Interteaching: Discussion group size and course performance

Article Sidebar

PDF
Published: May 31, 2013
Keywords:
interteaching, group size, discussion, exam performance, behavior analysis

Main Article Content

Jacob C. Truelove
James Madison University
Bryan K. Saville
James Madison University
Ryan Van Patten
James Madison University

Abstract

Researchers have yet to examine whether discussion group size affects student performance in an interteaching-based course. In the current study, we addressed this question by manipulating discussion group size (smaller groups of 2 students vs. larger groups of 4 students) across 2 sections of an undergraduate psychology course. We found no significant differences between the sections on 6 unit exams, on a cumulative final exam, and in the total number of points earned across the semester.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
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(2), 23–30. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/josotl/article/view/3200
Issue
Volume 13, Number 2
Section
Articles
  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (JoSoTL) right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License, (CC-BY) 4.0 International, allowing others to share the work with proper acknowledgement and citation of the work's authorship and initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.
     
  2. Authors are able to enter separate, additional contractual agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

  3. In pursuit of manuscripts of the highest quality, multiple opportunities for mentoring, and greater reach and citation of JoSoTL publications, JoSoTL encourages authors to share their drafts to seek feedback from relevant communities unless the manuscript is already under review or in the publication queue after being accepted. In other words, to be eligible for publication in JoSoTL, manuscripts should not be shared publicly (e.g., online), while under review (after being initially submitted, or after being revised and resubmitted for reconsideration), or upon notice of acceptance and before publication. Once published, authors are strongly encouraged to share the published version widely, with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in the Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning.

References

Boyce, T. E., & Hineline, P. N. (2002). Interteaching: A strategy for enhancing the userfriendliness of behavioral arrangements in the college classroom. The Behavior Analyst, 25, 215226.

Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. W. (1982). Theory of Instruction: Principles and Application. New York: Irvington.

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. doi:10.1111/j.1541-4329.2009.00087.x

Guerin, B. (1994). Analyzing Social Behavior: Behavior Analysis and the Social Sciences. Reno, NV: Context Press.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365-379. doi:10.3102/0013189X09339057

Keller, F. S. (1968). Good-bye teacher… Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 79-89. doi:10.1901/jaba.1968.1-79

Latané, B., Williams K. D., & Harkins S. G. (1979). Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.6.822

Lindsley, O. R. (1964). Direct measurement and prosthesis of retarded behavior. Journal of Education, 147, 62-81.

Mau, W-C., & Lynn, R. (2001). Gender differences on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the American College Test and college grades. Educational Psychology, 21, 133-146.

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. doi:10.1901/jaba.2011.44-937

Saville, B. K., Lambert, T., & Robertson, S. (2011). Interteaching: Bringing behavioral education into the 21st century. The Psychological Record, 61, 153-166.

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

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

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. doi:10.1901/jaba.2006.42-05

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.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Williams, K. D., Harkins, S. G., & Latané, B. (1981). Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 303-311. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.303

Wolf, M. M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 203-214. doi:10.1901/jaba.1978.11-203