This study examines the effects of a technology-intensive course design on students’ final grades in a criminology program at an upper-division university in the southwest. Ordinary least squares (OLS) regression analyses indicated that the presence of a technology-intensive curriculum alone did not significantly improve student performance. However, interaction effects revealed that the technology-based curriculum enhanced student learning for online students compared to those in hybrid and (FTF) courses although students completed fewer technology projects in online sections. These findings reveal barriers to teaching with technology that are not overcome through the use of systematic training for instructors and students. The study further reveals that adult and traditional learners do not significantly differ in learning when exposed to a technology-intensive curriculum or mode of course delivery.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmmarellG.2000. Network newsgroups as a teaching tool in the social sciences. Teaching Sociology, 28(2), 153–159.
2.
BanerjeeG. (2011). Blended environments: Learning effectiveness and student satisfaction at a small college in transition.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 15(1), 8–19.
3.
BennettG.GreenF. P. (2001). Student learning in the online environment: No significant difference?Quest, 53(1), 1–13.
4.
BensonD. E.OreT. E.HaneyW.HodgesC.PersellA.SchulteJ. S.et al. (2002). Digital technologies and the scholarship of teaching and learning in sociology.Teaching Sociology, 30(2), 140–157.
5.
BergstrandK.SavageS. V. (2013). The chalkboard versus the avatar: Comparing the effectiveness of online and in class courses.Teaching Sociology, 41(3), 294–306.
6.
Clark-IbáñezM.ScottL. (2008). Learning to teach online.Teaching Sociology, 36(1), 34–41.
7.
CheongC. M.CheungW. S. (2008). Online discussion and critical thinking skills: A case study in a Singapore secondary school.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24(5), 556–573.
8.
DaniD. E.KoenigK. M. (2008). Technology and reform-based science education.Theory into Practice, 47, 204–211.
9.
DavisF. D. (1993). User acceptance of information technology: System characteristics, user perceptions, and behavior impacts.International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 38(3), 475–487.
10.
DietzT. L. (2002). Predictors of success in large enrollment introductory courses: An examination of the impact of learning communities and virtual learning resources on student success in an introductory level sociology course.Teaching Sociology, 30(1), 80–88.
Farabaugh-DorkinsC. (1991). Beginning to understand why older students drop out of college: A pathanalytic test of the Bean/Metzner model of nontraditional student attrition. Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research.
13.
JenkinsR. (2012, October 15). The new “traditional” student. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/The-New-Traditional-on/135012/
14.
KroeberC. (2005). Introducing multimedia presentations and a course website to an introductory sociology course: How technology affects student perceptions of teaching effectiveness.Teaching Sociology, 33(3), 285–300.
15.
MerriamS.CaffarellaR. (1999). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16.
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). (2012). Projections for education statistics to 2012. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2002/2002030.pdf
17.
OlsonD. (2002). A comparison of online and lecture methods for delivering the CS 1 course.Journal of Computing Sciences in Colleges, 18(2), 57–63.
18.
ParkC.BomanJ.CareW.EdwardsM.PerryB. (2008). Persistence and attrition: What is being measured?Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory & Practice, 10(2), 223–233.
19.
PearsonA. F. (2010). Real problems, virtual solutions: Engaging students online.Teaching Sociology, 38(3), 207–214.
20.
Perez-PenaR. (2012, July 17). Top universities test the online appeal of free. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/education/top-universities-test-the-online-appeal-of-free.html.
21.
PontesC. F.PontesM. P. (2012). Enrollment in distance education classes is associated with fewer enrollment gaps among nontraditional undergraduate students in the US.Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(1), 79–89.
22.
QuickC. (2012). From the workplace to academia: Nontraditional students and the relevance of workplace experience in technical writing pedagogy.Communication Quarterly, 21(3), 230–250.
23.
RovaiA. P.BarnumK. T. (2003). On-line Course Effectiveness: An analysis of student interactions and perceptions of learning.Journal of Distance Education, 18(1), 57–73.
24.
SalehS. M.AsiY. M.HamedK. M. (2013). Effectiveness of integrating case studies in online and face-to-face instruction of pathophysiology: A comparative study.Advances in Physiology Education, 37(2), 201–206.
25.
ScaliseKTimmsM.MoorjaniA.ClarkL.HoltermannK.IrvinS. P. (2011). Student learning in science simulations: Design features that promote learning gains.Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 48(9), 1050–1078.
26.
SchulteA. (2004). The development of an asynchronous computer-mediated course: Observations on how to promote interactivity.College Teaching, 52(1), 6–10.
27.
SummersJ. J.WaigandtA.WhitakerT. A. (2005). A comparison of student achievement and satisfaction in an online versus traditional face-to-face statistics class.Innovative Higher Education, 29(3), 233–250.
28.
SuskieL.2004. Assessing student learning: A common sense guide. Bolton, MA: Anker.
29.
TrundleK. C.BellR. L. (2010). The use of computer simulation to promote conceptual change: A quasi-experimental study.Computers & Education, 54(4), 1078–1088.
30.
UrtelM. G. (2008). Assessing academic performance between traditional and distance education course formats.Technology and Society, 11(1), 322–330.
31.
ValentineC. G. (2001). Electronic sex talk: The uses and dynamics of computer-mediated discussion groups in a team-taught human sexuality class.Teaching Sociology, 29(1), 48–61.
32.
Van JoolingenW. R.de JongT.DimitrakopoulouA. (2007). Issues in computer supported inquiry learning in science.Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 23(2), 111–119.
33.
WuJ.TennysonR. D.HsiaT. (2010). A study of student satisfaction in a blended e-learning system environment.Computers & Education, 55(1), 155–164.
34.
WuJ. S.WangS. C. (2005). What drives mobile commerce? An empirical evaluation of the revised technology acceptance model.Computers and Education, 42(5), 719–729.
35.
WyattL. G. (2011). Nontraditional student engagement: Increasing adult student success and retention.Journal of Continuing Higher Education, 59, 10–20.
