Stanley, Denise; Zhang, Yi (2018). Online Learning, v22 n2 p5-26. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1181370
Reviewed: March 2021
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.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Passing course |
Online Student-Generated Video Project vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
72.90 |
67.30 |
No |
-- | |
|
Total class points |
Online Student-Generated Video Project vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
74.10 |
72.43 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Hispanic | 33% | |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 67% |
The study was conducted at a university located in California. Participants were undergraduate students who took an upper division online college course, focused on economics, which is required for all students pursuing a bachelor's degree in business administration. The study leveraged students from two sections of this economics course in the spring of 2016.
On average, participating students were 25 years old. There were more women (59%) than men (41%). Most of the students had lower income levels (71% Pell Grant eligible). One-third (33%) reported Hispanic ethnicity; the remaining students primarily reported their race as Asian or Caucasian.
As part of the course requirements, participants in the intervention course section developed student-generated video projects showcasing the steps one must go through to solve a multiple-choice question on an exam. Students could choose from a bank of existing questions, or have the instructor select one for them. Students were given directions explaining how to make the video and what type of medium they could use (e.g., narrated PowerPoint slideshow, YouTube video). The instructor included an example video to help students understand the assignment parameters. Each student produced a narrated video and posted it in a discussion forum link in the relevant module. Other students viewed the videos and provided ratings and comments. In addition, students in the intervention condition engaged in common study activities (online lecture content, homework, quizzes) and took the same exams as the business-as-usual comparison condition.
Students in the comparison condition received the same online course section as the students in the intervention condition with the exception of the student-generated video projects. Otherwise, all students received the same lecture content, completed the same homework assignments and quizzes, and took the same exams. To ensure that the points earned in each of the course sections was comparable, homework and quizzes were worth more points in the comparison condition than in the intervention condition.
No supports for implementation were described in the paper.
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