Schunn, C. D., & Patchan, M. (2009). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh, Learning Research and Development Center.
Reviewed: August 2019
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).
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final Exam: Fall 2007 and Spring 2008 |
Open Learning Initiative (OLI) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
62.35 |
64.13 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
This study takes place at Carnegie Mellon University, a large top-tier public research institution in the US, in a "logic and proofs" course.
Demographic breakdowns are not reported, but the author did indicate that there were no major differences on gender, year, GPA, major, prior experience with logic courses, prior experience with formal proofs, or prior experience with web-based or programming environments.
Students in the intervention condition received online instruction through OLI that, in general, mirrored the content of the course taught in the traditional (comparison) sections. The authors note that the OLI sections included several additional topics not covered in the comparison sections. The authors report findings on the final exam from the course. This outcome falls under the academic achievement domain. Baseline equivalence was established on cumulative GPA prior to the semester when the study took place.
Students in the comparison condition received instruction in the traditional face-to-face format.
The study does not provide details on implementation support for OLI.
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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube