Abstract
The current study evaluated the effects of two different styles of discussion board assignments on weekly and cumulative final exam scores in an online asynchronous undergraduate psychology of learning class. In particular, this study used an alternating treatments design to compare three different discussion conditions: (1) interteaching-style discussion, in which students discussed all prep guide questions; (2) essay-style discussion, in which students posted a short essay and discussed essays written by other students; and (3) no discussion. No significant differences were found on weekly or cumulative final exam scores between these three discussion conditions. However, students reported that they preferred and learned more from interteaching-style discussions. It is unclear if the lack of effect on exam scores resulted from the alternating treatments design, which only exposed students to each discussion condition twice during the term. Future researchers could utilize alternate research designs to explore the effects of exposing students to a greater number of asynchronous interteaching discussions throughout the semester. An alternative explanation is that it may be that when prep guides are assigned and graded with detailed feedback, this mitigates the effect of the discussion component. Follow-up studies could investigate the impact of alternative methods for structuring the asynchronous interteaching discussion, and also the effects of adding quality points contingent on the discussion.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Data are publicly available at the second author’s GitHub repository: https://github.com/ststill7/Discussion-Styles-Data
References
AlJeraisy, M. N., Mohammad, H., Fayyoumi, A., & Alrashideh, W. (2015). Web 2.0 in education: The impact of discussion board on student performance and satisfaction. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14(2), 247–259. https://www.learntechlib.org/p/160585/
Aloni, M., & Harrington, C. (2018). Research based practices for improving the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards. Scholarship of Teaching & Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 271–289. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000121
Alzahrani, M. G. (2017). The developments of ICT and the need for blended learning in Saudi Arabia. Journal of Education & Practice, 8(9), 79–87. https://doi.org/10.7176/JEP
American Council on Education. (2020, April 23). College and university presidents respond to COVID-19: April 2020 survey. https://www.acenet.edu/Research-Insights/Pages/Senior-Leaders/College-and-University-Presidents-Respond-to-COVID-19-April-2020.aspx
Bailey, J., & Birch, M. (2017). Research methods in applied behavior analysis (2nd ed.). Routledge.
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(2), 215–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03392059
Byrne, B., & Guy, R. (2016). Interteaching within a human physiology course: A comparison of first- and second-year students’ learning skills and perceptions. Advances in Physiology Education, 40(3), 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00141.2015
Chance, P. (2014). Learning and behavior (7th ed.). Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Cho, M. H., & Tobias, S. (2016). Should instructors require discussion in online courses? Effects of online discussion on community of inquiry, learner time, satisfaction, and achievement. International Review of Research in Open & Distributed Learning, 17(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v17i2.2342
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
Falakfarsa, G., Brand, D., Jones, L., Godinez, E. S., Richardson, D. C., Hanson, R. J., Velazquez, S. D., & Wills, C. (2022). Treatment integrity reporting in Behavior Analysis in Practice 2008–2019. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 15(2), 443–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-021-00573-9
Fehrman, S., & Watson, S. L. (2020). A systematic review of asynchronous online discussions in higher education. American Journal of Distance Education, 35(3), 200–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2020.1858705
Garcia, Y. A., Orozco, L., & Martin, G. (2016). Comparación de dos procedimientos de enseñanza universitaria: Un ejemplo de interteaching. Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, 20(3), 493–501. https://doi.org/10.1590/2175-3539/2015/02031029
Gayman, C. M., Hammonds, F., & Rost, K. A. (2018). Interteaching in an asynchronous online class. Scholarship of Teaching & Learning in Psychology, 4(4), 231–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000126
Gayman, C. M., Jimenez, S. T., Hammock, S., Taylor, G., & Rocheleau, J. M. (2023a). The effects of cumulative and noncumulative exams within the context of interteaching. Journal of Behavioral Education, 32, 261–276. (Original work published Online First 2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09451-4
Gayman, C. M., Rost, K. A., & Jimenez, S. T. (2023b). A comparison of interteaching, lecture-based teaching, and lecture-based teaching with optional preparation guides in an asynchronous online classroom. Scholarship of Teaching & Learning in Psychology, 9(1), 1–13. (Original work published Online First 2020) https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000234
Gravetter, F. J., Wallnau, L. B., & Forzano, L. B. (2018). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences (9th ed.). Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.
Gutierrez, M. (2017). Interteaching: The effects of discussion group size on undergraduate student performance and preference [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Washington.
Hurtado-Parrado, C., Pfaller-Sadovsky, N., Medina, L., Gayman, C. M., Rost, K. A., & Schofill, D. (2022). A systematic review and quantitative analysis of interteaching. Journal of Behavioral Education, 31, 157–185. (Original work published Online First 2021) https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3
Jimenez, S. T., & Gayman, C. M. (2021). Interteaching: How much does each component increase its efficacy? Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 54(4), 1503–1513. https://doi.org/10.1002/jaba.848
Krebs, C. A., Kuhn, S. A. C., Brewer, A. T., & Diller, J. W. (2023). Using interteaching to promote online learning. Journal of Behavioral Education, 32, 76–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09434-5
Malkin, A., Rehfeldt, R. A., & Shayter, A. M. (2018). An investigation of the efficacy of asynchronous discussion on students’ performance in an online research method course. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 11(3), 274–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40617-016-0157-5
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 & Learning in Psychology, 1(4), 390–411. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000048
Rieken, C. J., Dotson, W. H., Carter, S. L., & Griffith, A. K. (2018). An evaluation of interteaching in an asynchronous online graduate-level behavior analysis course. Teaching of Psychology, 45(3), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628318779275
Roediger, H. L., & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science, 17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x
Rosales, R., & Soldner, J. L. (2018). An assessment of group size in interteaching. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 18(2), 105–117. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v18i2.22539
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/josotlv14i5.12746
Rosales, R., Soldner, J. L., & Zhang, L. (2018). An evaluation of the pair discussion component of interteaching. The Psychological Record, 68(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-018-0269-0
Saville, B. K., & Zinn, T. E. (2009). Interteaching: The effects of quality points on exam scores. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 42(2), 369–374. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2009.42-369
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(3–4), 27–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0100728
Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., Neef, N. A., Norman, R. Van, & Ferreri, S. J. (2006). A comparison of interteaching and lecture in the college classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.1901/jaba.2006.42-05
Sheng, Y. (2008). Testing the assumptions of analysis of variance. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 324–341). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412995627.d27
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. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/sgisd_faculty_pubs/6
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, & Education, 31(4), 372–386. https://doi.org/10.1891/2168-6653.31.4.372
Sturmey, P., Dalfen, S., & Fienup, D. M. (2015). Inter-teaching: A systematic review. European Journal of Behavior Analysis, 16, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/15021149.2015.1069655
Truelove, J., Saville, B., & Van Patten, R. (2013). Interteaching: Discussion group size and course performance. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching & Learning, 13(2), 23–30. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/3200
U.S. Department of Education. (2022). Digest of education statistics, Table 311.15. National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/dt22_311.15.asp
Acknowledgements
We thank Rachael Davis and Jennifer Herron for their time and effort in editing portions of this manuscript. Preliminary data from this study were presented at the annual Association for Behavior Analysis International conference, Boston, MA, May 2022.
Funding
No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval/Consent to Participate
This study was approved by Troy University Internal Review Board (Protocol #201907003). Only data from participants who completed informed consent is included in the article.
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no relevant financial or nonfinancial interests to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Jessica M. Rocheleau, Independent Researcher.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Gayman, C.M., Jimenez, S.T., Rocheleau, J.M. et al. An Evaluation of Asynchronous Online Discussion Board Formats in Interteaching. Psychol Rec 74, 75–87 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-024-00589-x
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-024-00589-x