A Systematic Replication Comparing Interteaching and Lecture in the Community College Classroom

A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis of Interteaching

“…Only 55.5% provided information on student majors (academic discipline to which undergraduate students formally commit). The most frequently reported majors were in the areas of social science (24.1%; e.g., psychology or social work; Arntzen & Hoium, 2010 ; Felderman, 2014 , 2016 ; Rehfeldt et al, 2010 ), education (13.1%; e.g., Cannella-Malone et al, 2009 ; Mason, 2012 ; Rieken et al, 2018 ), and health (10.9%; e.g., nursing; Byrne & Guy, 2016 ; Goto & Schneider, 2010 ; Rosales et al, 2018 ; Soldner et al, 2015 ). Graduate-level studies were only conducted with participants majoring in areas of social science (5.1%) and education (10.9%; see Supplementary Table 3).…”

“…In all relevant records, positive reinforcement was implemented. Similarly, all records that provided information on a contingency for discussion completion (43.5%) reported using positive reinforcement (e.g., Felderman, 2016 ; Saville et al, 2012a , 2012b ; Soldner et al, 2015 ).…”

“…Lastly, contingency on discussion or prep guide completion was associated with the effectiveness of interteaching ( p < .05). Studies in which no contingencies were implemented (e.g., Edwards, 2005 ; Saville et al, 2014 ; Saville et al, 2005 ; Scoboria & Pascual-Leone, 2009 ; Slezak & Faas, 2017 ) had larger effect sizes than those that had contingencies in place (Anbro, 2015 ; Cezeaux & Keyser, 2018 ; Felderman, 2016 ; Rieken et al, 2018 ; Soldner et al, 2015 ; Zayac & Paulk, 2014 ). However, these findings should be interpreted carefully because a closer inspection of the records related to this regression showed that one of them reported a somewhat disproportionate effect size (Saville et al, 2014 ).…”

“…Pre- versus post-comparisons (two within-subjects designs) either investigated a single group comparing a change in outcome measures (e.g., examination scores; Felderman, 2014 ) or compared pre- versus post-changes in two groups, including a control group (e.g., interteaching versus traditional lecture on examination scores; Slezak & Faas, 2017 ). The eleven studies that reported implementation of SCMs (e.g., alternating-treatment designs; Felderman, 2016 ; Gayman et al, 2018 ) were included in the between-groups meta-analyses in a similar approach to that reported by Zelinsky and Shadish ( 2018 ) because the data reported in them were already aggregated per courses, groups and/or sections (i.e., no individual/single-case data were available).…”

A Study on the Effectiveness of College Music Teaching

“…The collaboration between teachers and students and students and students has a very important role in the collection and analysis of learning materials, the formulation and verification of assumptions, the self-feedback of the learning process and the evaluation of learning outcomes and the final construction of meaning. In a certain sense, collaboration is a sense of consultation [9]. The consultations mainly have self-consultation and mutual consultation.…”