Reading research on teaching Psy101

Studies in introductory psychology

Pennebaker, Gosling and Ferrell compared large introductory psychology cohorts before and after a package of daily online testing and other course changes. The later cohort performed better on common-item exam benchmarking; the authors also reported gains in other-course performance. Historical cohorts and the bundled design prevent isolating the contribution of quizzes.

Francis and colleagues studied retrieval tools in two introductory classes with 53 students. Their quasi-experiment favored retrieval concept mapping on related exam performance. Its scale and local setting limit generalization.

More sites help, but do not remove design limits

The Gurung and Burns abstract reports a nine-institution study of 351 students in which retrieval and spacing interacted. The reviewed access was the abstract, so this site does not reconstruct its detailed implementation. Another multisite introductory study examined predictors of self-reported learning and quiz performance. Those outcomes are different, and associations are not intervention effects.

Adjacent evidence belongs under its own label

Saville and colleagues compared interteaching and lecture in graduate special education and undergraduate research methods. This is relevant to teaching decisions but is not evidence from an introductory psychology course. Likewise, a broad review of study techniques can inform a trial in your class without establishing the exact effect of your proposed lesson.

A study card for teachers

Record the design, sample, setting, task, comparison, outcome and source access. Ask whether the result concerns immediate performance, delayed retention or transfer to a new problem. Satisfaction and confidence can be useful outcomes, but neither independently demonstrates understanding. An abstract can support only the information it actually reports.