A Summary of Quantitative Article Analysis

QUANTITATIVE ARTICLE ANALYSIS

Quantitative Article Analysis

Summary

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the selected study was to evaluate student success in a developmental Math course among three different student learning environments, which were online, blended, and face-to-face (Ashby, Sadera & McNary, 2011).

Description of Participants/ Sample

Demographic data, standardized intermediate Algebra Competency test scores, and unit test grades were obtained from 167 participants from Mid-Atlantic Community College. They were enrolled in intermediate Algebra class at the college. The participants had either passed a previous developmental course or have been entered into the course directly depending upon their scores on the placement test. There was variability in the sample’s demographic and academic characteristics. The students included those who have graduated from high school and even those who have returned from non-traditional colleges, with an average age being 25.5 years. The sample included 97 females with ethnic backgrounds being 49% Caucasian and 43% African American. Also, there were full-time and part-time students, 48% and 52% respectively.

The students had been given the option of selecting to enroll in the learning environment, resulting in 35% enrollments in face-to-face classes, 28% in blended classes, and 38% in online classes. It was noticed that online classes had the oldest group age-wise and included mostly the females.

Adjustments were made for the attrition since the attrition rate is the highest in community colleges since just keeping the students in the course was challenging. Completion of unit tests and reaching to final exam also became hard for these students. There were missing grades and exams based on the varying learning environment and had to be adjusted.

Research Design

The study utilized quantitative research methodology for having the comparison of success among three different learning environments. The study aimed to answer the research questions like whether the learning environment affects the students’ success rate regarding their test scores, final exam, and grading in courses, and whether the course performance relied upon attrition. For the students to be assumed as successful and eligible for college-level math courses, their success rate must be equal to 70% or higher. Hence, the comparisons had to be made on equal course completion and making accounts for attrition.

Method of Data Collection

The data was obtained from three learning environments: online, blended, and face-to-face. Demographic information of the students was taken from the college database by informing the students beforehand and gaining their informed consent for participating in this study. The learning environments varied in this study, and their measurements had to be taken carefully so that the data obtained was equal for making comparisons. All three groups used the same syllabus, the content of the course, and deadlines for the assignments. Cheating was discouraged for keeping the test scores fair for all students alike. The questions had to be evaluated for similar difficulty levels and aligned with the course content and objectives. The time limit for completion of tests and grading rubric was the same for all three learning environments. Pencil and paper were given to the face-to-face learning students for test completion, while online versions of the same test were given to online and blended learning students. The tests were scheduled for three day period to facilitate different criteria meeting patterns for all learning environments.

Statistical Analysis

The comparisons were made among three learning environments by using a statistical measure called ANOVA. Tukey’s HSD was employed to gain substantial main effects for the detection of pairwise differences. Chi-square tests were used to notice the differences between categorical variables and their significance. The significance level for every test was set as 0.05.

Analysis

Opportunities for Further Research

Since the findings showed that students performed worse in online and blended learning environments than face-to-face learning with a higher percentage of minority students involved, attendance rates being 56-81% and passing proportion of 29-64%, the results were in contrast with the results the existing studies. The course completion rates were also different: 93% for face-to-face learning, 70% for blended learning, and 76% for online students. Future research could assess the factors that affect the students’ persistence during online and face-to-face learning when the criteria of course content, testing, and course grading are the same for all. It should be further investigated that when the rules and regulations of teaching the same course topics to all and even the assessment questions are the same for all students, then what factors are involved, or it could be better said, what barriers are involved that are hindering them from performing successfully in each learning environment equally. The current study that being persistent till the end of the course and sticking for its completion along with success rates for three learning environments were different; hence, a further probe of this direction would be helpful based on gender and ethnic backgrounds.

Threats to Validity

A significant part of the study is considered valid since the extent to which the study aims to measure the targeted phenomenon is fulfilled (Heale & Twycross, 2015). However, construct validity could be debated since the personality traits such as students’ persistence over time for completing the course and its relevant activities, the assignments, and scoring well on the tests, is still questionable in a meaningful way. The factors that affected their behaviors are unknown, and the collection of these related indicators still needs to be explored. Also, gender and ethnic backgrounds have certain characteristics that might have impacted the result somehow, creating a threat to the study’s validity.

Other Original Insight or Criticism

Since the success rates of online and blended learning are seen to be lower than the face-to-face learning environment, it has been criticized by previous studies whether the cost-saving and returns-on-investment for online learning stand true (Arias, Swinton & Anderson, 2018, p. 2). As the students’ results remain lower than traditional face-to-face learning, there seems to be no cost-saving in e-learning. Although online learning has the benefit of freedom for the students in managing their classes, taking online lessons from the teachers, even if the teacher is the same for face-to-face and online class, it still requires discipline from the students’ side, making it a challenge in the overall academic outcomes. The timeliness and determination for following the given timetable of an online class is solely the students’ responsibility so that they advance with the other students at the same pace in a self-controlled, self-efficient, and well-timed manner.