|Evaluating the Effects of Different Interteaching Components on Student Outcomes|
|Monday, May 29, 2017|
|9:00 AM–10:50 AM |
|Convention Center 401/402|
|Area: TBA; Domain: Translational|
|Chair: Scott A. Spaulding (University of Washington)|
|Discussant: Karen Kate Kellum (University of Mississippi)|
|CE Instructor: Scott A. Spaulding, Ph.D.|
|Abstract: Interteaching is a behavior-analytic approach that leads to improved student outcomes in higher-education settings when compared to more traditional methods of teaching. Over the past 14 years, researchers have evaluated the effects of interteaching in their classrooms. However, the influence of different interteaching components and the methods used for instructional delivery have not received as much attention from behavior analysts. The first presenter will provide a conceptual overview, introducing the research supporting interteaching, how the instructional method is implemented, and future directions of this research. The second presenter will highlight work investigating the relation between student performance on preparation guides, student ratings of discussion groups, and teacher ratings of student activity. The third presenter will discuss the effects of specific interteaching components—preparation guides, interteach sessions, and lecture—across each class session of an undergraduate psychology course as a way to consider acquisition of learning. The final presenter will share the results of an experimental analysis comparing interteaching with lecture within a synchronous online learning format—a systematic replication and extension of an early interteaching research study. Together, these four presentations illustrate current interteaching research and practice.|
|Instruction Level: Intermediate|
|Keyword(s): interteaching, pedagogy|
Interteaching: Breaking Away From Traditional Lecture-Centered Pedagogy
|CATHERINE M. GAYMAN (Troy University)|
Interteaching is a relatively new behavioral teaching method with a growing body of empirical evidence to support its efficacy. Interteaching promotes student preparation by requiring students to complete study questions which guide them through a unit of course materials prior to class. During class meetings, students are divided into small groups, and the majority of class time is dedicated to encouraging active student engagement via peer discussion of the study questions. Instructors facilitate discussions by moving among the groups and providing guidance and clarification on topics. Lectures are brief and focused on clarifying material reported as difficult by students following the discussion. The use of interteaching methods in higher education settings has resulted in higher exam scores, increased student participation in class, and more positive course evaluations. Students also report enjoying interteaching more than traditional lectures. This review will provide a summary of interteaching, a brief review of research in the area, and possible directions for future empirical inquiry.
What Survives When Lectures Have Been Forgotten? Research on the Pragmatics of Interteaching
|AMY MURRELL (University of North Texas), Shraddha Trehan (University of North Texas), Joseph Hernandez (University of North Texas), Leyla Erguder (University of North Texas), Daniel Steinberg (University of North Texas), Teresa Hulsey (University of North Texas), Danielle Moyer (University of North Texas), Darby McMakin (University of North Texas)|
Compared to lecture format, interteaching (Boyce & Hineline, 2002) typically results in higher-class attendance and student engagement (Saville, Zinn, Neef, Norman, & Ferreri, 2006). Interteaching encourages critical thinking, promotes better knowledge retention of course content, and stimulates higher student satisfaction and grades (Goto & Schneider, 2009; 2010). Still, this teaching format is novel and often uncomfortable for many university students and faculty when first implemented. This presentation will focus on a successful transition from traditional lecture format to interteaching in two classes: one section each of undergraduate and graduate level child psychopathology courses. Findings reveal a significant positive correlation between student grades on preparation guides and student ratings of the quality of their interteaching groups (r = .86, p < .001). Likewise, preparation guide grades are positively correlated with professor ratings of student activity within the groups (r = .49, p < .001). Results suggest students believe interteaching to be helpful to understanding lectures (74% say highly so), and they find clarifying lectures more beneficial when they are given the same day as the interteaching session on the topic. Additional data on pragmatic issues, along with study limitations and implications will be discussed.
|A Preliminary Evaluation of the Relative Contribution of Interteaching Components|
|JOSEPH D. DRACOBLY (Eastern Connecticut State University)|
|Abstract: Researchers have found interteaching to be an effective method for teaching a variety of college-level courses (e.g., Boyce & Hineline, 2002; Saville, Zinn, Neef, Van Norman, & Ferrari, 2006). More recently, researchers have begun isolating the specific components for evaluation (e.g., Cannella-Malone, Axe, & Parker, 2009; Saville, Cox, O’Brien, & Vandervelt, 2011; Saville & Zinn, 2009). However, there has been limited research on the evaluation of student learning across the three components, preparation guide, interteach session, and lecture, on a week-by-week basis. The purpose of the current study was to determine the relative influence of each component on student performance in three undergraduate psychology courses. Each week, students were given three timed probes: first, before receiving the preparation guide, second, before completing interteaching, and third, in the next class period after the lecture. To date, I found a general increase in correct responses across each administration of the probe, with the largest increase occurring on the post-interteaching probe. However, across all probes, there was variability across participants, particularly on the post-interteaching probe. The results may allow us to identify the most effective component and lead to refinement of other components, resulting in more rapid acquisition.|
|Differences in Student Performance and Preference During Interteaching and Lecture in Synchronous Online Learning|
|MICHAEL GUTIERREZ (University of Washington), Nancy Rosenberg (University of Washington), Scott A. Spaulding (University of Washington)|
|Abstract: Online learning is now a common format in higher education. Both synchronous and asynchronous platforms are used to teach students enrolled in many applied behavior analysis programs. The growth of this format has been relatively rapid, and the technology used to deliver the coursework can change quickly. To help ensure their program quality, behavior analysts must evaluate their online learning methods. Interteaching is a behavior analytic approach, typically used in higher education within a traditional classroom format. However, little research exists evaluating its effectiveness in online contexts. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of interteaching and traditional lecture on the test scores of students in an online, synchronous class in a master’s program in special education. Across eight, weekly classes, students were assigned to either an interteaching or lecture format.
Using an alternating treatments design, we evaluated the effects on quiz scores and student satisfaction. Results showed that interteaching produced higher quiz scores across all sessions with no overlapping data points between conditions. This difference maintained in a final exam, where more questions targeting interteach classes were answered correctly by students than those from lecture classes. Students also reported a preference for interteaching over lecture-based classes.|