Selhorst, Adam L.; Bao, Mingzhen; Williams, Lorraine; Klein, Eric (2017). Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration, v20 n4. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1165472
Reviewed: June 2020
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Course GPA |
Participation in Online Discussion Boards vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
2.78 |
2.75 |
No |
-- | |
|
Fail rate |
Participation in Online Discussion Boards vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.10 |
8.30 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Withdraw rate |
Participation in Online Discussion Boards vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.20 |
9.60 |
No |
-- | |
|
Academic progress |
Participation in Online Discussion Boards vs. Business as usual |
2 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
76.90 |
78.20 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 1% | |
| Black | 37% | |
| Native American | 1% | |
| Pacific Islander | 1% | |
| White | 45% |
| Hispanic | 10% |
The study took place in seven courses over multiple disciplines at Ashford University, an online for-profit university.
Sample characteristics were only provided for the university student population, which is 70% female. Race/ethnicity for the student population was described as 45% white, 37% black, 10% Hispanic, 1% American Indian or Alaska Native, 1% Asian, 1% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 3% two or more races, and 2% unknown. Most students are adult learners with the majority being over the age of 25.
The intervention consisted of the selected intervention courses dropping the required weekly discussion boards from two to one. The weekly discussion requires students to participate in an online, open forum where they post thoughts and questions. They also must respond to other classmate posts. The courses also included weekly readings, assignments, and quizzes. Intervention course sections in this group were supplemented to ensure an equal number of points and requirements, such as additional required readings, increasing assessment points for the one remaining discussion, and increasing the length and rigor for remaining discussions.
The comparison condition was a business-as-usual condition that included the same courses as the intervention condition, but with the usual mandatory participation in discussion boards remaining at two per week. These course sections also included the same weekly readings, assignments, and quizzes as those in the intervention course sections.
Support for implementation was not reported.
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