A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis of Interteaching

Abstract

Interteaching is a behavioral teaching method that departs from the traditional lecture format (Boyce & Hineline in BA 25:215–226, 2002). We updated and expanded previous interteaching reviews and conducted a meta-analysis on its effectiveness. Systematic searches identified 38 relevant studies spanning the years 2005–2018. The majority of these studies were conducted in undergraduate face-to-face courses. The most common independent variables were manipulations of the configuration of interteaching or comparisons to traditional-lecture format. The most common dependent variables were quiz or examination scores. Only 24% of all studies implemented at least five of the seven components of interteaching. Prep guides, discussions, record sheets, and frequent assessments were the most commonly implemented. Meta-analyses indicated that interteaching is more effective than traditional lecture or other control conditions, with an overall large effect size. Furthermore, variations in the configuration of the interteaching components do not seem to substantially limit its effectiveness, as long as the discussion component is included. Future research informed by the present review includes: (a) investigating the efficacy of interteaching in additional academic areas, online environments, workplace training, and continuing education, (b) testing alternative outcome measures, generalization, and procedural integrity, (c) conducting systematic component analyses, and (d) measuring social validity from the instructor’s perspective. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3.

A comparison of interteaching, lecture-based teaching, and lecture-based teaching with optional preparation guides in an asynchronous online classroom.

“…The current study replicated the efficacy of IT in a shortened 9-week term format (Gayman et al, 2018). Most applied IT studies have implemented the teaching method over the course of a semester-length class and found it to be effective (see Hurtado-Parrado et al, 2020, for a review). One exception includes a study by Slezak and Faas (2017), which implemented IT over a 1-day probe and found that, although not statistically different than ST, IT led to higher test scores.…”

“…The use of IT in an online classroom is new, thus there are many avenues of research that have not yet been explored. Although IT has been implemented across a broad range of disciplines (e.g., psychology, nutrition, rehabilitation, engineering, business) the majority of IT studies have been conducted in social science classes (see Hurtado-Parrado et al, 2020 for a review). Additional studies are needed to determine the generalizability of the methods used to other subjects and online classes.…”

Evaluating the use of preparation guides in interteaching versus a quiz alternative

“…Nonparametric analysis of test performance suggested no statistically significant difference between the two conditions. However, as with much previous interteaching research (Arntzen & Hoium, 2010;Hurtado-Parrado et al, 2022;Saville et al, 2006;Soldner et al, 2015), students generally preferred the preparation guide condition, which represented a more traditional interteaching method.…”

“…In interteaching, the preparation-guide component might be presumed to serve as a prompt for rehearsal as well as a permanent product for the other components (e.g., group discussion) and may or may not be graded for accuracy or completion (Filipiak et al, 2010). Based on Boyce and Hineline's (2002) seminal article on interteaching, a preparation guide should include 10 to 20 shortanswer questions (Hurtado-Parrado et al, 2022). These questions may also contain multiple parts and request several responses from students such as a definition, a description of a procedure or phenomenon, and a comparison of one phenomenon versus another.…”

“…Interteaching consists of seven components: (a) completion of an assigned reading before class with a corresponding preparation guide, (b) in‐class discussion of the preparation guide with fellow classmate(s), (c) reinforcement contingencies for preparation guide completion and discussion, (d) an opportunity to provide feedback to the instructor via “record sheets,” (e) a clarifying lecture delivered by the instructor based on the feedback provided by students, (f) several “probes” (e.g., tests or quizzes) to assess student learning and engagement in a formative manner, and (g) “quality points” that can be earned based on probe performance (Boyce & Hineline, 2002; Saville & Zinn, 2009; Saville et al, 2011; Schulz & Francisco, 2021). A robust line of research shows that interteaching results in superior academic performance when compared with traditional lecture‐based teaching (Hurtado‐Parrado et al, 2022; Saville et al, 2006). In addition, studies on interteaching often demonstrate high social validity, with students regularly describing interteaching as both preferable and more instructive than traditional lectures (e.g., Arntzen & Hoium, 2010; Gayman & Jimenez, 2020; Saville et al, 2006; Zayac & Paulk, 2014).…”