跨学科教学的系统回顾和定量分析。

IF 1.2 4区 教育学 Q3 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Journal of Behavioral Education Pub Date : 2022-01-01 Epub Date: 2021-09-27 DOI:10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3
Camilo Hurtado-Parrado, Nicole Pfaller-Sadovsky, Lucia Medina, Catherine M Gayman, Kristen A Rost, Derek Schofill
{"title":"跨学科教学的系统回顾和定量分析。","authors":"Camilo Hurtado-Parrado, Nicole Pfaller-Sadovsky, Lucia Medina, Catherine M Gayman, Kristen A Rost, Derek Schofill","doi":"10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><i>Interteaching</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3.</p>","PeriodicalId":47391,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral Education","volume":"31 1","pages":"157-185"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8475850/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis of Interteaching.\",\"authors\":\"Camilo Hurtado-Parrado, Nicole Pfaller-Sadovsky, Lucia Medina, Catherine M Gayman, Kristen A Rost, Derek Schofill\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><i>Interteaching</i> 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.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47391,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral Education\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"157-185\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8475850/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/9/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SPECIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/9/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

交互式教学是一种不同于传统讲授形式的行为教学方法(Boyce & Hineline in BA 25:215-226, 2002)。我们更新和扩充了之前的跨教学法综述,并对其有效性进行了荟萃分析。通过系统检索,我们发现了 2005-2018 年间的 38 项相关研究。这些研究大多是在本科生面授课程中进行的。最常见的自变量是对交互式教学配置的操作或与传统授课形式的比较。最常见的因变量是测验或考试成绩。在所有研究中,只有 24% 的研究实施了至少五项跨学科教学的七项内容。预习指导、讨论、记录表和频繁评估是最常见的实施方式。元分析表明,跨学科教学比传统的讲授或其他控制条件更有效,总体效果规模较大。此外,只要包含讨论部分,教学间组成部分的配置变化似乎并不会在很大程度上限制其有效性。根据本综述,今后的研究包括(a) 调查在其他学术领域、在线环境、工作场所培训和继续教育中的交互式教学效果,(b) 测试替代性结果测量、普遍性和程序完整性,(c) 进行系统性成分分析,(d) 从教师的角度测量社会有效性:在线版本包含补充材料,可查阅 10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis of Interteaching.

A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis of Interteaching.

A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis of Interteaching.

A Systematic Review and Quantitative Analysis of Interteaching.

Interteaching 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.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10864-021-09452-3.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Behavioral Education
Journal of Behavioral Education EDUCATION, SPECIAL-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
10.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: The Journal of Behavioral Education is an international forum dedicated to publishing original research papers on the application of behavioral principles and technology to education. Education is defined broadly and the journal places no restriction on the types of participants involved in the reported studies--including by age, ability, or setting. Each quarterly issue presents empirical research investigating best-practices and innovative methods to address a wide range of educational targets and issues pertaining to the needs of diverse learners and to implementation. The Journal of Behavioral Education is a peer-reviewed scholarly journal whose target audience is educational researchers and practitioners including general and special education teachers, school psychologists, and other school personnel.  Rigorous experimental designs, including single-subject with replication and group designs are considered for publication. An emphasis is placed on direct observation measures of the primary dependent variable in studies of educational issues, problems, and practices.  Discussion articles and critical reviews also are published.
×
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