|
| Improving Student Learning Using Behavior Analysis in Higher Education: A Symposium on Recent Interteaching Research |
| Sunday, May 28, 2023 |
| 11:00 AM–12:50 PM |
| Convention Center 406/407 |
| Area: TBA/EDC; Domain: Applied Research |
| Chair: Catherine M. Gayman (Troy University) |
| Discussant: Philip N. Hineline (Temple University - Emeritus) |
| CE Instructor: Catherine M. Gayman, Ph.D. |
| Abstract: Interteaching is a pedagogy stemming from behavior analysis that can be used as an alternative to lecture-centered teaching in higher education settings. This method was initially described by Boyce and Hineline in 2002, and continues to gather empirical support verifying its efficacy. Interteaching has been shown to produce higher exam scores, increase student participation in class, and result in more positive student course evaluations. This symposium will summarize the basic components of the interteaching method of instruction, followed by four data-based presentations. The first presentation will describe a study that investigated the clarifying lecture component of interteaching in an asynchronous online course. The second presentation will summarize a study that compared two methods of implementing the preparation guide component of interteaching: having students complete the preparation guide either before or during class. The third presentation will review results of a study that compared the preparation guide component of interteaching versus a brief quiz. The fourth presentation will describe main findings from a literature review of single-case research conducted evaluating interteaching. These four presentations will summarize a sample of recent research conducted evaluating interteaching as an instructional methodology. |
| Instruction Level: Basic |
| Keyword(s): college students, higher education, interteaching |
| Target Audience: Course instructors and/or fieldwork supervisors |
| Learning Objectives: After attending this symposium, participants should be able to: 1) Identify and describe the basic components of interteaching; 2) Describe one study that investigated the clarifying lecture component of interteaching; 3) Describe two studies that evaluated the preparation guide component of interteaching; 4) Summarize findings from a literature review on single-case studies of interteaching. |
| |
Evaluating the Clarifying Lecture Component of Interteaching |
| Catherine Gayman (Troy University), Stephanie Jimenez (University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown), Jennifer Herron (Troy University), Giryong Park (Troy University), Stephany Hammock (Troy University), Rachael Davis (Troy University) |
| Abstract: The present study evaluated the clarifying lecture component of interteaching using undergraduate participants (N=116) enrolled across three sections of a nine-week asynchronous online psychology of learning course. The study used an alternating-treatments design that alternated lecture styles across weeks of material in each of the courses. A Latin square counterbalance was used to determine the order (ABCABC; BCABCA; CABCAB) of the three lecture conditions: (a) a brief clarifying lecture tailored to cover material that students reported to be the most difficult; (b) a brief standard lecture covering what the instructor thought was the most difficult content; and (c) no lecture. Results showed that students scored marginally better on weekly exams following the brief clarifying lecture (z-score M = .07, SD = 1.02) than when the standard lecture (z-score M = .02, SD = .89) or no lecture (z-score M = -.08, SD = 1.09) were used, although there was no statistically significant difference found between the three lecture conditions. Furthermore, this study found that the majority (70.59%) of students self-reported that they preferred and learned more from the clarifying lectures. Overall, the findings of this study suggest that tailoring lectures based on student feedback may be beneficial to student learning. |
| |
| Completing the Preparation Guide During the Group Discussion: A Classroom Analysis of Interteaching |
| STEPHANIE JIMENEZ (University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown), Catherine M. Gayman (Troy University), Breanna Wuckovich (University of Pittsburgh, Johnstown) |
| Abstract: Interteaching is a strategy that shifts the emphasis from passive student learning to active engagement through the use of prep guides, small group discussions, clarifying lectures, and frequent testing. Several classroom studies have demonstrated that interteaching leads to better student comprehension and higher test scores. However, the specific strategy used in these studies vary slightly. The goal of the present study was to compare two different ways of implementing the prep guide to determine which method led to higher academic success. A group design was used in one course over two semesters. One group experienced the standard interteaching method, where students completed the entire prep guide prior to class. The second group completed part of the prep guide prior to class and then were asked to complete the last three prep guide questions in class during their group discussion. Although there were no significant differences in exam scores across groups, those in the second group rated their version of interteaching as more preferable than the students who experienced standard interteaching. Results from this study should allow for more effective implementation of interteaching. |
| |
| Evaluating Preparation Guide Use in Interteaching Compared to a Quiz Alternative |
| DAVID SCHENA (University of Massachusetts Lowell), Rocio Rosales (University of Massachusetts Lowell), James L. Soldner (University of Massachusetts Boston) |
| Abstract: This interteaching research examines the effectiveness of a potential alternative for the preparation (prep) guide component of interteaching. The prep guide component has demonstrated efficacy in student learning and satisfaction in varied higher education settings but may come with increased response effort for instructors. We compared two conditions that required students to complete assigned readings before coming to class: 1) a prep guide and 2) a 5-item quiz at the start of class. A total of 38 undergraduate students enrolled in an Introduction to Psychology course participated in this study. The primary dependent measure was student performance on quizzes following each condition. Analysis of the results revealed no significant difference in student performance between conditions (t (304) = 0.118, p = 0.45), though qualitative analysis revealed student preference for preparation guides over quizzes. These results indicate that a start-of-class quiz may serve as a functional alternative to completion of a prep guide. Discussion will focus on how future interteaching research can improve the quality and implementation, as well as social validity of quizzing relative to prep guides. |
| |
| How to Interteach: A Comprehensive Evaluation of Interteach Component Variations |
| MICHELLE DAVIDSON (Rollins College), April Michele Williams (Rollins College) |
| Abstract: Interteach has been used primarily in undergraduate, face-to-face courses but has been implemented in graduate and online courses as well. Multiple authors have conducted qualitative and quantitative research since it was introduced 20 years ago. However, most components have yet to be examined in isolation via a component analysis. Additionally, there is much variation in how the essential components of interteach are being implemented, leading to difficulty in determining the most effective interteach procedures. Finally, although interteach is based on behavior analysis principles supported by single-subject designs, approximately half of the empirical studies to date were conducted via group designs. Thus, to identify which interteach component variations are supported by single-subject research, the present authors conducted a literature search resulting in 58 peer-reviewed interteach articles written in English. The authors then systematically removed 21 literature reviews and non-empirical research studies as well as 28 studies which were either group designs or qualitative research. The procedural details and results of the remaining 9 articles were then analyzed and compared. Results showed many authors failed to report the details of some of the procedural components while other components were implemented relatively consistently across studies. |
|
| |