Cited by 135Innovative Teaching MethodsBehavioral and Psychological StudiesInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods

A COMPARISON OF INTERTEACHING AND LECTURE IN THE COLLEGE CLASSROOM

Open access
Saville, Bryan K., Zinn, Tracy E., Neef, Nancy A., Norman, Renee Van, Ferreri, Summer J.·2006·Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis

Abstract

Interteaching is a new method of classroom instruction that is based on behavioral principles but offers more flexibility than other behaviorally based methods. We examined the effectiveness of interteaching relative to a traditional form of classroom instruction-the lecture. In Study 1, participants in a graduate course in special education took short quizzes after alternating conditions of interteaching and lecture. Quiz scores following interteaching were higher than quiz scores following lecture, although both methods improved performance relative to pretest measures. In Study 2, we also alternated interteaching and lecture but counterbalanced the conditions across two sections of an undergraduate research methods class. After each unit of information, participants from both sections took the same test. Again, test scores following interteaching were higher than test scores following lecture. In addition, students correctly answered more interteaching-based questions than lecture-based questions on a cumulative final test. In both studies, the majority of students reported a preference for interteaching relative to traditional lecture. In sum, the results suggest that interteaching may be an effective alternative to traditional lecture-based methods of instruction.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1901/jaba.2006.42-05

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Interactive engagement, wherein participants discuss concepts with peers rather than just passively receiving new information, results in dramatically better learning outcomes.

    “numerous studies have shown that interactive engagement, wherein participants discuss concepts with peers (rather than just passively receiving new information), resulted in dramatically better learning outcomes.43–45”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., Neef, N. A., Norman, R. V., & Ferreri, S. J.
Affiliations
  • James Madison University (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Saville, Bryan K.
Venue
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-03
Volume
39
Issue
1
Pages
49-61
ISSN
  • 0021-8855 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-3703
OpenAlex
W2080986302
Cited by
135
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 10
FWCI
27.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Innovative Teaching Methods
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Innovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Keywords
interteaching, lecture method, classroom teaching, behavioral principles, student performance, student preferences, teaching methods comparison
MeSH terms
Achievement, Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Teaching, Universities

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review