Quantitative Skills,Critical Thinking,and Writing Mechanics in Blended Versus Face-to-Face Versions of a Research Methods and Statistics Course

Abstract

Hybrid or blended learning (BL) has been shown to be equivalent to or better than face-to-face (FTF) instruction in a broad variety of contexts. We randomly assigned students to either 50/50 BL or 100% FTF versions of a research methods and statistics in psychology course. Students who took the BL version of the course scored significantly lower on measures of quantitative mastery of statistical concepts than those who took the FTF version; however, the size of this effect was quite small. We detected no significant difference between BL and FTF in the expression of critical thinking through writing or writing mechanics. The greatest difference in performance was among instructors regardless of instruction type. We discuss these results in the context of increasing online and BL instruction, particularly with regard to teaching psychological statistics, research methods, and critical thinking.

Keywords

research methods statistics blended classroom critical thinking quantitative skills

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aberson

C. L.

Berger

D. E.

Healy

M. R.

Romero

V. L.

(2003). Evaluation of an interactive tutorial for teaching hypothesis testing concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 30, 75–78. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3001_12

Akyüz

H. I.

Samsa

(2009). Critical thinking skills of preservice teachers in the blended learning environment. International Journal of Human Sciences, 6, 538–550.

Al-Jarf

R. S.

(2004). The effects of web-based learning on struggling EFL college writers. Foreign Language Annals, 37, 49–57.

Allen

I. E.

Seaman

(2014). Grade change: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.

Allen

I. E.

Seaman

Garrett

(2007). Blending in: The extent and promise of blended education in the United States. Needham, MA: Sloan-C.

American Psychological Association. (2007). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major. Retrieved from http://teachpsych.org/Resources/Documents/otrp/resources/apapsymajorguidelines.pdf

Arispe

Blake

R. J.

(2012). Individual factors and successful learning in a hybrid course. System, 40, 449–465. doi:org/10.1016/j.system.2012.10.013

Aycock

Garnham

Kaleta

(2002). Lessons learned from the hybrid course project. Teaching with Technology Today, 8, 9–21.

Boyle

Bradley

Chalk

Jones

Pickard

(2003). Using blended learning to improve student success rates in learning to program. Journal of Educational Media, 28, 165–178. doi:org/10.1080/1358165032000153160

10.

Boyle

J. T.

Nicol

D. J.

(2003). Using classroom communication systems to support interaction and discussion in large class settings. Research in Learning Technology, 11, 43–57.

11.

Cottle

N. R.

Glover

R. J.

(2011). Teaching human development: A case for blended learning. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 205–208. doi:org/10.1177/0098628311411900

12.

Daley

Reddigan

Clarke

Shorlin

(2013). Evaluation of a hybrid peer-teaching method for undergraduate medical microbiology. Paper presented at the Medical Education Scholarship Forum Proceedings, Corner Brook, Newfoundland, Canada.

13.

DeBord

K. A.

Aruguete

M. S.

Muhlig

. (2004). Are computer-assisted teaching methods effective? Teaching of Psychology, 31, 65–68. doi:org/10.1207/s15328023top3101_13

14.

Dziuban

Moskal

Hartman

(2005). Higher education, blended learning, and the generations: Knowledge is power: No more. In Bourne

Moore

J. C.

(Eds.), Elements of quality online education: Engaging communities, pp. 85–100. Needham, MA: Sloan Center for Online Education.

15.

Englert

C. S.

Zhao

Dunsmore

Collings

N. Y.

Wolbers

(2007). Scaffolding the writing of students with disabilities through procedural facilitation: Using an Internet-based technology to improve performance. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 9–29.

16.

Garrison

D. R.

Kanuka

(2004). Blended learning: Uncovering its transformative potential in higher education. Internet and Higher Education, 7, 95–105. doi:org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2004.02.001

17.

Harrison

(2003). Blended learning II: Blended learning in practice. Brighton, England: The EPIC Group. Retrieved from http://www.oktopusz.hu/domain9/files/modules/module15/2622A13F312498F.pdf

18.

IBM Corp. (Released 2014). IBM SPSS Statistics for Mac (Version 23.0). Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.

19.

Jensen

S. A.

(2011). In-class versus online video lectures: Similar learning outcomes, but a preference for in-class. Teaching of Psychology, 38, 298–302. doi:org/10.1177/0098628311421336

20.

Levine

T. T.

Hullett

C. R.

(2002). Eta squared, partial eta squared and misreporting of effect size in communication research. Human Communication Research, 28, 612–625.

21.

Means

Toyama

Murphy

Bakia

Jones

(2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

22.

Melton

B. F.

Bland

H. W.

Chopak-Foss

(2009). Achievement and satisfaction in blended learning versus traditional general health course designs. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 3. doi:10.20429/ijsotl.2009.030126

23.

Moore

G. S.

Perlow

Judge

Koh

(2006). Using blended learning in training the public health workforce in emergency preparedness. Public Health Reports, 121, 217–221.

24.

Norberg

Dziuban

C. D.

Moskal

P. D.

(2011). A time-based blended learning model. On the Horizon, 19, 207–216.

25.

Novell

Bohigas

Jaén

(2009). Description and evaluation of a hybrid optics course. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 46, 367–380.

26.

Oliver

Trigwell

(2005). Can ‘Blended Learning’ be redeemed? E-Learning, 2, 17–26.

27.

Osborne

R. E.

Kriese

Tobey

Johnson

(2009). And never the two shall meet? Student vs. faculty perceptions of online courses. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 40, 171–182. doi:org/10.2190/EC.40.2.b

28.

Peterson

D. J.

(2016). The flipped classroom improves student achievement and course satisfaction in a statistics course: A quasi-experimental study. Teaching of Psychology, 43, 10–15. doi:org/10.1177/0098628315620063

29.

Rockman . (2007). ED PACE final report. Submitted to the West Virginia Department of Education. San Francisco, CA: Author. Retrieved from www.rockman.com/projects/146.ies.edpace/finalreport

30.

Rovai

A. P.

(2002). Sense of community, perceived cognitive learning, and persistence in asynchronous learning networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 5, 319–332.

31.

Sana

Fenesi

Kim

J. A.

(2011). A case study of the introductory psychology blended learning model at McMaster University. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 2, 1–10.

32.

Schwartz

T. A.

(2014). Flipping the statistics classroom in nursing education. The Journal of Nursing Education, 53, 199–206. doi:org/10.3928/01484834-20140325-02

33.

Singh

(2003). Building effective blended learning programs. Educational Technology, 43, 51–54.

34.

Smart

K. L.

Cappel

J. J.

(2006). Students' perceptions of online learning: A comparative study. Journal of Information Technology Education, 5, 201–219.

35.

SmarterServices

LLC.

(2013). Smarter measure online education readiness assessment. Retrieved from http://goml.readi.info

36.

SmarterServices, LLC. (2014). 2014 student readiness report. Retrieved from http://www.smartermeasure.com/smartermeasure/assets/File/2014-Student-Readiness-Report.pdf

37.

Suter

W. N.

Perry

M. K.

(1997). Evaluation by electronic mail. Paper presented at the Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Memphis, TN.

38.

Touchton

(2015). Flipping the classroom and student performance in advanced statistics: Evidence from a quasi-experiment. Journal of Political Science Education, 11, 28–44. doi:org/10.1080/15512169.2014.985105

39.

Twigg

C. A.

(2003). Improving learning and reducing costs: New models for online learning. Educause Review, 38, 28–38.

40.

Vigdor

J. L.

Ladd

H. F.

Martinez

(2014). Scaling the digital divide: Home computer technology and student achievement. Economic Inquiry, 52, 1103–1119.

41.

Wilson

S. G.

(2013). The flipped class: A method to address the challenges of an undergraduate statistics course. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 193–199. doi:org/10.1177/0098628313487461