Jeanette G. EggertConcordia University – Portland, Oregon

A Comparison of Online and Classroom-based

Developmental Math Courses

Developmental MathDefinition:

Educational opportunities for students that lack the math skills needed for success in college-level math courses.

Citation

Students in Developmental Math

Traditional and Non-traditional Previous bad experiences with math Gaps in their background Low self-efficacy High levels of math and test anxiety

Citation

Math Labs at Concordia Placement test Four half-semester courses Cover basic skills through

some intermediate algebra topics

Small class size

Before 2005 Quizzes over each section Large portion of class time spent in

assessment supervision Mastery-based, but time-

sequencing problematic Quiz re-takes placed additional

demands on instructors

Implementation of Computer-based quizzes

Immediate feedback for students

Increased instructional time

More time for individual help

Online Math Labs Classroom notes Textbook

resources Quizzes Access to the

instructor Email Phone In-person

This Study: Problem Statement

Use existing data to compare the effectiveness of online and classroom-based developmental math courses at a four-year liberal arts university.

Theoretical Framework IMedia Debate

Clark – 1983 Delivery

truck analogy Kozma – 1991

Instructional attributes

Citation

Theoretical Framework II

Instructional alternatives are needed for developmental students.

Citation

Research Question #1Is there a significant difference in successful course completion for online and classroom-based sections of the developmental math courses during the stated interval?

Research Question #2Is there a significant difference in student satisfaction at the conclusion of each course with regard to their participation in online and classroom-based sections of the developmental math courses during the stated interval?

Research Question #3Is there a significant difference in academic achievement in a subsequent college-level math course for those students who participated in online and classroom-based sections of the developmental math courses during the stated interval?

Study Parameters Ten semesters: Summer 2005 –

Summer 2008, inclusive Census of all students who

completed developmental math courses

Parallel instructional methodologies

Human Subjects Safeguarding

Existing data Coded to remove student and faculty

identifiers IRB approval

George Fox University Concordia University - Portland

Data & Analysis: RQ #1Successful Course Completion N = 718

Classroom n = 357 Online n = 361

Independent samples t - test Levene’s Test for Equality of

Variances

Results: RQ #1Successful Course Completion Classroom-based

Mean = 0.80; Standard deviation = 0.398 Online

Mean = 0.83; Standard deviation = 0.373 No statistically significant difference

at an alpha level of 0.05 (t = – 1.039, n.s.)

Null hypothesis supported

Data & Analysis: RQ #2Student Satisfaction N = 222

Classroom n = 100 Online n = 122

Two scales; reliability via Cronbach’s Alpha Satisfaction with course; 6 Likert-scale items Satisfaction with the instructor; 8 items

Independent samples t - test Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances

Results: RQ #2 - First ScaleSatisfaction with Course Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.942 for the 6 items. Classroom-based

Mean = 25.34; Standard deviation = 6.189 Online

Mean = 26.55; Standard deviation = 4.398 No statistically significant difference at an

alpha level of 0.05 (t = – 1.698, n.s.) Null hypothesis supported

Results: RQ #2 - Second ScaleSatisfaction with the Instructor Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.971 for the 8 items. Classroom-based

Mean = 37.29; Standard deviation = 6.091 Online

Mean = 37.89; Standard deviation = 4.613 No statistically significant difference at an

alpha level of 0.05 (t = – 0.828, n.s.) Null hypothesis supported

Data & Analysis: RQ #3College-Level Math GPA N = 118

Classroom n = 58 Online n = 60

Independent samples t - test Levene’s Test for Equality of

Variances

Results: RQ #3College-Level Math GPA Classroom-based

Mean = 2.448; Standard deviation = 1.1275 Online

Mean = 2.978; Standard deviation = 0.9076 Statistically significant difference in the

means (t = – 2.818, p < 0.05) Both the null hypothesis and the

alternative hypothesis were rejected

Summary of Results No significant difference based on:

Successful course completion Student satisfaction

Online instructional delivery was more effective for higher levels of academic achievement in a subsequent college-level math course.

Implications Supports continuation of both

instructional delivery systems Revise online courses

Mastery-based Hyperlinked

Revise classroom-based courses Utilize web-based options Unique face-to-face opportunities

Acknowledgments• My students and colleagues at

Concordia University – Portland• My parents, Richard & Myra Gibeson• My husband, John Eggert• My dissertation committee at

George Fox University:• Dr. Scot Headley• Dr. Terry Huffman• Dr. Linda Samek

Graphics

• Clip-Art from the Microsoft Collection

• WebCT view from Concordia University’s Online Math Lab course

Contact Information

Jeanette Eggert

jeggert@cu-portland.edu

References Berenson, S. B., Carter, G., & Norwood, K. S.

(1992). The at-risk student in college developmental algebra. School Science and Mathematics, 92(2), 55-58.

Brown, D. G. (Ed.). (2000) Teaching with technology: Seventy-five professors from eight universities tell their stories. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.

Brown, D. G. (Ed.). (2003) Developing faculty to use technology: Programs and strategies to enhance teaching. Bolton, MA: Anker Publishing Company.

References page 2 Clark, R.E. (1983). Reconsidering research on

learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445-459.

Dotzler, J. J. (2003). A note on the nature and history of post-secondary developmental education. Mathematics and Computer Education, 37(1), 121-125.

Duranczyk, I. M., & Higbee, J. L. (2006). Developmental mathematics in 4-year institutions: Denying access. Journal of Developmental Education, 30(1), 22-29.

References page 3 Hodges, D. Z., & Kennedy, N. H. (2004). Editor's

choice: Post-testing in developmental education: A success story. Community College Review, 32(3), 35-42.

Kinney, D. P., & Robertson, D. F. (2003). Technology makes possible new models for delivering developmental mathematics instruction. Mathematics and Computer Education, 37(3), 315-328.

Kozma, R. B. (1991). Learning with Media. Review of Educational Research, 61(2), 179-211.

References page 4 Mallenby, M. L., & Mallenby, D. W. (2004).

Teaching basic algebra courses at the college level. Primus: Problems, Resources, and Issues in Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 14(2), 163-168.

Manto, J. C. (2006). A correlations study of ACCUPLACER math and algebra scores and math remediation on the retention and success of students in the clinical laboratory technology program at Milwaukee Area Technical College. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Wisconsin – Stout, Menomonie, WI.

References page 5 Reese, M. S. (2007). What’s so hard about

algebra? A grounded theory study of adult algebra learners. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, San Diego State University – University of San Diego, San Diego, CA.

Tanner, J., & Hale, K. (2007). The “new” language of algebra. Research & Teaching in Developmental Education, 23(2), 78-83.

Weinstein, G. L. (2004). Their side of the story: Remedial college algebra students. Mathematics and Computer Education, 38(2), 230-240.