|
| Interteaching: What We Can Learn from Recent Research in Higher Education |
| Monday, May 30, 2022 |
| 3:00 PM–4:50 PM |
| Meeting Level 2; Room 204A/B |
| 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 that has growing empirical evidence supporting its efficacy. The method was initially described by Boyce and Hineline in 2002, and since then over 40 studies have been published investigating its effect on learning outcomes. Overall, the method has been found to increase student exam scores, increase student participation during class, and lead to more positive course evaluations. This symposium will start off with a review of the basic components of interteaching. The first presentation will summarize a study in which the discussion component was compared in an online undergraduate course against a traditional essay style online discussion. The second presentation will describe a study that compared an interteaching style discussion to posting to an online discussion board in a graduate level behavior analysis course. The third presentation will review results of a study that investigated the quality points component of interteaching in an online undergraduate course. The fourth presentation will summarize a study that evaluated the quality of preparation guides used in and online course. These four presentations will provide a sampling of the recent research being conducted on interteaching. |
| Instruction Level: Basic |
| Keyword(s): Higher Education, Interteaching, Online instruction, Pedagogy |
| 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 two studies that evaluated the discussion component of interteaching in an online format; 3) Summarize a study investigating the quality points component of interteaching; 4) Describe a study that investigated the quality of the preparation guide. |
| |
| Evaluating the Discussion Component of Interteaching in an Online Asynchronous Class |
| CATHERINE M. GAYMAN (Troy University), Stephany Hammock (Troy University), Sherwhonda Taylor (Troy University), Stephanie Jimenez (University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown) |
| Abstract: The present study evaluated the effect of using different online discussion styles in an alternating treatments design across three sections of an online, nine-week asynchronous Psychology of Learning class. All three components were taught using the interteaching method. One component used an interteaching-style discussion, the second component used an essay-style discussion, and the third component was a control condition with no discussion. Although there were no significant differences in exam scores across discussion type, F(2,184) = .241, p = .78, the majority of participants scored higher on weekly exams (70.11%) and questions from the final (74.60%) following either the interteaching or essay discussion. In addition, of the students who reported a preference, a plurality rated interteaching as both their preferred teaching method (47.62%) and the one they learned the most from, 60.87%. The present findings suggest that the style of discussion may not be essential in an online asynchronous discussion format. |
| |
| Comparative Effects of Using Interteaching and Discussion Boards in a Graduate Single Case Design Course |
| BRENNA R GRIFFEN (University of Arkansas ), Elizabeth R. Lorah (University of Arkansas), Cody Lindbloom (University of Arkansas) |
| Abstract: Since the climate of higher education instruction has shifted from students taking on-campus instruction to online instruction, an evaluation of evidence-based practices for online learning is needed. One promising practice, interteaching, involves students reviewing course materials prior to pairing with a peer to explore the content together through the answering of preparation guide questions and the discussion of aspects of the content which were and were not clear. Not only have past researchers found this practice to be effective in promoting higher quiz and examination scores, but studies have also shown that students prefer using interteaching. Similarly, the usage of the discussion board has shown to increase academic performance. In fact, desirable outcomes such as positive interactions among peers and the promotion of student engagement have occurred through the usage of online discussion boards. This study used a single case reversal design to compare interteaching and posting to an online discussion board to determine their effects on content acquisition and preference of those graduate students enrolled in a behavior analysis course. Although the results of the study indicate similar effectiveness for both conditions, interteaching was generally more preferred than posting to the online discussion board. |
| |
| An Examination of Quality Points in Interteach in a College Course |
| KAREN O'CONNOR (Trinity Christian College), Brandon C. Perez (Trinity Christian College ), Sara Baillie Gorman (Trinity Christian College), Casey J. Clay (Children's Hospital of Orange County), Jessica Clevering (Trinity Christian College) |
| Abstract: The present study evaluated the effect of using quality points as a component of interteach. Participants were undergraduate students enrolled in two course sections of an introduction to applied behavior analysis (N=54). The study used a multi-element design. The first half of the semester both sections participated in interteaching without quality points. During the second half, students had the opportunity to earn quality points based on an established criterion. The quality points condition was randomized and alternated between sessions. Students were surveyed regarding interteach prior to quality points and at course completion. Visual analysis of the multielement data indicate that quality points did not increase student quiz performance in one section and potentially increased student quiz performance in the second section. Additional statistical analyses will be conducted to examine group differences and to examine patterns related to the number of quality points earned. The current results suggest that quality points may not improve student performance on quizzes. The majority of students reported high levels of acceptance of interteaching and a preference for quality points. The present findings suggest that quality points may be a socially valid component in interteaching; however, may not be a necessary component of this method. |
| |
| An Evaluation of the Development of Preparation Guide Used During Interteaching |
| JAMES L. SOLDNER (University of Massachusetts Boston), Rocio Rosales (University of Massachusetts Lowell) |
| Abstract: The preparation guide component of Interteaching (Boyce & Hineline, 2002) is intended to guide students through a reading assignment and consists of a range of questions based on the principles of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Saville, et al., 2011). To date, only one prior study has evaluated the impact of the preparation guide component of interteaching. Canello-Malone et al. (2009) evaluated the effects of answering vs. student-generated questions on student performance, showing only slightly higher quiz scores when students were required to generate questions. The present study was designed to further examine the preparation guide component of interteaching in two sections of an online course. An alternating treatment design with counterbalancing was employed to evaluate the effects of “high-quality” compared to “low-quality” preparation guides on weekly quiz performance. “Low-quality” prep guides were designed to include the first three levels of Bloom’s taxonomy; whereas the “high-quality” prep guides were deigned to include all six levels. All other components of interteaching as described by Boyce and Hineline were implemented across all class sessions. Findings indicate student performance was similar for both conditions across seven quizzes. Implications of these results will be discussed as well as suggestions for future research on this topic. |
|
| |