Comparación de dos procedimientos de enseñanza universitaria: Un ejemplo de interteaching

Abstract

ResumenEl objetivo de ésta investigación fue comparar dos procedimientos de enseñanza universitaria en el rendimiento académico. Un total de 11 estudiantes fueron evaluados en las dos condiciones experimentales, interteaching con discusión por pares (ICDPP), e interteaching sin discusión por pares (ISDPP). Se utilizó un diseño de tratamientos alternantes para comparar ambas condiciones. En cada condición los participantes completaban unas guías de estudio, en la condición de (ICDPP) los estudiantes discutían en parejas los temas de las guías y seleccionaban los de la siguiente clase. Posteriormente el docente revisaba los temas de la clase anterior y administraba un quiz al final. La condición de ISDPP fue idéntica a la anterior, con la excepción que no se presentaba la discusión por pares. Los resultados muestran que las notas más altas en los quices ocurrieron en la condición de ICDPP. Se discuten los resultados y se presentan alternativas de investigación.Palabras Clave: Métodos de enseñanza; análisis de la conducta; educción superior. Comparison of two procedures of college teaching: An example of interteaching AbstractThe objective of this study was to compare two methods of college teaching in increasing quizzes scores. A total of 11 students were tested in the two experimental conditions, interteaching with peer discussion (IWPD) and interteaching without peer discussion (IWOPD). An alternating treatment design was used to compare both procedures. In each condition participants completed study guides before class, then in the IWPD students meet in groups to discuss and selectt eaching topics for class. This condition ended with a quiz. The other condition, IWOPD was similar to the above, except students did not meet in groups to discuss the study guides. The results show that quiz scores were higher in the ICWPD.Some educational implications are presented and futures research described.Keywords: Teaching methods; behavior analysis; higher education. Comparação de dois procedimentos de ensino universitário: Um exemplo de interteaching ResumoO objetivo desta investigação foi comparar dois procedimentos de ensino universitário relativos ao rendimento acadêmico. 11 estudantes foram avaliados em duas condições experimentais: interteaching com discussão por pares (ICDPP) e interteaching sem discussão por pares (ISDPP). Foi utilizado um delineamento de tratamentos alternados para comparar ambas as condições. Em cada condição os participantes completavam guias de estudo; na condição de ICDPP os estudantes discutiam em pares os temas das guias e selecionavam os da aula seguinte.Posteriormente o docente revisava os temas da aula anterior e administrava um questionário ao final. A condição de ISDPP foi idêntica à anterior, com a exceção que não se apresentava a discussão por pares. Os resultados mostram que as notas mais altas nos questionários ocorreram na condição de ICDPP. Discutem-se os resultados e se apresentam alternativas de investigação. Palavras

Interteaching: How much does each component increase its efficacy?

“…This is congruent with Gayman et al (2020), who found that adding an optional prep guide to standard lecture-centered teaching did not improve quiz scores. The addition of a discussion period following the reading and completion of the prep guide seems to be an integral part of what leads to student success in interteaching and corroborates two recent studies' findings that quiz scores and student preference were both higher when the pair discussion component was incorporated in interteaching (Garcia et al, 2016;Soldner et al, 2017). This may be because the discussion is an active learning activity where students engage in behaviors important for academic achievement (e.g., repetition, building fluency, explaining terminology, and differentially responding to examples and nonexamples of concepts) and receive one-on-one feedback from the instructor (Saville et al, 2006).…”

“…Further, since interteaching first appeared in the literature, a multitude of classroom studies have been published investigating different components of the method. Component analyses in classroom studies have examined the importance of various aspects of interteaching, such as the prep guide (Cannella-Malone et al, 2009;Filipiak et al, 2010;Gayman et al, 2020), group discussion (Garcia et al, 2016;Rosales & Soldner, 2018;Soldner et al, 2017), clarifying lecture (Saville, Cox, et al, 2011), quality points (Rosales et al, 2014;Saville & Zinn, 2009), and frequent probes (Felderman, 2014).…”

A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis of Interteaching

“…Ten studies tested six different variations of interteaching (level of difficulty of prep guides, number of students in the discussion groups, number of quizzes, presence or absence of discussions, presence or absence of lectures, and presence or absence of quality points; Bethke, 2016 ; Garcia et al, 2016 ; Lambert & Saville, 2012 ; Rosales & Soldner, 2018 ; Saville et al, 2011a ; Saville & Zinn, 2009 ) using two different outcome measures (i.e., results of examinations and quizzes). Figure 2 displays a forest plot and the effect-size analyses for these studies (Hedge’s g , standard error, CI, and p -values).…”

“…Variations of the discussion-group size yielded a moderate and significant summary effect size ( g = 0.579, p = 0.001, 95% CI [0.243–0.915]), favoring pair discussions to produce better test scores. The two studies that compared the absence or presence of discussions yielded the largest effects ( g = 0.903, p = 0.002, 95% CI [0.293–1.477]; ( g = 0.876, p = 0.042, 95% CI [0.031–1.720]; Soldner et al, 2017 ; Garcia et al, 2016 , respectively), favoring inclusion of the discussion component of interteaching to produce higher test scores.

Fig.

…”

“…Our analysis provides moderate support for having students work in pairs during discussions, rather than in larger groups (e.g., Boyce & Hineline, 2002 ; Rosales & Soldner, 2018 ). Furthermore, the data suggest that removing the discussion component of interteaching is likely to limit the effectiveness of the approach substantially (e.g., Garcia et al, 2016 ). This notion is in line with recent studies on the effectiveness of active learning components across in-person and online settings (Gayman et al, 2018 ; Müller & Wulf, 2020 ; Pollock et al, 2011 ).…”