An Assessment of Group Size in Interteaching
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
A key component of interteaching, as described by Boyce and Hineline (2002), is the opportunity for students to participate in "dyadic" or pair discussions. Although the rationale for pair discussions is evident, only one study to date has evaluated the relative effectiveness of student performance when group size is manipulated. The present investigation was designed to further evaluate the effect of group size during pair discussions on student quiz scores in an introductory psychology course with a diverse group of learners. An alternating treatments design was implemented whereby students were assigned to work in a dyad or in groups of 4-5 students to discuss a preparation guide. All of the major components of interteaching were in effect during both conditions (i.e., availability of prep guides and quality points, clarifying lectures, and frequent test probes). Results showed a small advantage for performance following discussion in dyads, although a social validity measure indicated students favored discussion in larger groups. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future work will be discussed.
Downloads
Article Details
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
Arntzen, E., & Hoium, K. (2010). On the effectiveness of interteaching. The Behavior Analyst Today, 11, 155–160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0100698
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.
Chidambarum, L., & Tung, L. L. (2005). Is out of sight, out of mind? An empirical study of social loafing in technology-supported groups. Information Systems Research, 16(2), 149−168.
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.15414329.2009.00087.x
House, A.E., House, B.J., & Campbell, M.B. (1981). Measures of Interobserver agreement: Calculation formulas and distribution effects. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 3(1), 37-57.
Johnson, D.W., & Johnson, R.T., (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Educational Researcher, 38(5), 365-379.
Latane, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. American Psychology, 36, 343−356.
Leung, K. C. (2015). Preliminary empirical model of crucial determinants of best practice for peer tutoring on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(2), 558- 579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0037698
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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000048
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. doi:10.14434/josotlv14i5.12746
Saville, B. K., Cox, T., O’Brien, S., & Vanderbelt, 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., 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.
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., & Elliot, 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(1), 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(3), 29-37.
Slavin, R. E. (2014). Cooperative learning and academic achievement: Why does group work work? Annals of Psychology, 30(4), 785-791. http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.201201
Slavin, R. E. (1996). Research on cooperative learning and achievement: What we know, what we need to know. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21(1), 43-69.
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.
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. doi: 10.1891/2168-6653.31.4.372
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.
Zayak, R.M., & Paulk, A.L. (2014). Interteaching: Its effects on exam scores in a compressed schedule format. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(1), 1-12. doi:10.14434/josotl.v14i1.3649