & Chi, M. T. H. (2002). Can a computer interface support self-explaining? Cognitive Technology, 7(1), 4–14

    Google Scholar 

  • Hefter, M. H., ten Hagen, I., Krense, C., Berthold, K., & Renkl, A. (2019). Effective and Efficient Acquisition of Argumentation Knowledge by Self-Explaining Examples: Videos, Texts, or Graphic Novels? Journal of Educational Psychology, 118(8), 1396–1405. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000350

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hegarty, M., Carpenter, P. A., & Just, M. A. (1991). Diagrams in the comprehension of scientific texts. In R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (2 vol., pp. 641–668). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum

    Google Scholar 

  • Höffler, T. N., & Schwartz, R. N. (2011). Effects of pacing and cognitive style across dynamic and non-dynamic representations. Computers & Education, 57, 1716–1726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.012

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C. I., & Mayer, R. E. (2010). Applying the self-explanation principle to multimedia learning in a computer-based game-like environment. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(6), 1246–1252

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalyuga, S. (2012). Instructional benefits of spoken words: A review of cognitive load factors. Educational Research Review, 7, 145–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.12.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koedinger, K. R., Corbett, A. T., & Perfetti, C. (2012). The Knowledge-Learning-Instruction Framework: Bridging the Science-Practice Chasm to Enhance Robust Student Learning. Cognitive Science, 36(5), 757–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2012.01245

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Koning, B. B., Hoogerheide, V., & Boucheix, J. M. (2018). Developments and trends inlearning with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 395–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Koning, B. B., Tabbers, H. K., Rikers, R. M. J. P., & Paas, F. (2011). Improved effectiveness of cueing by self-explanations when learning from a complex animation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25(2), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1661

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, L., & Atkinson, R. K. (2013). Enhancing Learning from Different Visualizations by Self-Explanation Prompts. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 49, 83–110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lombrozo, T. (2006). The structure and function of explanations. Trends in cognitive sciences, 10(10), 464–470

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manalo, E., Uesaka, Y., & Chinn, C. A. (Eds.). (2018). Promoting Spontaneous Use of Learning and Reasoning Strategies. New York, NY: Routledge

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E. (2005). The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819

  • Mayer, R. E. (2014). Principles Based on Social Cues in Multimedia Learning: Personalization, Voice, Image, and Embodiment Principles. In R. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (2nd ed., pp. 345–368). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.017

  • Mayer, R. E., & Chandler, P. (2001). When learning is just a click Away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 390–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2002). Aids to computer-based multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction, 12, 107–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Fiorella, L., & Stull, A. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(3), 837–852. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, D. S., O’Reilly, T. P., Best, R. M., & Ozuru, Y. (2006). Improving adolescent students’ reading comprehension with iSTART. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 34(2), 147–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: Cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(6), 765–781

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. (2007). Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educational Psychology Review, 19(3), 309–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, J., Chi, M. T. H., & Heller, M. F. (2020). Improving teacher questioning in science using ICAP theory. The Journal of Educational Research, 113(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2019.1709401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najjar, L. (1996). Multimedia information and learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 5(2), 129–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Paas, F., Tuovinen, J. E., Tabbers, H., & Van Gerven, P. W. (2003). Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 63–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pi, Z., Hong, J., & Yang, J. (2017). Does instructor’s image size in video lectures affect learning outcomes? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(4), 347–354

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pi, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhou, W., Xu, K., Chen, Y., Yang, J., & Zhao, Q. (2020). Learning by explaining to oneself and a peer enhances learners’ theta and alpha oscillations while watching video lectures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 52(2), 659–679. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13048

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pirolli, P., & Recker, M. (1994). Learning strategies and transfer in the domain of programming. Cognition and Instruction, 12(3), 235–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (1997). Learning from worked-out examples: A study on individual differences. Cognitive Science, 21, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2101_1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out example principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (pp. 229–247). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Renkl, A., & Eitel, A. (2019). Self-Explaining: Learning About Principles and Their Application. In J. Dunlosky & K. A. Rawson (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Cognition and Education (1st ed., pp. 528–549). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235631.022

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Fyfe, E. R., Loehr, A. M., & Miller, M. R. (2015). Beyond numeracy in preschool: Adding patterns to the equation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 101–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.01.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., & Loehr, A. M. (2017). Eliciting explanations: Constraints on when self-explanation aids learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 24(5), 1501–1510. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-016-1079-5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rittle-Johnson, B., Loehr, A. M., & Durkin, K. (2017). Promoting self-explanation to improve mathematics learning: A meta-analysis and instructional design principles. ZDM-Mathematics Education, 49, 599–611

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelle, J., Müller, C., Roelle, D., & Berthold, K. (2015). Learning from Instructional Explanations: Effects of Prompts Based on the Active-Constructive-Interactive Framework. PLOS ONE, 10(4), e0124115. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0124115

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roelle, J., & Renkl, A. (2020). Does an option to review instructional explanations enhance example-based learning? It depends on learners’ academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(1), 131–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rey, G. D., & Fischer, A. (2013). The expertise reversal effect concerning instructional explanations. Instructional Science, 41, 407–429

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, I. J., Caris, T. N., Harris, G. D., & Hendricson, W. D. (1983). Effects of three types of lecture notes on medical student achievement. Academic Medicine, 58(8), 627–636. https://doi.org/10.1097/00001888-198308000-00004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A. M., Marcus, N., & Ayres, P. (2012). The transient information effect: Investigating the impact of segmentation on spoken and written text. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26, 848–853. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2885

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh, A. M., Marcus, N., & Ayres, P. (2017). Strategies to reduce the negative effects of spoken explanatory text on integrated tasks. Instructional Science, 45, 239–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-016-9400-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spanjers, I. A. E., van Gog, T., Wouters, P., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2012). Explaining the segmentation effect in learning from animations: The role of pausing and temporal cueing. Computers & Education, 59(2), 274–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.12.024

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J. (2006). The worked example effect and human cognition. Learning and Instruction, 16, 165–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sweller, J., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. W. C. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Z., Gong, S., Xu, S., & Hu, X. (2019). Elaborated feedback and learning: Examining cognitive and motivational influences. Computers & Education, 136, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.04.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittrock, M. C. (1990). Generative processes of comprehension. Educational Psychologist, 11, 87–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461527409529129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, R. M. F., Lawson, M. J., & Keeves, J. (2002). The effects of self-explanation training on students’ problem solving in high-school mathematics. Learning and Instruction, 12, 233–262

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wouters, P., Paas, F., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2010). Observational learning from animated models: effects of studying–practicing alternation and illusion of control on transfer. Instructional Science, 38, 89–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-008-9079-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wylie, R., & Chi, M. (2014). The Self-Explanation Principle in Multimedia Learning. In Richard E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning (Second Edition, pp. 413–432). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.021

Download references

Acknowledgements

We wish to thank the reviewers and editor for their insightful comments that helped improve the manuscript. We are deeply grateful to the participants who took part in the experiment. We also thank the research assistants for grading the tests and coding the explanation texts.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [#61807011], the self-determined research funds of CCNU from the colleges’ basic research and operation of MOE [#CCNU19TD019], and Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology.

Author information

Author notes

    Authors and Affiliations

    1. School of Psychology, Central China Normal University, 152 Luoyu Road, 430079, Wuhan, Hubei, China

      Caixia Bai, Jingying Yang & Yun Tang

    2. Key Laboratory of Adolescent Cyberpsychology and Behavior, Ministry of Education, 152 Luoyu Road, 430079, Wuhan, Hubei, China

      Yun Tang

    3. Beijing Key Laboratory of Applied Experimental Psychology, 19 Xinjiekouwai Street, 100875, Beijing, China

      Yun Tang

    Authors
    1. Caixia Bai
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    2. Jingying Yang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    3. Yun Tang
      View author publications

      You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

    Contributions

    Caixia Bai: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation; Jingying Yang: Data Curation, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing; Yun Tang: Formal analysis, Writing - Original Draft, Writing - Review & Editing. Caixia Bai and Jingying Yang contributed equally to this work and are listed in alphabetic order.

    Corresponding author

    Correspondence to Yun Tang.

    Ethics declarations

    Conflict of interest

    The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

    Ethical Approval

    All procedures in this experiment were in accordance with the ethical principles of the Institutional Review Board of Central China Normal University.

    Informed Consent

    Informed consent was obtained from all participants.

    Additional information

    Publisher’s Note

    Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    About this article

    Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

    Cite this article

    Bai, C., Yang, J. & Tang, Y. Embedding self-explanation prompts to support learning via instructional video. Instr Sci 50, 681–701 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09587-4

    Download citation

    • Received:

    • Revised:

    • Accepted:

    • Published:

    • Issue Date:

    • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-022-09587-4

    Keywords

    Search

    Navigation