The benefits of teaching on comprehension, motivation, and perceived difficulty: Empirical evidence of teaching expectancy and the interactivity of teaching
posted on 2021-03-29, 12:49authored byYing Wang, Lijia Lin, Ouhao Chen
Background. Research regarding teaching expectancy has been mostly conducted in
research laboratories with college students. These studies provide insufficient evidence
regarding its effect on learners’ delayed comprehension. Moreover, the relative
superiority of teaching a peer face to face compared to teaching an imagined peer lacks
empirical support.
Aims. The purpose of the study was to investigate the interactivity of teaching by
comparing peer teaching to imagined teaching, as well as enhancing the generalizability of
the teaching expectancy effect by testing it in a secondary school environment.
Sample. A total of 597 students (282 males) from 12 classes in a secondary school were
recruited to participate in the study as part of their psychology course.
Methods. Participants were randomly assigned to one of six conditions formed by a 2
(teaching expectancy vs. testing expectancy) 9 3 (peer teaching vs. imagined teaching vs.
no teaching) between-subjects design. Their immediate and delayed comprehension
tests, motivation, and perceived difficulty were measured as dependent variables.
Results. Imagined teaching enhanced both immediate and delayed comprehension, but
peer teaching only enhanced immediate comprehension. Moreover, the effects of
imagined teaching on perceived difficulty and motivation were dependent upon teaching
expectancy or testing expectancy.
Conclusions. Our findings provide empirical evidence to the existing theoretical
frameworks, but caution should be taken when applying imagined teaching in practice.
This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Wang, Y., Lin, Li. and Chen, O., The benefits of teaching on comprehension, motivation, and perceived difficulty: Empirical evidence of teaching expectancy and the interactivity of teaching. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), pp. 1275-1290, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12416. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions