A multiple change score comparison of traditional and behavioral college teaching procedures.

Alba et al. (1972) compared two ways to teach college students. One group got traditional lectures. The other group used fill-in-only responding. Students had to write answers instead of picking multiple choice.

The study tracked learning with both fill-in and multiple-choice tests. It wanted to see which method helped students learn more.

Students who used fill-in-only responding learned more. They scored higher on both types of tests. Even on multiple-choice questions, the fill-in group beat the lecture group.

Shaw et al. (2024) extends this work online. They tested interteaching against discussion boards in grad classes. Like the 1972 study, active student responding won. Quiz scores rose even when classes moved to Zoom.

Wong et al. (2009) adds a twist. They tried adding bonus points to interteaching. The points did not help exam scores. This shows that the core method matters more than extra rewards.

Perez et al. (2015) found a warning. Their stimulus equivalence lectures boosted quiz scores right away. But scores dropped on the final exam. This hints that fill-in-only benefits might fade without later review.

You can swap lectures for fill-in tasks tomorrow. Ask students to write short answers every few minutes. Use slips of paper or the chat box. This simple change beats talking at them. Revisit the material later to lock it in.