Learning by teaching face-to-face: the contributions of preparing-to-teach, initial-explanation, and interaction phases

Abstract

Teaching other students in a face-to-face manner has been shown to effectively foster both one’s own and their learning. This study experimentally investigated whether and how tutors and tutees academically benefit from three phases of face-to-face teaching: preparing-to-teach, initial-explanation, and interaction phases. Japanese undergraduates (n = 80) acted as tutors or tutees in peer tutoring. After studying with the expectation of teaching face-to-face or taking a test (the preparing-to-teach phase), tutor participants provided tutee participants with initial instructional explanations, without asking or answering questions (the initial-explanation phase), and then engaged in a question-and-answer period (the interaction phase). Tutor and tutee participants learned better by providing and receiving higher-quality explanations in the initial-explanation and interaction phases. Face-to-face teaching vs. test expectancy had no effects on the quality of tutor participants’ explanations or their learning outcomes. The results suggest that both the initial-explanation and interaction phases contribute to learning by teaching face-to-face, whereas the preparing-to-teach phase does not.

Appendix. The English version of the text used as learning material for tutors in the present study

Bibb Latané, a social psychologist, and his colleagues conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which social loafing and coordination loss contribute to the deterioration of collective group performance.

Social loafing refers to a phenomenon in which individuals’ motivation and efforts are lower when they work together as a group than when they work alone. Coordination loss refers to a phenomenon in which group members’ efforts are not fully incorporated into collective group performance. This is due to an imperfect group process, including poor coordination of their moves and a communication gap between them.

A total of 36 male undergraduates participated in Latané et al.’s experiment and performed a task in groups of six. Their task was to shout as loudly as possible many times, taking occasional breaks, in a laboratory. Students wore blindfolds and noise-blocking earphones and therefore could not see anything or hear other members’ voices. Through their earphones, they heard a voice counting backward from three—three, two, one. It was the signal to shout (even so, it was difficult for students to coordinate their voices when they could not see anything or hear other members’ voices).

There were a total of 75 trials per group. In each trial, students were randomly assigned to one of the following five conditions. That is, all of them performed the task in the five conditions in random order.

Solo condition: One member who was prompted through his earphones shouted alone.

Actual group A and B conditions: Two (A) or six (B) members who were prompted through their earphones shouted together. The members realized that they shouted in pairs (A) or that all of them shouted (B). It was hypothesized that both social loafing and coordination loss would occur in these conditions.

Pseudo-group A and B conditions: One member who was prompted through his earphones shouted alone. However, the member was led to believe that he and one other member (A) or the other five members (B) shouted together. It was hypothesized that social loafing only would occur in these conditions.

The results of the experiment were as follows. Using the solo condition as the base in which the average volume of voices was reckoned at 100%, participants in the pseudo-group A and B conditions shouted at 82% and 74%, respectively. For the actual group conditions, the volume of an actual group’s voice was divided by the number of members to estimate the voice volume per member. Students in the actual group A and B conditions shouted at 66% and 36%, respectively.