Baker, Rachel; Evans, Brent; Li, Qiujie; Cung, Bianca (2019). Research in Higher Education, v60 n4 p521-552. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1216401
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final course grade |
Scheduling watching video lectures vs. (Not applicable) |
3 Weeks |
Full sample;
|
82.50 |
80.45 |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
| Asian | 68% | |
| Black | 2% | |
| Other or unknown | 10% | |
| White | 9% |
| Hispanic | 13% |
This study took place in an online undergraduate STEM course from a selective, public 4-year university. The course was lower division and required for the major, with calculus as a pre- or co-requisite. The course was offered over a 5-week period during the summer, and allowed students to earn the same amount of credits as the 10-week course offered during the academic year.
The average age of participants was 20 years and 56 percent were female. Sixty-eight percent of the sample reported their race/ethnicity as Asian/Pacific Islander, with 13 percent reporting as Hispanic, 9 percent reporting as white, and 2 percent reporting as black. The remaining 10 percent indicated other or did not provide their race/ethnicity. The majority (71%) were in their sophomore year of college, and half (50%) were first generation college students.
On the frst day of week one and week two, students in the intervention group received an email from the instructor with a link to an online scheduling survey asking them to schedule the day and time they would watch each of the video lectures for that week.
On the first day of week one and week two, students in the comparison group received an email from the instructor asking them to respond to an online survey about how they watched the course lectures. In week one students were asked which web browser they used to access the course; in week two they were asked if they listened to the lecture using the computer’s speakers or using headphones.
No support for implementation was described.
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