Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from a six-campus randomized trial.
Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., & Nygren, T. I. (2014). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), 94-111.
-
examining605Students, gradePS
Open Learning Initiative (OLI) Intervention Report - Supporting Postsecondary Success
Review Details
Reviewed: January 2020
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with low attrition.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Open Learning Initiative (OLI).
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final exam test score |
Open Learning Initiative (OLI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.57 |
0.55 |
No |
-- | |
|
Comprehensive Assessment of Outcomes in a First Statistics course (CAOS) |
Open Learning Initiative (OLI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
0.48 |
0.47 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Complete Course |
Open Learning Initiative (OLI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
87.00 |
82.00 |
Yes |
|
|
|
Passed course |
Open Learning Initiative (OLI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
80.00 |
76.00 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Female: 58%
Male: 42% -
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Maryland, New York
-
Race White 44%
Study Details
Setting
Study participants are students enrolled in introductory statistics courses in seven different institutions: University of Albany, SUNY Institute of Technology, University of Maryland, University of Maryland Baltimore County, Towson University, Baruch College and City College.
Study sample
In the hybrid (intervention) group, the study participants were 39 percent male, 46 percent white, had an average age of 22.0 years, and 50 percent had a family income less than $50,000. In the traditional (comparison) group, the study participants were 46 percent male, 41 percent white, had an average age of 21.9 years, and 49 percent had a family income less than $50,000.
Intervention Group
Students in the hybrid statistics courses participated in interactive learning online (ILO), which included machine-guided instruction and face-to-face instruction each week. ILO is where interactive online courses with machine-guided instruction can substitute for some traditional, face-to-face instruction. The ILO for this study included textual explanations of concepts, worked examples, and practice problems. Students were also required to manipulate data using statistical software packages. These sections were delivered in a “hybrid” mode, in which most of the instruction was delivered through interactive online materials, but the online instruction was supplemented by a weekly 1-hour face-to-face session, so that students could ask questions or be given targeted assistance by the instructor.
Comparison Group
Students assigned to the traditional statistics courses were taught the introductory statistics course as it is usually offered at their institution with face-to-face instruction.
Support for implementation
The study does not provide details on implementation support for the instructors teaching the hybrid courses.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).