Tracy E. Zinn

Interteaching versus Traditional Methods of Instruction: A Preliminary Analysis.

Interteaching is a new pedagogical method based on behavior-analytic principles; it includes elements of Kellers (1968) Personalized System of Instruction, reciprocal peer tutoring, and cooperative learning. We examined the effectiveness of interteaching relative to more traditional methods of instruction in a controlled laboratory setting. We randomly assigned participants to 1 of 4 conditions: interteaching, lecture, reading, or control. Participants in the interteaching group performed significantly better on a short multiple-choice quiz than participants in the other groups. Our results suggest that interteaching may be an effective alternative to other methods of classroom instruction.

The Development and Evaluation of the Academic Entitlement Questionnaire

Validity evidence was gathered for the Academic Entitlement Questionnaire (AEQ). After reviewing entitlement literature, items were written to cover the breadth of academic entitlement. Results provide evidence for the substantive, structural, and external aspects of validity of the AEQ. Implications for research and use of the AEQ are discussed.

Syllabus Detail and Students' Perceptions of Teacher Effectiveness

Although syllabi provide students with important course information, they can also affect perceptions of teaching effectiveness. To test this idea, we distributed 2 versions of a hypothetical course syllabus, a brief version and a detailed version, and asked students to rate the teacher of the course on qualities associated with master teaching. Students in the detailed syllabus group rated the teacher as possessing more of these qualities; they were also more likely to report that they would recommend the course to others and take another course from the teacher. Thus, in addition to serving a communicative function, a detailed syllabus might signal to students that their teacher is competent and wants them to do well.

The efficiency and efficacy of equivalence‐based learning: A randomized controlled trial

Because it employs an emergent-learning framework, equivalence-based instruction (EBI) is said to be highly efficient, but its presumed benefits must be compared quantitatively with alternative techniques. In a randomized controlled trial, 61 college students attempted to learn 32 pairs of proprietary and generic drug names using computer-based match-to-sample presentations of auditory and written drug names. Students who received EBI experienced pairings based on stimulus equivalence theory, and they mastered the material quickly. Control-group students practiced relations drawn at random from those that the EBI group learned via training or emergence. Students in the criterion-control group required many more trials to achieve the same accuracy as the EBI group. By way of a yoking procedure, students in the trial-control group received the same number of trials as the EBI students but achieved poorer accuracy and little mastery. Thus, EBI was more efficient and effective than unstructured presentation.

Does Effort Still Count? More on What Makes the Grade

Previous research has examined differences between students and faculty regarding the weight of effort in assigning grades. Here, students and faculty responded to questions regarding the relative weight of performance and effort on final grades and what letter grades faculty should assign across different types of courses. The authors asked these questions in 2 scenarios: (a) high effort, poor performance (students worked hard but performed poorly) and (b) low effort, high performance (students performed well but did not work hard). Results showed that, as in previous research, students and faculty differed in how they would assign grades, and students gave more weight to effort than faculty did. Students responded differently in low- and high-effort conditions, whereas faculty remained consistent in their assessments.

The Pleasures and Lessons of Academic Mythbusting: An Interview With Scott Lilienfeld

Scott O. Lilienfeld is a professor of psychology at Emory University, in Atlanta, Georgia. Dr. Lilienfeld is founder and editor of the journal, Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, and is past president of the Society for a Science of Clinical Psychology. He has been a member of 11 journal editorial boards, including the Journal of Abnormal Psychology and Clinical Psychology Review. Dr. Lilienfeld has published more than 200 articles, book chapters, and books on personality disorders, personality assessment, anxiety disorders, psychiatric classification and diagnosis, pseudoscience in psychology, and evidence-based practices in clinical psychology. His most recent book, coauthored with Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio, and Barry Beyerstein, is 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions About Human Behavior (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). Tracy E. Zinn is an associate professor of psychology at James Madison University. She earned a PhD in industrial/organizational psychology from Auburn University in 2002. In 2005, Tracy received the Early Career Award from the Society for the Teaching of Psychology. She has published several articles and book chapters on the topic of effective teaching practices. Tracy currently serves as the program coordinator for the APS-STP Teaching Institute at the Association for Psychological Sciences annual convention.