Does Lecture Style Matter in Asynchronous Online Interteaching?

Pub Date : 2024-09-14 DOI:10.1177/00986283241279402
Catherine M. Gayman, Stephanie T. Jimenez, Jennifer Herron
{"title":"Does Lecture Style Matter in Asynchronous Online Interteaching?","authors":"Catherine M. Gayman, Stephanie T. Jimenez, Jennifer Herron","doi":"10.1177/00986283241279402","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BackgroundAlthough substantial empirical evidence supports interteaching, few studies have investigated the clarifying lecture component, and none have evaluated it in an online course format.ObjectiveThis study evaluated the necessity of a clarifying lecture in an asynchronous online course and compared a clarifying lecture (based on student feedback) to brief standard lecture (covering material the instructor thought was difficult).MethodParticipants were undergraduates ( N = 116) across three sections of an online Psychology of Learning course. An alternating treatments design was used to vary the order of three brief lecture conditions across weeks in the courses: (a) clarifying lecture; (b) standard lecture; and (c) no lecture.ResultsThere were no significant differences in exam scores across the three conditions. However, students scored significantly higher on weekly exams when the lecture conditions were collapsed and compared to no lecture. Most students reported a preference for the clarifying lecture.ConclusionOur findings suggest that both styles of asynchronous lectures positively impacted weekly (but not cumulative final) exam scores.Teaching ImplicationsThe efficacy of interteaching was not decreased by altering lecture style. This flexibility eases the course preparation burden on instructors given they could prepare lectures prior to gathering student feedback.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00986283241279402","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundAlthough substantial empirical evidence supports interteaching, few studies have investigated the clarifying lecture component, and none have evaluated it in an online course format.ObjectiveThis study evaluated the necessity of a clarifying lecture in an asynchronous online course and compared a clarifying lecture (based on student feedback) to brief standard lecture (covering material the instructor thought was difficult).MethodParticipants were undergraduates ( N = 116) across three sections of an online Psychology of Learning course. An alternating treatments design was used to vary the order of three brief lecture conditions across weeks in the courses: (a) clarifying lecture; (b) standard lecture; and (c) no lecture.ResultsThere were no significant differences in exam scores across the three conditions. However, students scored significantly higher on weekly exams when the lecture conditions were collapsed and compared to no lecture. Most students reported a preference for the clarifying lecture.ConclusionOur findings suggest that both styles of asynchronous lectures positively impacted weekly (but not cumulative final) exam scores.Teaching ImplicationsThe efficacy of interteaching was not decreased by altering lecture style. This flexibility eases the course preparation burden on instructors given they could prepare lectures prior to gathering student feedback.
分享
查看原文
异步在线交互教学中的授课风格重要吗?
背景虽然有大量的实证证据支持交互式教学,但很少有研究对澄清讲授部分进行调查,也没有研究对在线课程形式中的澄清讲授进行评估。方法参与者是本科生(N = 116),他们来自在线学习心理学课程的三个部分。采用交替处理设计,在课程的不同周改变三种简短讲授条件的顺序:(结果三种情况下的考试成绩没有显著差异。但是,如果将授课条件合并,与不授课相比,学生的周考试成绩明显更高。结论我们的研究结果表明,两种异步授课方式都对每周考试成绩(但不是累积期末考试成绩)产生了积极影响。这种灵活性减轻了教师的备课负担,因为他们可以在收集学生反馈之前准备讲座。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信