This was controlled through semester scheduling.
Testing - Yes, this could have had a major impact on the research, and needed to be addressed through the definition of methodologies and statistical test definitions.
Instrumentation - Yes, this could have had an impact on the research, yet was minimized by the standardization of tests, the inclusion of online students in classrooms for proctored exams, and the use of a standard evaluation form.
Mortality - Yes, this was a major risk and is illustrated in the 2 students who dropped in-class participation. This was controlled through the selection of the respondent base.
Regression (Statistical Regression), Location - No, did not pose a risk to the research as the respondent base did not include previous scores.
Selection threat - Yes, this could have been a risk to the research, and is exemplified in the 2 who dropped the in-class session. False sampling could have lead to this threat occurring.
Social interaction threats a. diffusion of treatment - Yes, this could have specifically been a threat, and it was mitigated through the confidentiality of the test.
b. compensatory rivalry - Yes, this could have been a threat yet due to the confidentiality of the research this did not occur.
c. resentful demoralization - Yes, this could have been a threat yet it was also managed through confidentiality.
d. compensatory equalization of treatment - Yes, this could have been a threat yet was managed through confidentiality of the study.
Results/Discussion
What was the research hypothesis? The null hypothesis was that there was no significant difference in student academic performance or satisfaction based on their learning through in-class or online. The alternate hypothesis is that online learning students are significantly different in terms of academic performance and satisfaction.
What is the name of the inferential statistic used to test the hypothesis e.g., t-test, Chi-square, one-way ANOVA, two-way ANOVA, one-way
ANCOVA, MANOVA, MANCOVA)? A mixed design ANOVA was used, please see Poirier, Christopher, R., & Feldman, Robert S. (2004) (60 -61) for specifics of the design.
Label the calculated value, the df and the significance. Please...
(2004) for the degrees of freedom and statistical significance of the ANOVAs completed.
Explain in your own words and in non-statistical terms what the results related to the hypothesis are telling us. The series of mixed-design ANOVA results for exams, papers and course evaluations all showed that online students attained higher levels of academic performance and satisfaction than their in-class counterparts. Online students also consistently ranked their instructors as more responsive and more adept at providing feedback than their on-class students. This is attributable to the individualized instruction possible online.
Ethics
The ethical steps and processes mentioned by Poirier, Christopher, R., & Feldman, Robert S. (2004) include opt-in participation in the respondent base and the use of waiting-list experimental design in ensuring reliability in the sampling strategy. Second, the 11 students assigned to the large (477 students in this in-class format) are not aware of the student, neither are the 12 in the online program.
Evaluation from 2 Perspectives
From the perspective of research methodology this was a very good study as it looks to ethically and reliably measure the influence of online learning strategies relative to in-class approaches to the identical content and lesson plan. The use of the waiting-list experimental design in conjunction with the mixed-design ANOVA approach was well chosen as it shows the statistically significant differences between groups (in class vs. online students) along the three measures of exams, papers, and evaluations.
Online learning from my previous experience, gives students the opportunity to learn at their own pace.
Bibliography
Poirier, Christopher, R., & Feldman, Robert S. (2004) - Teaching in Cyberspace: Online vs. Traditional Instruction using a Waiting-List Experimental Design. Teaching of Psychology. Vol. 31, No. 1, 2004. Pages 59-62.
Measuring variability in academic performance based on in-class vs. online participation.
Examinations, Papers and Evaluations
Online Class (12 total)
In-Class Respondents
11 out of 477 in class
Waiting-List Selection Criteria
