|
| Behavior Analytic Research in College Classrooms |
| Sunday, May 27, 2007 |
| 10:30 AM–11:50 AM |
| Cunningham C |
| Area: EDC; Domain: Basic Research |
| Chair: Kate Kellum (University of Mississippi) |
| Discussant: Gerald C. Mertens (St. Cloud State University) |
| Abstract: College classrooms are good settings for conducting behavioral research. Classes consist of amenable and captive participants, have readily available dependent variables that are collected as a matter of course, and easily allow for repeated measures. The studies in this symposium examine various type of question answering, interteaching, and collaborative learning. |
| |
| Effects of Random vs. Voluntary Question Answering. |
| KATE KELLUM (University of Mississippi), Laura Ely (University of Mississippi), Kelly G. Wilson (University of Mississippi), Taylor DeCastro (University of Mississippi) |
| Abstract: The purpose of this classroom evaluation was to examine the relative effects of calling upon students randomly to answer question vs students volunteering to answer questions during an undergraduate class. An alternating treatments design was used to examine differences in student grades, participation, attendance, and pre-class reading resulting from the two questioning methods.. Social validity was also assessed by having students fill out questionnaires, rating their preferences and the extent of their learning with the two questioning methods. |
| |
| The Role of Cooperative Learning in Interteaching. |
| THORHALLUR O. FLOSASON (Western Michigan University), Eric J. Fox (Western Michigan University) |
| Abstract: This method consists of several components: preparation guides, cooperative learning, frequent probes, and quality points. This study examined the effectiveness of the cooperative learning component of interteaching in an undergraduate statistics class. An alternating treatments design, with conditions counterbalanced across two sections of the course, was used to compare the effectiveness of the traditional lecture format with interteaching. Over the course of a semester, students received either interteaching or lecture for each unit of the course, and took weekly exams over each of the units. The lecture condition included all components of interteaching except for the cooperative learning (or "interteach") component. Social validity was also assessed by having students fill out questionnaires, rating their preferences and the extent of their learning with lecture and interteaching. |
| |
| Balanced Cooperative Learning Contingencies: Independent versus Dependent Individual and Group Credit. |
| MEGAN PARKER (University of Tennessee, Knoxville), Katherine R. Krohn (University of Tennessee), Erin E. Carroll (University of Tennessee), Briana L. Hautau (University of Tennessee, Knoxville), Robert Lee Williams (University of Tennessee) |
| Abstract: This cooperative learning project manipulated the amount of individual and group bonus points students received for group and individual exam improvement from a pre-cooperative to a cooperative unit in a large undergraduate human development course. In some cases, the credit was applied independently across the individual and group dimensions (i.e., students could earn individual bonus points without earning group bonus points or vice versa). In other cases, the bonus points were linked across the individual and group dimensions (i.e., students had to qualify for individual bonus points to be eligible to earn group bonus points or vice versa). Our research has compared various ratios of individual and group points (e.g., 5 points individual and 5 points group, 3 points individual and 7 points group, 7 points individual and 3 points group) in independent and dependent relationships. Thus far, our research has shown that a balanced ratio between individual and group credit (5 points individual and 5 points group) proved most effective under the dependent contingency, whereas a ratio favoring group credit over individual credit (7 points group and 3 points individual) proved most productive under the independent contingency. |
|
| |