Evaluating the Efficacy, Preference, and Cultural Responsiveness of Student-Generated Content in an Undergraduate Behavioral Course

Nava and team asked 24 undergrads in an ABA course to make short videos that showed behavioral principles in daily life. The teacher added these student clips to the usual slide lectures.

The researchers then compared quiz scores and student feelings across two units: one with peer videos and one with only textbook examples.

Quiz scores stayed flat. The peer videos did not raise test performance at all.

Yet students liked the peer clips far more. They called them "relatable" and "culturally on point."

Whiting et al. (2025) also gave college students a small choice—picking next week’s topic with an anonymous poll. Like Nava, they saw no jump in grades but a a large share lift in optional class attendance. Both studies show that low-effort student input boosts engagement, not achievement.

Vinson et al. (2010) let kids name their own quality-of-life domains. Self-generated items felt more meaningful, just as Nava’s self-generated videos felt more culturally responsive. The pattern repeats: people value what they create.

Cacciani et al. (2013) warn that peer tactics can look good yet still fail evidence-based criteria. Nava’s null quiz data echo that caution—likability alone does not equal learning.

If you teach RBT coursework or run staff trainings, add a five-minute “film your example” assignment. You may not raise test scores, but you will lift buy-in and cultural fit—two variables that keep adult learners in their seats.