Improving Learning Outcomes: Interteaching as an Alternative to Lecture in Undergraduate Education

By Alan Scoboria, PhD, C.Psych.

The CFL generously supported my attendance at the annual Psychology Teaching Institute held at the Association for Psychological Science in New York in May 2006. Amongst the various presentations, Bryan K. Saville, PhD (James Madison University), spoke about the use of interteaching as a method for increasing interactive learning in traditionally lecture-based courses.

The less than adequate characteristics of lecture-based educational methods are well established. Research has indicated that the lecture format promotes passivity in the learning process, does little to promote retention of learned material, does not promote time spent on-task, results in little student-to-student or student-to-instructor interaction, and frequently makes it difficult for instructors to obtain feedback. Research on educational outcomes, however, has consistently demonstrated that effective teaching methods should do the opposite – promote active learning, long-term retention, increasing time spent on-task, increasing in-class interaction, and generally be enjoyable for students and instructors.

Research has indicated that the lecture format promotes passivity in the learning process... Research on educational outcomes, however, has consistently demonstrated that effective teaching methods should do the opposite...

In arguing that effective learning should be grounded in empirically established psychological principles, Saville presented interteaching (Boyce & Hineline, 2002), a method recently developed as an alternative to the lecture format. Interteaching shifts the responsibility for the initial presentation of material away from the instructor, and places the initial expectation for learning and discussion of material upon students. The instructor role is re-cast as one of providing structure, encouraging student-to-student discussion of material, and facilitating understanding of challenging information.

Interteaching begins with the construction of a preparation guide by the instructor, which consists of questions which guide students through the course material to be covered during the class session. Students receive the ‘prep guide’ in advance, and use the questions in conjunction with readings to prepare for class. In class, students interact in groups of 2 or 3 (and in a different group in each session), and discuss the questions for about 75% of the class period. In-class discussion is assigned a portion of course credit (about 10%). During this time, the instructor (and assistants if available) circulate amongst groups, to monitor understanding of material, encourage discussion, and respond to questions.

Interteaching shifts the responsibility for the initial presentation of material away from the instructor, and places the initial expectation for learning and discussion of material upon students.

At the end of the session, students complete an interteaching record, which consists of the student and discussion partner names, an assessment of how well the discussion went and an explanation why, and most importantly, indicating topics which were difficult and topics which should be reviewed. Based upon this student feedback, the instructor prepares a short clarifying lecture, which is held at the beginning of the next class period. As the lecture follows discussion, and is based largely upon student interest, it is likely to be more relevant and interesting to students. Examinations are subsequently derived primarily from material covered in the preparation guides. Furthermore, exams are provided frequently (4 or 5 per term) to provide opportunities for enhancing grades.

This method ... promotes active learning, in that students must prepare in advance, thereby increasing exposure, time-on-task, individual engagement, and the importance of understanding material.

This method provides a number of potential advantages over typical lecture-based instruction. It promotes active learning, in that students must prepare in advance, thereby increasing exposure, time-on-task, individual engagement, and the importance of understanding material. It creates a cooperative learning environment, which relies in part upon social reinforcement by peers and the instructor. Furthermore, it clearly relates study and test materials, thereby facilitating learning and retention of material, and likely reducing test anxiety. The method is self-correcting, in that instructors receive immediate feedback as to which areas are not well understood, leading to clarifying lectures, and possibly selecting of new or additional study materials for students.

Research by Saville and colleagues suggests that interteaching results in superior test performance than traditional lecture, reading alone, or control groups (Saville & Zinn, 2005). Interteaching resulted in an average 6.5% gain on cumulative final examination scores relative to lecture; furthermore, a majority of students expressed a preference for interteaching over lecture, after adjusting to the demands of the new method (Saville, Zinn, Neef, et al., 2006). Using a dismantling research approach, Saville presented evidence that the in-class discussion is a key component in these learning and retention gains; provision of prep guides in the absence of discussion failed to produce gains (Saville, 2006).

Interteaching resulted in an average 6.5% gain on cumulative final examination scores relative to lecture...(and) a majority of students expressed a preference for interteaching over lecture...

In the Fall of 2006 I taught a third year course in abnormal psychology, adapted to these methods. This course met twice per week for 80 minutes. The first class each week was primarily dedicated to group discussion of the prep guide questions, and a portion of the course grade was based upon attendance. The GA and I circulated to answer questions, and to gain a sense of student comprehension of the material. This resulted in many interesting conversations which could not occur during a lecture. At the end, students provided written feedback, and articulated material which they wanted clarified, and topics they wanted to know more about. I took this feedback and tailored a lecture for the second meeting of the week.

Preliminary evidence of this course suggests that the approach may have been helpful to student performance. The correlation between the number of prep guide sessions attended and the exam grade was positive and notable (r =.40); and there was a 2% advantage on the exam grade for individuals attending all preparation sessions, versus missing a single session. Anecdotally, students appeared to have adjusted well to the approach, and some expressed appreciating that the method encouraged them to prepare in advance for classes.

In summary, interteaching appears to hold promise as a theoretically based, empirically tested educational method, which addresses many of the limitations of lectures, as well as other behaviourally informed didactic methods. It is theoretically grounded in educational and psychological principles, and initial empirical work suggests that it promotes enhanced learning and student interest. Instructors may thus wish to consider interteaching as an alternative didactic method, or as a method for augmenting lecture-based courses.

Dr. Alan Scoboria is an assistant professor of psychology at the University of Windsor.

References

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

Saville, B.K. (2006). From sage on the stage to guide on the side: An alternative approach to teaching research methods. Paper presented at the Annual Teaching Institute, Association for Psychological Science, New York, NY.

Saville, B.K., & Zinn, T.E. (2005). Interteaching versus traditional methods of instruction: A preliminary analysis. Teaching of Psychology, 32(3), 161-163.

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.