Comparative analysis of the effectiveness of oral vs. podcasting reviewing techniques.
Rhoads, M. (2010). (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Southern University Carbondale, Carbondale, IL.
-
examining146Students, gradePS
Practice Guide
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2019
- Practice Guide (findings for Podcasts )
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a randomized controlled trial with high attrition, but the analytic intervention and comparison groups satisfy the baseline equivalence requirement.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Achievement Composite |
Podcasts vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
51.29 |
50.79 |
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: 84%
Male: 16% -
Rural
-
- 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
Midwest
Study Details
Setting
This study took place in a mid-sized, Midwestern university an focused primarily on sophomore, junior and senior undergraduate students.
Study sample
Eighty-four percent of the students in the sample were female. More than 60 percent of the students were age 20 or younger. In terms of undergraduate level, 66 percent of the students were undergraduate juniors, 7 percent were sophomores, 26 percent were seniors and less than one percent were graduate or post/baccalaureate students. Most students, 74 percent, were elementary education majors. The remaining students were either early childhood education majors, (14 percent), middle level education majors (2 percent) or special education majors (10 percent).
Intervention Group
The intervention included podcasts created by the researcher and designed to cover four topics: asthma, diabetes, seizure disorders, and acute infections to replace in-class reviews on these topics. The podcasts included visuals and the same narrator throughout a presentation. These podcasts were created using Garageband and an Apple MacBook Pro computer; viewing time lasted between 5-7 minutes in length. These podcasts were presented during class time as a review of information previously covered in the class.
Comparison Group
The researcher created and provided the in-class review for comparison classrooms. These in-class reviews covered the same content and, like the intervention condition, was provided after the course material had been covered by the classroom professor.
Support for implementation
The researcher created all materials for this intervention using Garageband and an Apple MacBook Pro computer and implemented all review sessions for the intervention and comparison conditions. The intervention was presumably delivered on computer or tablet.
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).