Why no difference? The effects of prompting metacognition using email or text reminders on student participation, persistence, and performance in a blended course.
Sullivan, S. M. (2016). (Doctoral Dissertation) University of Southern Alabama.
-
examining64Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: April 2024
- Practice Guide (findings for Email and text reminders)
- 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.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Course performance: email group |
Email and text reminders vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
2007.73 |
1611.65 |
No |
-- | |
|
Course performance: text group |
Email and text reminders vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
1992.23 |
1611.65 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Persistence: text group |
Email and text reminders vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
101.09 |
95.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Persistence: email group |
Email and text reminders vs. Business as usual |
0 Semesters |
Full sample;
|
99.64 |
95.30 |
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: 72%
Male: 28% -
- 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
Alabama
Study Details
Setting
The study took place at the University of South Alabama. The sample included students in seven sections of a blended version of an undergraduate course in public speaking.
Study sample
The sample has the following characteristics: 72 percent female, 48 percent freshman, 42 percent sophomores and 78 percent were either 18 or 19 years old.
Intervention Group
There are two intervention conditions: email reminders and text message reminders. In both intervention conditions students received the same kind and number of reminders during various points throughout the semester about what they should be doing in terms of online discussions, assignments, quizzes, and exams. The frequency of sending reminders was reduced during as the semester progressed. The only difference between the two intervention groups is for one the reminders were sent via email and for the other they were sent via text message.
Comparison Group
The comparison group did not receive any kind of email or text messages other than some emailed "placebo messages." The messages provided "....two practice questions the day before each quiz was due and five practice questions one week before the final exam."
Support for implementation
The technology used included emails and text messages used to provide students with reminders about activities related to their participation in the public speaking course. Reminders were sent to the student via university email system or participants' mobile phones.
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).