bs_bs_banner

Australian Journal of Psychology 2013; 65: 513

doi: 10.1111/ajpy.12004

Evidence-based teaching: Tools and techniques that promote

learning in the psychology classroom

Dana S. Dunn,1 Bryan K. Saville,2 Suzanne C. Baker,2 and Pam Marek3

1
Moravian College, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 2James Madison University, Harrisonburg, Virginia, and 3Kennesaw
State University, Kennesaw, Georgia, USA

Abstract

Evidence-based teaching (EBT) entails the use of empirically validated pedagogical tools and techniques that promote student
learning. We offer a rationale for why psychology instructors should embrace EBT in their classrooms. We then review five areas of
evidence offering specific tools and techniques that improve learning and retention: the testing effect, spaced learning, metacognition,
writing to learn, and interteaching. We then briefly discuss how three student self-regulated choices can promote learning. Finally,
we urge psychology teachers and students to use the disciplines experimental findings to enhance student learning.

Key words: attention restoration theory, evidence-based teaching, interteaching, metacognition, spaced learning, testing effect,
writing to learn

Higher education (HE) continues to be buffeted by evidence
that undergraduate students are not learning what they
need to know to do well in university settings and subse-
quently in the workplace and in life. Arum and Roska
(2011), for example, found that even after three semesters,
American college students critical thinking, complex
reasoning, and writing skills showed little improvement.
Clearly, students need guidance to acclimate to and succeed
in college. But what sort of guidance? More to the point,
how can teachers use their knowledge of psychology to help
students retain what they have learned?
One possible antidote is to use evidence-based teaching
(EBT) practices in the classroom. The term evidence-based
teaching refers to pedagogical tools and techniques that have
shown through rigorous experimentation to promote learn-
ing (Saville, 2010; Schwartz & Gurung, 2012). In this article,
we offer a rationale for why psychology teachers around the
world should embrace EBT in their classrooms. Indeed, we
believe the concerns and recommended responses raised in
this article are relevant within and beyond our ken, the
American HE system. We then review selected areas of
Correspondence: Dana S. Dunn, Department of Psychology, Mora-
vian College, 1200 Main Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018, USA. Email:
dunn@moravian.edu
Received 16 October 2012. Accepted for publication 2 December
2012.
2013 The Australian Psychological Society
evidence, that is, specific tools and techniques that enhance
learning. Next, we turn the intellectual tables a bit by dis-
cussing how students can use evidence-based learning (EBL)
strategies outside of the classroom and how self-regulation is
important for learning. Finally, we encourage psychology
teachers to adopt EBT in their classrooms.
THE CASE FOR EBT
Why use EBT methods? We believe that the answer is
straightforward: These methods have shown through rigor-
ous empirical testing to produce superior learning outcomes.
And the need for increased learning outcomes may be as
imperative now as ever before.
Over the past few decades, there has been increased
concern by academicians that the level of learning occurring
in secondary and post-secondary educational settings is not
what it should be. For example, 30 years ago, Cameron
(1983) lamented, Most predictions about the future of col-
leges and universities as organisations include conditions of
decline (p. 359). More recently, Hersh and Merrow (2005)
seemed to confirm Camerons pessimistic prediction by
stating, Higher education, long viewed as the crown jewel
of American education, is tarnished (p. 1). Simply put, by
many accounts, students do not seem to be learning what
they should during an important developmental period in
their lives.
6 D.S. Dunn et al.
Concerns about HE have moved beyond academic circles
as well. For example, parents paying for their childrens
increasingly expensive educations want to be sure that
they are getting a good return on their investments. Simi-
larly, employers want to know that recent graduates have
acquired the knowledge and skills necessary to help
advance their business interests and economic goals.
Others, including economists and politicians, view educa-
tion as one of the primary paths to economic security,
where increased knowledge seems to be a vital factor in
achieving global success (e.g., Friedman, 2005; see also
Buskist & Groccia, 2011).
So what are the possible reasons for the purported decline
in HE? Hersh and Merrow (2005) discussed several potential
causes: students who are unprepared for the rigors of HE, the
belief that HE is nothing more than a path to job obtainment,
the mismatch between what students want out of HE and
what educational institutions are offering, and HE adminis-
trations that have become too focused on monetary out-
comes. Robinson (2009) has also suggested that the recent
trend towards systematising curricula and assessment has
killed much of the motivation and creativity that are neces-
sary for students to succeed in todays world. To this list, we
would like to add one other potential culprit: ineffective
teaching methods.
For many HE instructors, teaching means lecturing.
Moreover, as Buskist and Groccia (2011) noted, Most teach-
ers base their instructional practices on tradition, the opinion
of experienced practitioners, ideology, faddism, marketing,
politics, or personal experience gained through trial and
error (p. 5). Unfortunately, many of these practices do not
concur with what is known about human learning (Halpern
& Hakel, 2003; Saville, 2010). Consequently, many of the
methods that appear in classrooms may not be producing the
types of learning that are necessary to succeed in a rapidly
changing world. Although many of the factors mentioned by
Hersh and Merrow (2005) may be beyond the reach of any
single teacher, it is important for teachers to control what
they canand one such variable is the teaching methods
they adopt in their classrooms. In short, to help produce the
types of learning outcomes that will allow students to
succeed in todays world, it is vital that teachers adopt
methods that improve student learning and enjoymentin
other words, EBT.
AREAS OF EVIDENCE: A REVIEW
Later we discuss several teaching strategies and techniques
that have been demonstrated to be effective. Although we do
not provide an exhaustive review of EBT, the techniques we
highlight include methods that are relatively easy to imple-
ment in most psychology classrooms.
The testing effect
Although most faculty and students consider tests as a way
to assess learning, fewer realise that taking tests actually
enhances memory (e.g., Karpicke, Butler, & Roediger, 2009).
A burgeoning body of research provides convincing evidence
for the testing effect, or test-enhanced learning, the finding
that students remember more information when they have
previously been tested on study materials. Recent research
has also highlighted the effectiveness of repeated testing in
promoting the transfer of learning to new contexts (e.g.,
different types of testing or different knowledge domains;
Carpenter, 2012).
Testing effect research encompasses a wide range of test
formats. The types of tests used for both learning and final
assessment have included both recognition and recall
formats. Targeted information has included paired associates
or word lists, information from lectures (Butler & Roediger,
2007), and expository prose (e.g., Larsen, Butler, & Roediger,
2009). Sometimes students have received feedback during
the learning phase; in other cases, they have not (e.g.,
Pashler, Cepeda, Wixted, & Rohrer, 2005; Vojdanoska,
Cranney, & Newell, 2010). Testing situations have involved
both open-book and closed-book conditions (Agarwal,
Karpicke, Kang, Roediger, & McDermott, 2008). Although
some research has included the same material for learning
and testing, other studies (e.g., Chan, McDermott, & Roedi-
ger, 2006) have used related but different material on initial
and final tests. Retention intervals have extended from one
day to several days or weeks. Results vary depending upon
the variables being manipulated; for example, as might be
expected, feedback enhances subsequent performance on
items that students initially answer incorrectly (Pashler
et al., 2005; Vojdanoska et al., 2010). Overall, the prepon-
derance of evidence shows strong support for test-enhanced
learning and remembering, particularly when instructors
provide feedback and adequate time for processing it (Butler
& Roediger, 2007).
Explanations for the benefits of testing often focus on the
processes underlying retrieval practice. Retrieval of previ-
ously studied information strengthens existing associative
memory links between related cues and the targeted infor-
mation (Carpenter, 2011). In turn, stronger links facilitate
subsequent access to subsequent retrieval of information.
Furthermore, Karpicke and Blunt (2011) have suggested
that retrieval practice helps differentiate more effective
versus less effective cues. Both explanations offer a clear
rationale for the use of repeated testing to enhance retention
of and access to knowledge.
The addition of more frequent testing in the classroom
seems to be the most obvious way to take advantage of the
testing effect. Indeed, Leeming (2002) found that students in
courses including a short exam at the beginning of each class
2013 The Australian Psychological Society

scored higher on a final exam than students in courses
including only three exams. Of course, instructors decisions
to incorporate additional testing may depend on how much
class time they have available or may be constrained by
institutional guidelines. In such instances, instructors may
develop assessments (either formative or summative) for
students to complete online or may direct students to avail-
able self-tests on textbook companion websites with imme-
diate feedback available. For example, Yandell and Bailey
(2011) concluded that online, pre-class computer-graded
quizzes that provided immediate feedback and saved class
time can also encourage students to read regularly and par-
ticipate in class. Another formative option is to assess an
entire classs topical knowledge simultaneously by having
students respond with clickers so that right (and wrong)
responses are recognised and subsequently discussed. As
another alternative, instructors could explain the benefits of
using EBL strategies such as repeated testing and then
encourage students to test themselves while studying. For
example, McDaniel, Howard, and Einstein (2009) reported
that students who used the read-recite-review technique
boosted performance on a free recall test of textbook mate-
rial more than students who spent an equivalent amount of
time spent rereading or taking notes. In a similar vein,
instructors who provide learning outcomes for each chapter
or unit might suggest that students respond to each outcome
after studying and then check their own answers or have
their answers checked by peers.
Clearly, how instructors design their courses will depend
on a number of factors. Nevertheless, the available evidence
for the testing effect should encourage instructors to con-
sider integrating more frequent testing or other activities
that require retrieval into their courses. As Karpicke (2012)
argued, Spending time actively attempting to retrieve and
reconstruct ones knowledge is a simple yet powerful way to
enhance long-term, meaningful learning (p. 162).
Spaced learning
With any considerable number of repetitions a suitable dis-
tribution of them over a space of time is decidedly more
advantageous than the massing of them at a single time
(Ebbinghaus, 1885, ch. 8, sec. 34, para. 6). Evidence sup-
porting the spacing effect emanates from an expansive body
of research with a variety of populations including animals
(Sisti, Glass, & Shors, 2007), young children (Vlach & Sand-
hofer, 2012), older adults (Wahlheim, Dunlosky, & Jacoby,
2011), and HE students. With HE students, the majority of
researchers have identified the benefits of distributed prac-
tice as it pertains to memory for verbal material. In most
cases, the study items involved word lists or word pairs such
as those used in foreign language learning (Bahrick & Hall,
2005), but memory for prose material also benefits from
2013 The Australian Psychological Society
Evidence-based teaching 7
distributed practice (Rawson & Kintsch, 2005), particularly if
testing did not occur immediately after learning. Moreover,
the value of distributed practice also extends to conceptual
learning (Wahlheim et al., 2011). Thus, over a century of
research has revealed that studying information or practising
skills in multiple short sessions yields greater long-term
retention than consolidating study or practice into a single
long session (i.e., cramming) for a comparable amount
of time.
There are multiple explanations for why the spacing effect
occurs. One explanation is based on the idea that people are
more likely to retrieve information if the information is
accessible via a wide variety of retrieval cues. Because the
context for encoding information often differs from one
study session to another, multiple study sessions provide
more retrieval cues (Cepeda, Pashler, Vul, Wixted, & Rohrer,
2006). Another explanation emphasises encoding when
studying textual material for a second time. In a massed
situation, with the second reading immediately following
the first, information from the initial reading may still be
active in working memory. The active information conveys a
sense of familiarity that leads people only to skim the mate-
rial. In contrast, with distributed practice, the information
is deactivated with the passage of time. Essentially, then,
people adopt more effective encoding strategies that pro-
mote greater retention (Krug, Davis, & Glover, 1990).
Yet a third explanation for the spacing effect focuses on
neurobiological processes relating to memory consolidation.
Two aspects of consolidation appear to relate to the greater
effectiveness of distributed practice. First, consolidation
throughout the memory system takes time (Squire &
Alvarez, 1995). Second, when people process material for a
second time, the new memory trace builds on the strength of
the first one in long-term memory (Cepeda et al., 2006).
When practice is distributed, information from the initial
session has time to strengthen before relearning.
Even with a relatively large literature on the spacing
effect, there are still many unanswered questions about the
optimal time between practice sessions and how the time
between sessions relates to the delay between final study
and test. For example, Bahrick and Hall (2005) suggested
that longer intervals between study sessions are beneficial
because longer intervals provide learners with a better
opportunity to identify retrieval failures, which may encour-
age learners to adopt more effective encoding strategies
(see, e.g., Rawson & Kintsch, 2005). Cepeda et al. (2009)
suggested that the time between distributed study sessions
that was associated with the best test performance seemed to
increase as the time between the final study session and the
test increased. However, a longer gap between study sessions
is not always better. For example, in an experiment
(Verkoeijen, Rikers, & zsoy, 2008) involving two study
opportunities for textual material spaced immediately after
8 D.S. Dunn et al.
one another, 4 days apart, or 3.5 weeks apart, students who
studied 4 days apart performed better on a test 2 days later
than students who restudied the text immediately. Students
in the 3.5 week and immediate conditions, however, per-
formed similarly. In this case, the inability to retrieve mate-
rial 3.5 weeks later appeared to outweigh the potential
benefit of differential encoding.
Given the multiple factors influencing the spacing effect,
how might instructors use this research to benefit their stu-
dents? Because some form of distributed practice consist-
ently boosts learning, one application is clear: Instructors
should encourage students to use another EBL strategy, spe-
cifically, spacing study sessions rather than cramming before
examinations. Although students may already understand
the advantage of spaced practice (Toppino & Cohen, 2010),
understanding its value is quite different from actually using
it. Perhaps one way for instructors to boost long-term reten-
tion with spaced practice is to introduce the same key con-
cepts systematically at multiple points in the semester.
Another possibility might involve including more frequent
quizzes (either formative or summative) to promote more
frequent study and simultaneously allowing students to
accrue benefits from the testing effect.
Metacognition: Thoughts about thinking
One of the most important skills students can acquire is
knowing what they already know. In effect, students need to
be able to think critically about their thinking, or what
psychologists call metacognition. Our metacognitions can
affect both what we do and how well we accomplish our
actions; in fact, thinking about thinking can heighten,
diminish, or change the direction of our original thoughts
(e.g., Briol & DeMarree, 2012). Metacognitive skills
develop in childhood and represent a change from other-
directed learning to self-regulated learning (Dimmitt &
McCormick, 2012).
One approach to promoting metacognitive learning
(another form of EBL) involves teaching students to develop
procedural knowledge regarding particular academic tasks,
such as outlining, drafting, and revising a persuasive essay
on a specific course topic. More critical, reflective note taking
(e.g., rewriting and revising notes after a class period ends),
too, can promote learning and retention (Dunn, 2011).
Strategies for performing such tasks should be taught and
repeated with some regularity so that students learn to use
these skills in other classes. A key issue here is that teachers
must help students learn to become responsible where intel-
lectual tasks are concerned (Baker, 2008). In effect, students
need to develop self-assessment skills regarding their execu-
tion of college-level work (Dunn, McEntarffer, & Halonen,
2004). Part of the effort to develop metacognitive skills
entails self-talk, where students literally talk themselves
through the steps necessary to solve some problem (e.g.,
crafting a logical argument, defending a position opposite
ones beliefs, and writing a literature review for an empirical
paper). Further research on metacognition in educational
settings can be found in Dimmitt and McCormick (2012).
Metacognitive skills can be fostered through a variety of
techniques, and it is worth noting that helping students
identify what they do and do not know is, at the very least,
an implicit goal of the other strategies we discuss here.
Writing to learn
The development of writing skills is an important goal of
undergraduate education. Psychology instructors typically
assess student performance on writing assignments to check
understanding of course content, as well as to evaluate skills
in written expression. Although demonstrating content
knowledge and writing skills are traditional uses of writing
assignments, less recognised is the role that writing can play
in student learning.
Writing involves multiple activities that engage metacog-
nitive processes (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Berninger,
2012). The writing-to-learn approach is based on the con-
ception that writing about a topic can help students identify
areas of confusion or lack of knowledge, reason through
problems, and bring concepts together in new ways. As
Forsyth (2003) pointed out, writing assignments can be
exercises in learning (p. 114) that help students identify
and define problems, evaluate evidence, analyse assump-
tions, recognise emotional reasoning and oversimplification,
consider alternative interpretations, and reduce their uncer-
tainty (p. 115). Dunn (2011) discussed writing for self-
understanding, highlighting the role that writing can play in
helping students actively process and learn course material.
Writing-to-learn strategies can be implemented in multiple
ways. A hallmark of all writing to learn activities, however,
is the use of the targeted writing assignments that require
students to apply, integrate, or reflect on some content
knowledge.
Positive effects of writing-to-learn activities have been
demonstrated across several disciplines, using different
techniques. For example, Balgopal, Wallace, and Dahlberg
(2012) have examined the effects of guided writing assign-
ments (reflective essays) on introductory biology students
ecological literacy. Papadopoulos, Demetriadis, Stamelos,
and Tsoukalas (2011) used writing prompts to enhance
learning in an online computer science class. They found
that students in a writing group scored higher on post-tests
than students in either of two control groups. Stewart,
Myers, and Culley (2010) examined the use of in-class
writing in a psychology of women course. During several
class periods, students wrote short, structured essays
designed to elicit critical thinking about topics in the course.
2013 The Australian Psychological Society

Students were later tested on material covered in these
writing assignments, and their scores were compared with
those of students in a control psychology of women class
that covered the same material but did not experience the
writing assignments. Those in the writing-focused class
scored higher on these subsequent learning assessments.
Other strategies that require students to think about and
reflect on content often include a writing component. For
example, Connor-Greene (2005) introduced questions,
quotations, and talking points (QQTPs) to facilitate mean-
ingful class discussion. With QQTPs, students complete a
one-page paper prior to class in which they identify a ques-
tion, a quotation, and some talking points based on a reading
assignment. They then use these papers as a basis for class
discussion. Angelo and Cross (1993) also presented multiple
class assessment techniques (e.g. minute papers, muddiest
point, word journal, invented dialogues) that involve
writing. Any of these activities may be useful in increasing
student learning.
Evaluating students writing can take a lot of time, which
is enough to make many instructors shy away from multiple
writing assignments. But as Dunn (1994) pointed out,
writing to learn activities need not require an inordinate
amount of feedback from faculty to be useful (e.g., see Korn
& Sikorski, 2010). For example, Nevid, Pastva, and McClel-
land (2012) found that brief ungraded writing assignments
in introductory psychology improved test performance over
the same material. Ultimately, frequent writing may be one
way to improve student learning.
Interteaching
Interteaching (Boyce & Hineline, 2002) is a multi-
component teaching method that has its roots in B. F.
Skinners behavioural psychology. Although behavioural
teaching methods have been around for over 50 years (e.g.,
Skinner, 1954/1999), interteaching is relatively new. A
growing body of research suggests that interteaching is a
viable alternative to more traditional teaching methods (see
Saville, Lambert, & Robertson, 2011, for a review).
In a typical interteaching session, the instructor first pre-
pares a preparation (prep) guide, which contains questions
(typically from 5 to 12 items) designed to guide students
through a reading assignment. The prep-guide items contain
both lower and higher level questions that require students
to define, analyse, apply, and synthesise course information.
The instructor usually distributes the prep guide several days
before it is due, and students complete it before class.
Each class period starts with a brief lecture in which the
instructor reviews material from the previous class (see later
for more information). Students then spend most of
the remaining time in pairs discussing their responses to the
prep-guide items they answered before class. During the
2013 The Australian Psychological Society
Evidence-based teaching 9
discussions, the instructor circulates among the groups,
answering questions and guiding the discussions. Following
the discussions, students complete a record sheet on which
they list, among other things, which prep-guide items were
difficult to understand and which items they would like the
instructor to review. Based on this information, the instruc-
tor prepares a brief lecture that targets the items that most
students had trouble understanding. The lecture starts the
next class period and precedes students discussion of
the next prep guide.
In addition to this general structure, interteaching has
other components. For example, Boyce and Hineline (2002)
suggested that instructors should give at least five exams
during the semester, which gives students ample opportu-
nity to show what they know and allows them to get used
to interteaching. Boyce and Hineline also suggested that
the exams should be closely linked to the prep guides. As a
result, students know that completing the prep guides and
having substantive class discussions will provide practice for
the exams. To improve discussion quality, Boyce and Hine-
line introduced the concept of quality points, where part of
a students course grade (up to 10%) depends on how his or
her discussion partners answered some of their exam ques-
tions (but see Saville and Zinn, 2009, for a study showing no
impact of quality points on exam grades). Finally, Boyce and
Hineline suggested that students should receive a small
number of participation points each day (which total 10%
of their course grades). This increases the likelihood that
students will attend class.
Since Boyce and Hinelines (2002) introduction of inter-
teaching, a growing body of research has examined its effi-
cacy relative to more traditional teaching methods. In an
early, lab-based study of interteaching, Saville, Zinn, and
Elliott (2005) assigned students to one of four teaching con-
ditions: interteaching, lecture, reading, or control. Students
took part in an initial teaching session and then returned 1
week later to take a quiz. Students who took part in inter-
teaching answered significantly more questions correctly
than students in the other three conditions. In a subsequent
study, Saville, Zinn, Neef, Van Norman, and Ferreri (2006)
compared interteaching with lecture in a graduate-level
special education course (study 1) and in two sections of an
undergraduate research methods course (study 2). In both
studies, students earned higher exam scores following inter-
teaching sessions; students also reported that they preferred
interteaching to lectures. More recently, researchers have
found that interteaching seems to improve critical thinking
(Saville, Zinn, Lawrence, Barron, & Andre, 2008; Scoboria &
Pascual-Leone, 2009) and that it benefits students with both
low and high grade point averages (Saville, Pope, Truelove,
& Williams, in press). Finally, although most research on
interteaching has been conducted in psychology courses,
researchers have begun to examine interteaching in
10 D.S. Dunn et al.
non-psychology courses (e.g., Cannella-Malone, Axe, &
Parker, 2009; Emurian & Zheng, 2010; Goto & Schneider,
2010; Tsui, 2010; Zeller, 2010). Together, these results
suggest that interteaching is an effective, evidence-based
alternative to more traditional teaching methods.
REMINDING STUDENTS OF THE LINK BETWEEN
SELF-REGULATION AND LEARNING
As quality principle 1 of the principles for quality under-
graduate education in psychology (American Psychological
Association [APA], 2011; Halpern et al. 2010) attests, stu-
dents are ultimately responsible for their own learning.
Although teachers of psychology should share information
with students regarding what types of EBL strategies
promote or inhibit learning, students must learn to engage in
self-regulation to advance their own academic interests. We
review three choices that students can make (and that teach-
ers may wish to review) that can have a positive effect on
learning.
Pauses that refresh: Pastoral breaks
Researchers who study Attention Restoration Theory claim
that people demonstrate better concentration after spending
time in nature (e.g., in parks or gardens), seeing nature from
indoors (e.g., looking out a window at a copse of trees), or
viewing images of natural settings (e.g., Hartig, Evans,
Jamner, Davis, & Grling, 2003; Kaplan, 1995; Kaplan &
Kaplan, 1989). Experiencing nature directly or indirectly has
decided cognitive and emotional benefits. One set of studies,
for example, found that exposure to such restorative envi-
ronments eased peoples recovery from mental fatigue
caused by performing a sustained attention test, thereby
restoring their later capacities to direct attention (Berto,
2005). Other research has demonstrated that interacting
with nature improves cognition and emotion among
individuals who are depressed (Berman et al., 2012) and
improves memory in HE students (Berman, Jonides, &
Kaplan, 2008).
The take-home message for students is simple and
straightforward: Taking pastoral breaks by going outside or
looking at images of nature is physically, intellectually, and
emotionally restorative. Students can reduce their stress and
enhance their attention by taking frequent study breaks, and
teachers should encourage their students to do so.
Sufcient sleep
Lack of sleep is a well-documented psychological problem
(Dement & Vaughn, 2000). Undergraduate life is rife with
student stories of pulling all nighters to study for an exam
or to complete some other assignment. At the same time,
many students enjoy recreational pursuits because of
the relative freedom that universities allow. In short,
sleep deprivation is a hallmark of undergraduate students
experiences.
Unfortunately, when students become sleep deprived,
physical and mental performance suffers (Walker & Stick-
gold, 2004). The great challenge for instructors, of course,
is convincing students that they cannot get by and be
successful with less than the recommended amount of sleep
per night, as many students believe that their own experi-
ences defy the available evidence.
Becoming open minded regarding basic study habits
Students often claim to know which approaches to studying
work well, at least in their individual experiences. The chief
problem is that few students ever subject their suppositions
to simple experimentation (e.g., trying a new study habit to
test its effectiveness). Consider this example: Students often
claim that studying while listening to music is not detrimen-
tal to their learning (in spite of the fact that research does not
support this conclusion; e.g., Gurung, Weidert, & Jeske,
2010). Thus, we advocate that teachers not only share the
available evidence but that they encourage students to test
their assumptions.
Gurung and McCann (2012) provided a long list of actions
students can take to assume responsibility for and to max-
imise their learning. Many of the items found in this list
(e.g., review assignments before class and use study guides)
seem commonsensical, but as Voltaire (1764/1950) reminds
us, common sense is not so common (p. 79). Sharing such
basic recommendations and explaining their effectiveness
can prompt students to try out and perhaps adopt some
evidence-based, self-regulated learning suggestions.
CONCLUSION
As most educators will attest, teaching is a tricky business
not only because of complex factors that occur within the
classroom but also because of external factors that, for better
or worse, have a significant impact on our educational
system. Unfortunately, by many accounts, these factors have
not produced the most positive results. But there is hope.
Psychology is one of the few disciplines in which teachers
and students can use what they know about their own
subject matter to produce positive changes. One specific way
to do this is for teachers to incorporate EBTs in their class-
rooms. At the same time, teachers can show their students
how to use EBL strategies. In both cases, these applications
are likely to have a positive effect on psychological literacy, a
desired outcome in undergraduate psychology education
(e.g., APA, 2011). In this article, we have discussed a handful
2013 The Australian Psychological Society

of empirically supported techniquesEBTs and EBLsthat
teachers of psychology can incorporate into their classrooms
and that students can use on their own. Of course, the
introduction of new and unfamiliar teaching methods may
be met with some skepticism. Certainly, as Saville (2010)
noted, implementing any new teaching method can be
tricky and sometimes frustrating, especially in classroom set-
tings where students have grown accustomed to lectures
(p. 51). But with consistent use and a little tweaking to fit
each specific situation, the application of EBT and learning
strategies is likely to have a positive and extended impact on
student learning and enjoyment.
REFERENCES
Agarwal, P. K., Karpicke, J. D., Kang, S. H. K., Roediger, H. L., III, &
McDermott, K. B. (2008). Examining the testing effect with
open- and closed-book tests. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22, 861
876.
American Psychological Association (2011). Principles for quality
undergraduate education in psychology. American Psychologist, 66,
850856. doi:10.1037/a0025181
Angelo, T. A., & Cross, K. P. (1993). Classroom assessment techniques: A
handbook for college teachers (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-
Bass.
Arum, R., & Roska, J. (2011). Academically adrift: Limited learning on
college campuses. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Bahrick, H. P., & Hall, L. K. (2005). The importance of retrieval
failures to long-term retention: A metacognitive explanation of
the spacing effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 52, 566577.
doi:10.1016/j.jml.2005.01.012
Baker, L. (2008). Metacognition in comprehension instruction:
What weve learned since NRP. In C. C. Block & S. R. Parris
(Eds.), Comprehension instruction: Research-based best practices (2nd
ed.). (pp. 6579). New York: Guilford Press.
Balgopal, M. M., Wallace, A. M., & Dahlberg, S. (2012). Writing to
learn ecology: A study of three populations of college students.
Environmental Education Research, 18, 6790.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written
composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Berman, M. G., Jonides, J., & Kaplan, S. (2008). The cognitive
benefits of interacting with nature. Psychological Science, 19(12),
12071212. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02225.x
Berman, M. G., Kross, E., Krpan, K. M., Askren, M. K., Burson, A.,
Deldin, P. J., Jonides, J. (2012). Interacting with nature improves
cognition and affect for individuals with depression. Journal of
Affective Disorders, 140, 300305. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2012.03.012
Berninger, V. W. (Ed.) (2012). Past, present, and future contribution of
cognitive writing research to cognitive psychology. New York: Psychol-
ogy Press.
Berto, R. (2005). Exposure to restorative environments helps
restore attentional capacity. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
25(3), 249259. doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2005.07.001
Boyce, T. E., & Hineline, P. N. (2002). Interteaching: A strategy for
enhancing the user-friendliness of behavioral arrangements in
the college classroom. Behavior Analyst, 25, 215226.
Briol, P., & DeMarree, K. G. (2012). Social metacognition. New York:
Psychology Press.
Buskist, W., & Groccia, J. (Eds.) (2011). Evidence-based teaching: New
directions in teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
2013 The Australian Psychological Society
Evidence-based teaching 11
Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L., III (2007). Testing improves long-
term retention in a simulated classroom setting. European Journal
of Cognitive Psychology, 19, 514527.
Cameron, K. (1983). Strategic responses to conditions of decline:
Higher education and the private sector. Journal of Higher Educa-
tion, 54, 359380.
Cannella-Malone, H. I., Axe, J. B., & Parker, E. D. (2009). Interteach
preparation: A comparison of the effects of answering versus
generating study guide questions on quiz scores. Journal of the
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9, 2235.
Carpenter, S. K. (2011). Semantic information activated during
retrieval contributes to later retention: Support for the mediator
effectiveness hypothesis of the testing effect. Journal of Experimen-
tal Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 37, 15471552.
doi:10.1037/a0024140
Carpenter, S. K. (2012). Testing enhances the transfer of learning.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 279283. doi:
10.1177/0963721412452728
Cepeda, N. J., Coburn, N., Rohrer, D., Wixted, J. T., Mozer, M. C., &
Pashler, H. (2009). Optimizing distributed practice: Theoretical
analysis and practical implications. Experimental Psychology, 56,
236246. doi:10.1027/1618-3169.56.4.236
Cepeda, N. J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2006).
Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quanti-
tative synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 354380. doi:10.1037/
0033-2909.132.3.354
Chan, J. C. K., McDermott, K. B., & Roediger, H. L., III (2006).
Retrieval induced facilitation: Initially nontested material can
benefit from prior testing of related material. Journal of Experi-
mental Psychology: General, 135, 553571.
Connor-Greene, P. A. (2005). Fostering meaningful classroom dis-
cussions: Student-generated questions, quotations, and talking
points. Teaching of Psychology, 32, 173175.
Dement, W. E., & Vaughn, C. (2000). The promise of sleep. New York:
Dell.
Dimmitt, C., & McCormick, C. B. (2012). Metacognition in educa-
tion. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA educa-
tional psychology handbook: Vol 1. Theories, constructs, and critical issues
(pp. 157187). Washington, DC: American Psychological Asso-
ciation. doi:10.1037/13273-007
Dunn, D. S. (1994). Lessons learned from an interdisciplinary
writing course: Implications for student writing in psychology.
Teaching of Psychology, 21, 223227.
Dunn, D. S. (2011). A short guide to writing about psychology (3rd ed.).
New York: Pearson Longman.
Dunn, D. S., McEntarffer, R., & Halonen, J. S. (2004). Empowering
psychology students through self-assessment. In D. S. Dunn, C.
M. Mehrotra, & J. S. Halonen (Eds.), Measuring up: Assessment
challenges and practices for psychology (pp. 171186). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1885). Memory: A contribution to experimental
psychology. (H. A. Ruger & C. H. Bussenius, Trans.) In C. A.
Green (Ed.), Classics in the Teaching of Psychology. Retrieved from
http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Ebbinghaus/index.htm
Emurian, H. H., & Zheng, P. (2010). Programmed instruction and
interteaching applications to teaching Java(TM): A systematic
replication. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 11661175.
Forsyth, D. R. (2003). The professors guide to teaching: Psychological
principles and practices. Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.
Friedman, T. L. (2005). The world is flat: A brief history of the twenty-first
century. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Goto, K., & Schneider, J. (2010). Learning through teaching: Chal-
lenges and opportunities in facilitating student learning in food
science and nutrition by using the interteaching approach.
Journal of Food Science Education, 9, 3135.
12 D.S. Dunn et al.
Gurung, R. A. R., Weidert, J., & Jeske, A. S. (2010). A closer look at
how students study (and if it matters). Journal of the Scholarship of
Teaching and Learning, 10, 2833.
Gurung, R. R., & McCann, L. I. (2012). How should students study?
In B. M. Schwartz & R. R. Gurung (Eds.), Evidence-based teaching
for higher education (pp. 99116). Washington, DC: American Psy-
chological Association. doi:10.1037/13745-006
Halpern, D. F., Anton, B., Beins, B. C., Bernstein, D. J., Blair-
Broeker, C. T., Brewer, C. L., . . . Rocheleau, C. A. (2010). Prin-
ciples for quality undergraduate education in psychology. In D. F.
Halpern (Ed.), Undergraduate education in psychology: A blueprint for
the future of the discipline (pp. 161173). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12063-010
Halpern, D. F., & Hakel, M. D. (2003). Applying the science of
learning to the university and beyond. Change, 35(4), 3642.
Hartig, T., Evans, G. W., Jamner, L. D., Davis, D. S., & Grling, T.
(2003). Tracking restoration in natural and urban field settings.
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23(2), 109123. doi:10.1016/
S0272-4944(02)00109-3
Hersh, R. H., & Merrow, J. (Eds.) (2005). Declining by degrees: Higher
education at risk. New York: Palgrave McMillan.
Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychologi-
cal perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an
integrative framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15,
169182.
Karpicke, J. D. (2012). Retrieval-based learning: Active retrieval
promotes meaningful learning. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 21, 157163. doi:10.1177/0963721412443552
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces
more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping.
Science, 331, 772775. doi:10.1126/science.1199327
Karpicke, J. D., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, III, H. L. (2009). Meta-
cognitive strategies in student learning: Do students practise
retrieval when they study on their own? Memory, 17, 471479.
doi:10.1080/09658210802647009
Korn, J. H., & Sikorski, J. (2010). A guide for beginning teachers
of psychology. Retrieved from the Society for the Teaching
of Psychology Web site: http://www.teachpsych.org/ebooks/
guide2010/index.php
Krug, D., Davis, T., & Glover, J. A. (1990). Massed versus distributed
repeated reading: A case of forgetting helping recall? Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 366371. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.
82.2.366
Larsen, D. P., Butler, A. C., & Roediger, H. L. III (2009). Repeated
testing improves long-term retention relative to repeated study:
A randomised controlled trial. Medical Education, 43, 11741181.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03518
Leeming, F. C. (2002). The exam-a-day procedure improves per-
formance in psychology classes. Teaching of Psychology, 29, 210
212.
McDaniel, M. A., Howard, D. C., & Einstein, G. O. (2009). The
readrecitereview study strategy: Effective and portable. Psycho-
logical Science, 20, 516522.
Nevid, J. S., Pastva, A., & McClelland, N. (2012). Writing-to-learn
assignments in introductory psychology: Is there a learning
benefit? Teaching of Psychology, 39, 272275. doi: 10.1177/
009862831245662
Papadopoulos, P. M., Demetriadis, S. N., Stamelos, I. G., & Tsoukalas,
I. A. (2011). The value of writing-to-learn when using question
prompts to support web-based learning in ill-structured domains.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 59, 7190.
Pashler, H., Cepeda, N. J., Wixted, J. T., & Rohrer, D. (2005). When
does feedback facilitate learning of words? Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31, 38. doi:10.1037/
0278-7393.31.1.3
Rawson, K. A., & Kintsch, W. (2005). Rereading effects depend
on time of test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 7080.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.1.70
Robinson, K. (2009). The element: How finding your passion changes
everything. New York, NY: The Penguin Group.
Saville, B. K. (2010). Using evidence-based teaching methods to
improve education. In S. A. Meyers & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Essays
from e-xcellence in teaching (pp. 4854). (Vol. 9), Published on
the Society for the Teaching of Psychology Web site. Retrieved
from http://www.teachpsych.org/resources/e-books/eit2009/
index.php
Saville, B. K., Lambert, T., & Robertson, S. (2011). Interteaching:
Bringing behavioral education into the 21st century. Psychological
Record, 61, 153166.
Saville, B. K., Pope, D., Truelove, J., & Williams, J. (in press). The
relation between GPA and exam performance during interteach-
ing and lecture. Behavior Analyst Today.
Saville, B. K., & Zinn, T. E. (2009). Interteaching: The effects of
quality points on exam scores. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis,
42, 369374. doi:10.1901/jaba.2009.42-369
Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., & Elliott, M. P. (2005). Interteaching versus
traditional methods of instruction: A preliminary analysis. Teach-
ing of Psychology, 32, 161163.
Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., Lawrence, N. K., Barron, K. E., & Andre,
J. (2008). Teaching critical thinking in statistics and research
methods. In D. S. Dunn, J. S. Halonen, & R. A. Smith (Eds.),
Teaching critical thinking in psychology: A handbook of best practices
(pp. 149160). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Saville, B. K., Zinn, T. E., Neef, N. A., Van Norman, R., & Ferreri,
S. J. (2006). A comparison of interteaching and lecture in the
college classroom. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 39, 4961.
Schwartz, B. M., & Gurung, R. A. R. (Eds.) (2012). Evidence-based
teaching for higher education. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association.
Scoboria, A., & Pascual-Leone, A. (2009). An interteaching
informed approach to instructing large undergraduate classes.
Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 9, 2937.
Sisti, H. M., Glass, A. L., & Shors, T. J. (2007). Neurogenesis and the
spacing effect: Learning over time enhances memory and the
survival of new neurons. Learning and Memory, 14, 368375.
Skinner, B. F. (1954). The science of learning and the art of teaching.
Harvard Educational Review, 24, 8697. (Reprinted in Cumulative
record, definitive edition, pp. 179-191, 1999, Cambridge, MA:
B. F. Skinner Foundation).
Squire, L., & Alvarez, P. (1995). Retrograde amnesia and memory
consolidation: A neurobiological perspective. Current Opinion in
Neurobiology, 5, 169177.
Stewart, T. L., Myers, A. C., & Culley, M. R. (2010). Enhanced
learning and retention through writing to learn in the psychol-
ogy classroom. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 4649. doi: 10.1080/
00986280903425813
Toppino, T. C., & Cohen, M. S. (2010). Metacognitive control and
spaced practice: Clarifying what people do and why. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 1480
1491. doi:10.1037/a0020949
Tsui, M. (2010). Interteaching: Students as teachers in lower-
division sociology courses. Teaching Sociology, 38, 2834.
Verkoeijen, P. L., Rikers, R. P., & zsoy, B. (2008). Distributed
rereading can hurt the spacing effect in text memory. Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 22, 685695. doi:10.1002/acp.1388
Vlach, H. A., & Sandhofer, C. M. (2012). Distributing learning over
time: The spacing effect in childrens acquisition and generaliza-
tion of science concepts. Child Development, 83, 11371144.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01781.x
Vojdanoska, M., Cranney, J., & Newell, B. R. (2010). The testing
effect: The role of feedback and collaboration in a tertiary
2013 The Australian Psychological Society

classroom setting. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 24, 11831195.
doi:10.1002/acp.1630
Voltaire (1950). Philosophical dictionary (Vol. 1). New York: Carlton
House. (Original work published 1764).
Wahlheim, C. N., Dunlosky, J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2011). Spacing
enhances the learning of natural concepts: An investigation of
mechanisms, metacognition, and aging. Memory and Cognition, 39,
750763. doi:10.3758/s13421-010-0063-y
Walker, M. P., & Stickgold, R. (2004). Sleep dependent learning and
memory consolidation. Neuron, 44, 121133. doi: 10.1016/
j.neuron.2004.08.031
2013 The Australian Psychological Society
Evidence-based teaching 13
Yandell, L. R., & Bailey, W. N. (2011). Online quizzes: Improving
reading compliance and student learning. In D. S. Dunn, J. H.
Wilson, J. E. Freeman, & J. R. Stowell (Eds.), Best practices for
technology-enhanced teaching and learning (pp. 271282). New York:
Oxford.
Zeller, B. E. (2010). We learned so much when you werent there!:
Reflections on the interteach method and the acephalous class-
room. Teaching Theology and Religion, 13, 270271.