1) The study evaluated the impact of pair discussion, a component of the interteaching method, on student quiz scores and perceptions in an undergraduate psychology course compared to traditional lecture. 2) Students in two sections performed slightly better on average (9.14 vs 8.99 out of 12) and showed a 25% higher average score when participating in pair discussions versus lectures. 3) A survey found students preferred the method they performed better with, though unfamiliarity with the course structure may have influenced preferences despite better performance with interteaching.

1. Interteaching: A Further Analysis of the Impact of
Pair Discussion
Beatriz Querol1, Joseph Veneziano1, Rocío Rosales1, & James Soldner2
1University of Massachusetts Lowell & 2University of Massachusetts Boston
UG Learning & Behavior course met face-to-
face two times per week for 75 min.
Participant Demographics:
PARTICIPANTS
Traditional classroom lecture: predominant
method of college instruction.
• 80-85% of professors discourse
(Benjamin, 2002)
• Ineffective promotion of student learning
& satisfaction (McKeachie & Svinicki,
2006)
Interteaching (IT): empirically validated,
user-friendly behavioral teaching method
Comparison to lecture:
• Higher UG and GRAD quiz scores
(Saville, et al., 2012)
• IT preference reflected in an evaluative
survey (Goto & Schneider, 2010)
Lack of research on the impact of each
component of IT in the college classroom.
Purpose of Study: systematic replication
of Rosales et al. (2012) to evaluate impact
of the pair discussion component of IT.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Figure 1. Average individual quiz performance for pair discussion vs. LEC in section 201 (left) and 202 (right).
DISCUSSION
• Pair discussions resulted in slightly
higher quiz scores (total pts. = 12):
9.14 vs. 8.99
• 25% average quiz score difference
between pair discussion and LEC for
both sections 201 & 202
Implications
• Unfamiliarity w/course structure may
account for social validity data – LEC
preference despite better performance
w/IT
• Contrast effect (i.e., exposure to both
IT & LEC)
Future Directions
• 3rd comparison as control – traditional
classroom setup
• Applications with online and hybrid
courses
• Real-world applications
COMPONENTS OF IT PROCEDURE
Experimental Design: Alternating
treatments
Component Analysis: Quasi-randomized
counterbalancing of conditions:
1. 20- to 25-min pair discussion vs.
2. 30-min traditional lecture
Other components of IT in effect & held
constant throughout the semester.
Dependent Measures:
1. 12-pt. quizzes (19% of final grade)
2. Social validity questionnaire
Q1. Overall, which method did you like better?
Q2. Overall, which method did you feel you
learned the most with?
a. Interteaching w/ pair discussion
b. Interteaching w/ lecture
c. No preference
Figure 2. Average class quiz scores for pair discussion vs. LEC. Figure 3. Average class quiz performance for pair discussion and
LEC.
1. Prep Guides
2. Pair Discussion
3. Record Sheets
4. Clarifying Lecture
5. Frequent Probes
6. Quality Points
Table1. Demographic information for students in both class sections1,2
Section 201 Section 202
n 29 26
Sex
Male 5 13
Female 23 13
M Age 21.66 21.38
M GPA 3.25 3.37
Year in School
Junior 13 8
Senior 16 18
Employment Status
Yes 26 21
No 3 4
Ethnicity
White 22 20
Hispanic/Latino 4 3
Black/African-American 1 1
Asian 2 1
Native American/Alaskan 0 1
1
Although we conducted statistical analyses on each of these measures, we do not report them
here. Other than gender distributions for each of the class sections, the groups were not
significantly different (all ps > .05) on any of the measures.
2
A few students did not report certain demographic information. Thus, the totals sometimes do
not equal the total number of students in each class section.
8.2
8.4
8.6
8.8
9
9.2
9.4
201 202
AverageQuizScore
Class Section
Pair Discussion Lecture
Figure 4.. Social validity questionnaire results: preference toward
and positive thoughts on learning via pair discussion vs. LEC in
each section.