|Empowering the Learner: Using Interteaching to Improve Higher Education|
|Sunday, May 24, 2020|
|8:00 AM–9:50 AM |
|Area: TBA/EDC; Domain: Translational|
|Chair: Catherine M. Gayman (Troy University)|
|Discussant: Philip N. Hineline (Temple University - Emeritus)|
|CE Instructor: Catherine M. Gayman, Ph.D.|
Interteaching is a behavioral teaching method with growing empirical evidence supporting its efficacy. Over 30 published empirical studies have examined the effectiveness of interteaching in higher education. However, more research is still needed to examine the influence of different interteaching components and the methods used for instructional delivery. The first presenter will acquaint the audience with interteaching and describe results of a study which compared interteaching to standard lecture centered teaching with and without prep guides in an online asynchronous format. The second presenter will share results of a classroom study which compared two different methods of running the discussion component of interteaching. The third presenter will highlight the findings of a series of studies in which interteaching was first compared to another active learning strategy known as the Learning Pathway (LP), and then the addition of Say All Fast Everyday Shuffle (SAFMEDS) to interteaching was evaluated. The final presenter will discuss results of a meta-analytic review on the effectiveness of interteaching. Together, these four presentations illustrate current interteaching research in higher education.
|Target Audience: |
Academics, supervisors, and teachers.
|Learning Objectives: After attending this symposium, participants should be able to: 1) Identify and describe the basic components of interteaching 2) Summarize the main findings of a study applying interteaching in an online asynchronous format 3) Summarize the main findings of a study investigating the discussion component of interteaching 4) Summarize the main findings of a study comparing interteaching to other active learning methods 4) Summarize the main findings of a recent meta-analytic review on the effectiveness of interteaching|
|Can Access to Preparation Guides Alone Enhance Lecture-Based Teaching?|
|CATHERINE M. GAYMAN (Troy University), Stephanie Jimenez (University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown), Tara Elizabeth Casady (Bassett Army Community Hospital)|
|Abstract: The present study investigated the effect of adding interteaching preparation guides to traditional lecture-based teaching in an online, asynchronous undergraduate psychology class. Specifically, the study compared (1) interteaching which used a preparation guide, a written group discussion in Canvas, and a brief clarifying lecture, (2) standard teaching that consisted of a video lecture, and (3) standard teaching plus preparation guides. Total average exam scores following interteaching were significantly higher than scores following standard teaching with or without preparation guides. Most participants reported learning more during interteaching weeks and preferred interteaching more than standard lecture. These results indicate that access to preparation guides in the absence of other components of interteaching was not enough to significantly improve exam grades.|
An Investigation of the Group Discussion Component of Interteaching With and Without Completed Prep Guides
|STEPHANIE JIMENEZ (University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown), Catherine M. Gayman (Troy University)|
Interteaching is an evidence-based learning strategy that shifts the focus away from a passive learning model found in lecturing to a more active, student-centered learning methodology. It utilizes 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 current study used a group design in one undergraduate course over two semesters to investigate how the removal of completed prep guides during the group discussion affected academic success. One group experienced the standard interteaching method, where students completed the prep guide prior to class and referred to their prep guide answers during the group discussion. The second group completed the prep guide prior to class, but then were asked to not refer to their answers during the in-class group discussion. Those in the second group had exam scores that were consistently lower and rated interteaching as less preferable than those who experienced standard interteaching. Results from this study should allow for more effective implementation of interteaching.
|Interteaching in Community Health: A Comparison of Active Learning Strategies and Follow-Up|
|JONATHAN A. SCHULZ (University of Kansas), Vincent Thomas Francisco (University of Kansas, Department of Applied Behavioral Science)|
|Abstract: A number of studies suggest that interteaching (IT) is more effective than traditional teaching methods (i.e., lecture); however, research is needed to compare IT to other active learning strategies (i.e., strategies that foster critical thinking by engaging students in analysis, synthesis, and evaluation through discussion and active student responding). Therefore, an IT informed teaching method was compared to an active learning strategy known as the Learning Pathway (LP) in an undergraduate community health and development course. Results indicate that students performed slightly higher on multiple-choice quizzes during the IT condition and correctly answered more fill-in-the-blank midterm and final exam questions related to content covered in the IT condition. However, students indicated that they preferred the LP teaching method. A follow-up study addressed a limitation of Study 1 by examining the effects of Say All Fast Minute Everyday Shuffle (SAFMEDS) as part of IT on student performance. Results indicate students performed similarly on multiple-choice quizzes whether or not they completed SAFMEDS but answered more fill-in-the-blank final exam questions related to content covered during interteach sessions with SAFMEDS. This study highlights the need to evaluate interteaching as compared to other active learning strategies and integrate other behavioral teaching strategies with interteaching.|
|A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis on the Effectiveness of Interteaching|
|CAMILO HURTADO PARRADO (Troy University & Konrad Lorenz Fundación Universitaria), Nicole Pfaller-Sadovsky (Queen's University Belfast), Lucia Medina (Fundacion Universitaria Konrad Lorenz), Catherine M. Gayman (Troy University), Kristen A. Rost (Troy University), DANIELA CARDILLO (Fundacion Universitaria Konrad Lorenz), Derek Schofill (Troy University)|
|Abstract: Interteaching is a behavioral teaching method that departs from the traditional lecture format (Boyce & Hineline, 2002). In the present study, we updated and expanded previous interteaching reviews, and conducted a meta-analysis on its effectiveness. Systematic searches in EBSCO, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, and theses/dissertations repositories identified 38 relevant studies (2005-2018). Preliminary analyses identified the following main findings: (a) nearly 70% of studies were conducted in undergraduate face-to-face courses, with class subjects primarily related to social sciences; (b) 50% of studies used single-case designs (42% of studies used group designs); (c) seven interteaching components (i.e., prep guides, discussions, record sheets, clarifying lectures, contingency on discussions or prep-guide completion, frequent evaluations, and quality points) were implemented with different degrees of consistency; (d) nearly 65% of studies reported using five of the seven components identified; (e) the most commonly reported components were discussions, record sheets, prep guides, and frequent evaluations; (f) overall effect size of interteaching versus traditional lecture across different measures of student performance (e.g., scores on exams and quizzes) was medium to high; (g) overall effect size of different variations on the implementation of interteaching (e.g., discussion-group size, clarifying-lecture scheduling, class size) was small.|