A meta-analysis done by Nancy S. Tobler (1998) compares the eectiveness of interactive and noninteractive programs. Interactive programs emphasized interaction and exchange of ideas among peers and also encouraged active participation of all students in the classroom. Noninteractive programs had program content taught by the teacher in a didactic manner. e areas that Tobler examined were knowledge, attitudes, social skills, and drug use. e results are expressed in percentage of change:


e interactive teaching method achieved superior results in all four categories. Tobler described the process/delivery method of the interactive programs as including: Socratic discussion, peer leaders modeling role-play to provide credibility, active participation by all in role-play, and appropriate feedback and reinforcement from peers. She described interactive programs-using trained, adult-led small groups-as actively involving youth, enabling open, honest interchange among participants, employing structured activities for younger youth and focus on youths’ perceptions and experience. She evaluated both small and large groups. Aer comparing all the interactive programs, she determined that, regardless of size, peer-led or clinician-led groups are signicantly more eective than teacher-led or the “other” leaders. e clinician-led groups, however, are only slightly more successful than peer-led groups. e large peer leader programs, though, are signicantly more eective than those lead by the “teacher” or “other” programs. Most importantly, the peer-leaders are not signicantly dierent from the clinicians in the large programs (Tobler & Tindall, 1998).