Hurtado-Parrado Camilo, Pfaller-Sadovsky Nicole, Medina Lucia, Gayman Catherine M, Rost Kristen A, Schofill Derek
School of Psychological and Behavioral Sciences, Southern Illinois University, 1125 Lincoln Drive, Carbondale, IL 62901 USA.
School of Biological Sciences, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland.
J Behav Educ. 2022;31(1):157-185. doi: 10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3. Epub 2021 Sep 27.
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.
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3.
是一种与传统讲座形式不同的行为教学方法(博伊斯和希内林,《行为分析》第25卷:215 - 226页,2002年)。我们更新并扩展了之前关于相互教学的综述,并对其有效性进行了元分析。系统检索确定了2005年至2018年期间的38项相关研究。这些研究大多在本科面对面课程中进行。最常见的自变量是相互教学配置的操作或与传统讲座形式的比较。最常见的因变量是测验或考试成绩。在所有研究中,只有24%的研究实施了相互教学七个组成部分中的至少五个。预习指南、讨论、记录单和频繁评估是最常实施的。元分析表明,相互教学比传统讲座或其他对照条件更有效,总体效应量较大。此外,只要包含讨论部分,相互教学组成部分配置的变化似乎并不会实质性地限制其有效性。本综述为未来研究提供的方向包括:(a)调查相互教学在其他学术领域、在线环境、职场培训和继续教育中的效果,(b)测试替代的结果测量、推广和程序完整性,(c)进行系统的组成部分分析,以及(d)从教师的角度测量社会效度。
在线版本包含可在10.1007/s10864 - 021 - 09452 - 3获取的补充材料。