An Evaluation of the Pair Discussion Component of Interteaching

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of the pair discussion component of interteaching on student quiz performance for two sections of an introductory undergraduate course in behavior analysis with a total of 49 students. An alternating treatment design was used whereby the pair discussion was alternated in a quasi-random fashion with a whole-class discussion throughout the semester. In both experimental conditions, all other components of interteaching were in effect. Feedback on quiz performance was provided immediately upon quiz submission. Results show a slight advantage for the pair discussion condition, but no statistically significant differences between the two conditions. Social validity results show a preference for whole-class discussion. These results are discussed in light of the limitations and strengths of the study, and we outline directions for future research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Benjamin, L. T. (2002). Lecturing. In S. Davis & W. Buskist (Eds.), The teaching of psychology: Essays in honor of Wilbert J. McKeachie and Charles L. brewer (pp. 57–67). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  2. Boyce, T. E., & Hineline, P. N. (2002). Interteaching: A strategy for enhancing the user friendliness of behavioral arrangements in the college classroom. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 215–226.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Cannella-Malone, H. I., Axe, J. B., & Parker, E. D. (2009). Interteach preparation: A comparison of the effects of answering versus generating study guide questions on quiz scores. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9(2), 22–35.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Chidambarum, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study on social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149–168. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre.l050.0051.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Goto, K., & Schneider, J. (2010). Learning through teaching: Challenges and opportunities in facilitating student learning in food science and nutrition by using the interteaching approach. Journal of Food Science Education, 9, 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.15414329.2009.00087.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychologist, 36(4), 343–356.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Litoe, L., & Pumroy, D. K. (1975). A brief review of classroom oriented contingencies. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8(3), 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.1975.8-341.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. McKeachie, W. J., & Svinicki, M. (2006). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Querol, B. I. D., Rosales, R., & Soldner, J. L. (2015). A comprehensive review of interteaching and its impact on student learning and satisfaction. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(4), 390–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosales, R., Soldner, J. L., & Crimando, W. (2014). Enhancing the impact of quality points in interteaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotly14i5.12746.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Saville, B. K., Bureau, A., & Zombakis, J. (2014). Interteaching and lecture: A comparison of long-term recognition memory. Teaching of Psychology, 41(4), 325–329. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628314549704.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Saville, B. K., Cox, T., O’Brien, S., & Vanderveldt, A. (2011). Interteaching: The impact of lectures on student performance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 937–941. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2011.44-937.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Saville, B. K., Pope, D., Truelove, J., & Williams, J. (2012). The relation between GPA and exam performance during interteaching and lecture. The Behavior Analyst Today, 13, 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Saville, B. K., & Zinn, T. E. (2009). Interteaching: The effects of quality points on exam scores. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42, 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-369.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., & Elliot, M. P. (2005). Interteaching versus traditional methods of instruction: A preliminary analysis. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 161–163. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3203_6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., Neef, N. A., Van Norman, R., & Ferreri, S. J. (2006). A comparison of interteaching and lecture in the college classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2006.42-05.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Scoboria, A., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). An ‘interteaching’ informed approach to instructing large undergraduate classes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and. Learning, 9, 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Soldner, J. L., Rosales, R., & Crimando, W. (2015). A comparison of interteaching and classroom lecture in rehabilitation education. Rehabilitation Counselors and Educators Journal, 8(1), 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Soldner, J. L., Rosales, R., Crimando, W., & Schultz, J. C. (2017). Interteaching: Application of an empirically supported behavioral teaching method in distance rehabilitation education. Rehabilitation Research, Policy, and Education, 31(4), 372–386.

  20. Sturmey, P., Dalfen, S., & Fienup, D. M. (2015). Inter-teaching: A systematic review. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 16(1), 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2015.1069655.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Truelove, J. C., Saville, B. K., & Van Patten, R. (2013). Interteaching: Discussion group size and course performance. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 13, 23–30.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Rocío Rosales or James L. Soldner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

We thank Mathew Swerdan, Joseph Veneziano, and Beatriz Querol Isabelle Del Rosario for assistance with data analysis, and Anya Weber for her editorial assistance with this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rosales, R., Soldner, J.L. & Zhang, L. An Evaluation of the Pair Discussion Component of Interteaching. Psychol Rec 68, 71–79 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0269-0

Download citation

Keywords

  • Interteaching
  • Component analysis
  • Pair discussion
  • College teaching