Transcript A Comparison of Online and Classroom

A Comparison of Online and
Classroom-based
Developmental Math Courses
Jeanette G. Eggert
Concordia University – Portland, Oregon
Developmental Math
Definition:
Educational
opportunities for
students that lack
the math skills
needed for success
in college-level math
courses.
Citation
Students in Developmental Math





Citation
Traditional and Non-traditional
Previous bad experiences with math
Gaps in their background
Low self-efficacy
High levels of math and test anxiety
Math Labs at Concordia




Placement test
Four half-semester courses
Cover basic skills through some
intermediate algebra topics
Small class size
Before 2005




Quizzes over each section
Large portion of class time spent in
assessment supervision
Mastery-based, but time-sequencing
problematic
Quiz re-takes placed additional
demands on instructors
Implementation of
Computer-based quizzes

Immediate feedback for students

Increased instructional time

More time for individual help
Online Math Labs




Classroom notes
Textbook resources
Quizzes
Access to the
instructor



Email
Phone
In-person
This Study:
Problem Statement
Use existing data to compare the
effectiveness of online and
classroom-based developmental
math courses at a four-year liberal
arts university.
Theoretical Framework I
Media Debate

Clark – 1983


Kozma – 1991

Citation
Delivery truck
analogy
Instructional
attributes
Theoretical Framework II
Instructional
alternatives are
needed for
developmental
students.
Citation
Research Question #1
Is there a significant difference in
successful course completion for
online and classroom-based
sections of the developmental math
courses during the stated interval?
Research Question #2
Is there a significant difference in
student satisfaction at the
conclusion of each course with
regard to their participation in
online and classroom-based
sections of the developmental math
courses during the stated interval?
Research Question #3
Is there a significant difference in
academic achievement in a
subsequent college-level math
course for those students who
participated in online and
classroom-based sections of the
developmental math courses during
the stated interval?
Study Parameters



Ten semesters: Summer 2005 –
Summer 2008, inclusive
Census of all students who
completed developmental math
courses
Parallel instructional methodologies
Human Subjects Safeguarding

Existing data


Coded to remove student and faculty
identifiers
IRB approval


George Fox University
Concordia University - Portland
Data & Analysis: RQ #1
Successful Course Completion

N = 718




Classroom n = 357
Online n = 361
Independent samples t - test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
Results: RQ #1
Successful Course Completion

Classroom-based


Online



Mean = 0.80; Standard deviation = 0.398
Mean = 0.83; Standard deviation = 0.373
No statistically significant difference at
an alpha level of 0.05 (t = – 1.039,
n.s.)
Null hypothesis supported
Data & Analysis: RQ #2
Student Satisfaction

N = 222



Two scales; reliability via Cronbach’s Alpha




Classroom n = 100
Online n = 122
Satisfaction with course; 6 Likert-scale items
Satisfaction with the instructor; 8 items
Independent samples t - test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
Results: RQ #2 - First Scale
Satisfaction with Course


Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.942 for the 6 items.
Classroom-based


Online



Mean = 25.34; Standard deviation = 6.189
Mean = 26.55; Standard deviation = 4.398
No statistically significant difference at an
alpha level of 0.05 (t = – 1.698, n.s.)
Null hypothesis supported
Results: RQ #2 - Second Scale
Satisfaction with the Instructor


Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.971 for the 8 items.
Classroom-based


Online



Mean = 37.29; Standard deviation = 6.091
Mean = 37.89; Standard deviation = 4.613
No statistically significant difference at an
alpha level of 0.05 (t = – 0.828, n.s.)
Null hypothesis supported
Data & Analysis: RQ #3
College-Level Math GPA

N = 118




Classroom n = 58
Online n = 60
Independent samples t - test
Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances
Results: RQ #3
College-Level Math GPA

Classroom-based


Online



Mean = 2.448; Standard deviation = 1.1275
Mean = 2.978; Standard deviation = 0.9076
Statistically significant difference in the
means (t = – 2.818, p < 0.05)
Both the null hypothesis and the alternative
hypothesis were rejected
Summary of Results

No significant difference based on:



Successful course completion
Student satisfaction
Online instructional delivery was more
effective for higher levels of academic
achievement in a subsequent collegelevel math course.
Implications


Supports continuation of both
instructional delivery systems
Revise online courses



Mastery-based
Hyperlinked
Revise classroom-based courses


Utilize web-based options
Unique face-to-face opportunities
Acknowledgments
• My students and colleagues at
Concordia University – Portland
• My parents, Richard & Myra Gibeson
• My husband, John Eggert
• My dissertation committee at
George Fox University:
• Dr. Scot Headley
• Dr. Terry Huffman
• Dr. Linda Samek
Graphics
• Clip-Art from the Microsoft
Collection
• WebCT view from Concordia
University’s Online Math Lab
course
Contact Information
Jeanette Eggert
[email protected]
References



Berenson, S. B., Carter, G., & Norwood, K. S. (1992).
The at-risk student in college developmental algebra.
School Science and Mathematics, 92(2), 55-58.
Brown, D. G. (Ed.). (2000) Teaching with technology:
Seventy-five professors from eight universities tell
their stories. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
Brown, D. G. (Ed.). (2003) Developing faculty to use
technology: Programs and strategies to enhance
teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.
References



page 2
Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on
learning from media. Review of Educational
Research, 53(4), 445-459.
Dotzler, J. J. (2003). A note on the nature and history
of post-secondary developmental education.
Mathematics and Computer Education, 37(1), 121125.
Duranczyk, I. M., & Higbee, J. L. (2006).
Developmental mathematics in 4-year institutions:
Denying access. Journal of Developmental Education,
30(1), 22-29.
References



page 3
Hodges, D. Z., & Kennedy, N. H. (2004). Editor's
choice: Post-testing in developmental education: A
success story. Community College Review, 32(3), 3542.
Kinney, D. P., & Robertson, D. F. (2003). Technology
makes possible new models for delivering
developmental mathematics instruction. Mathematics
and Computer Education, 37(3), 315-328.
Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of
Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.
References


page 4
Mallenby, M. L., & Mallenby, D. W. (2004). Teaching
basic algebra courses at the college level. Primus:
Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics
Undergraduate Studies, 14(2), 163-168.
Manto, J. C. (2006). A correlations study of
ACCUPLACER math and algebra scores and math
remediation on the retention and success of students
in the clinical laboratory technology program at
Milwaukee Area Technical College. Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin – Stout,
Menomonie, WI.
References



page 5
Reese, M. S. (2007). What’s so hard about algebra? A
grounded theory study of adult algebra learners.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, San Diego State
University – University of San Diego, San Diego, CA.
Tanner, J., & Hale, K. (2007). The “new” language of
algebra. Research & Teaching in Developmental
Education, 23(2), 78-83.
Weinstein, G. L. (2004). Their side of the story:
Remedial college algebra students. Mathematics and
Computer Education, 38(2), 230-240.