ScienceDirect - Computers & Education : Engaging college science students and changing academic achievement with technology: A quasi-experimental preliminary investigation

Login:  
Register
Athens/Institution Login Not Registered? 
User Name: Password:
Remember me on this computerForgotten password?

Home Browse Search My Settings Alerts Help
 Quick Search   All fields   Author
  Journal/book title
Volume   Issue   Page               Advanced Search
'); //]]>
Result list | previous  < 3 of 44,299 > next
Font Size:  


Related Articles

Teens and Their Technologies in High School and College...The Journal of Academic Librarianship
 Teens and Their Technologies in High School and College: Implications for Teaching and Learning
The Journal of Academic Librarianship, Volume 34, Issue 6, November 2008, Pages 502-512
Barbara Valentine, Steven Bernhisel
Abstract
This paper presents the findings of two surveys comparing the frequency and use of various digital and communication technologies by high school and college students. Differences between populations, implications for teaching, and questions for further study are explored. Results suggest high school teens may bring facility with newer technologies to college.
PDF (1394 K) |Supplementary Content
The effects of maternal parenting style and religious c...Journal of Adolescence
 The effects of maternal parenting style and religious commitment on self-regulation, academic achievement, and risk behavior among African-American parochial college students
Journal of Adolescence, Volume 32, Issue 2, April 2009, Pages 259-273
Beau Abar, Kermit L. Carter, Adam Winsler
Abstract
This study explored relations between religiosity, both parent and student, and maternal parenting style and student academic self-regulation, academic achievement, and risk behavior among African-American youth attending a parochial college. Eighty-five students completed self-report survey measures of religiosity, self-regulation, academic achievement, and risk behavior. Participants also completed youth report measures of parental religiosity and perceived maternal parenting style. Correlational analyses show authoritative parenting to be associated with high levels of academic performance and study skills. Additional correlations revealed that highly religious students tend to perform well academically, study better, and engage in fewer risk behaviors than youth less committed to religion. Although no direct relations were observed between parenting style and student religiosity, maternal parenting style was found to moderate relations between parental and student religiosity. Findings are discussed in terms of their relevance to the population studied.
PDF (232 K)
Academic achievement and individual differences in the ...Learning and Individual Differences
 Academic achievement and individual differences in the learning processes of Israeli high-school students
Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 4, Issue 4, 1992, Pages 335-345
Ely Kozminsky, Gila Kaufman
Abstract
The Inventory of Learning Processes (ILP), originally developed by Schmeck et al. (1977), assesses individual differences in information processing styles of college level students. The inventory consists of four scales: Deep Processing (DP), Methodical Study (MS), Fact Retention (FR), and Elaborative Processing (EP). Three aspects of the ILP scales have been studied for 9th and 11th grade high-school students. First, the internal consistency reliabilities of the ILP scales, two of which DP and MS were satisfactory. Second, the factor structure obtained in this study included three out of the four original factors. FR was not reconstructed. Third, the relationship between academic achievement and information processing of high-school students have been analyzed. Deep Processing (DP) came out as the most prominent style in its relation to academic achievement, particularly among the younger students.
How does academic achievement come about: cross-cultura...International Journal of Educational Research
 How does academic achievement come about: cross-cultural and methodological notes
International Journal of Educational Research, Volume 35, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 403-409
Jari-Erik Nurmi, Kaisa Aunola
Abstract
This chapter discusses the possible impact of cross-national diversity in academic institutions, in the selection of students, in the importance of national achievement tests, and cross-national differences in the variation of social background factors. It ends with the strengths and limitations of using path modeling in cross-sectional research. It is of particular interest to note whether study behaviors mediate the impact of students’ abilities on college success, or whether students’ abilities mediate the effect of study behaviors on achievement. A secondary concern is the extent to which the same causal model applies equally to different universities in different countries.
PDF (84 K)
A study of some EPPS variables as factors of academic a...Journal of Applied Psychology
 A study of some EPPS variables as factors of academic achievement
Journal of Applied Psychology, Volume 53, Issue 2, Part 1, April 1969, Pages 107-111
R.P. Bhatnager
Abstract
Related 6 EPPS personality variables to the academic achievement of 261 high school Ss after controlling the effects of socioeconomic status, intelligence, school differences, and age differences. It was found that the relationship between personality and achievement is tied with age levels, intelligence, and specificity of academic achievement. The research concluded that the EPPS (Hindi) variables do contribute to academic achievement, but differentially at different levels of age and intelligence and for different types of academic achievement, e.g., arts and science achievement. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)
View More Related Articles



View Record in Scopus

'); //]]>
 PDF (137 K)
  Export Citation
  E-mail Article
Thumbnails - selected |Full-Size Images
Thumbnails - selected |Full-Size Images
Article
Article - selected

Figures/Tables (1)
Figures/Tables (1) - selected

References (28)
References (28) - selected



Computers & Education
Volume 52, Issue 2, February 2009, Pages 376-380
doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2008.09.005 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Copyright © 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd.  Cited By in Scopus (2)
  Permissions & Reprints
Engaging college science students and changing academic achievement with A quasi-experimental preliminary investigation
Adam C. Carle,a,, David Jaffeea and Deborah Millera
aUniversity of North Florida, 1 UNF Drive, Jacksonville, FL 32224, United States
Received 27 February 2008;
revised 10 September 2008;
accepted 12 September 2008.
Available online 29 November 2008.
Abstract
Can modern, computer-basedtechnology engage college students and improve their academic achievement in college? Although numerous examples detailtechnology’s classroom uses, few studies empirically examine whether technologically oriented pedagogical changes factually lead to positive outcomes among college students. In this pilot study, we used a quasi-experimental design to examine whether atechnology enhancedresearch methods classroom led to increased student engagement and academic achievement among college students. Two features generally characterized thetechnology enhanced classroom experience: specific feedback generated from recordings of small group discussions and podcasts of class recordings.Technology enhanced classroom students demonstrated statistically significant increases in student engagement and improved academic achievement. These findings support previous efforts to usetechnology to enhance engagement and achievement among college students and they encourage future efforts.
Keywords: Student engagement; Academic achievement;Technology; Scienceeducation; College students
Article Outline
1.Introduction
2.Methods
2.1.Participants
2.2.Procedure
2.2.1.General research methods classroom experience
2.2.2.Technology enhanced classroom (TEC) (experimental class)
2.3.Measures
2.3.1.Achievement
2.3.2.Engagement
3.Results
4.Discussion
4.1.Limitations
5.Conclusion
Acknowledgements
References
1. Introduction
Technology offers unimagined pedagogical opportunities to transform student learning ([Jonassen, 1996] and[Resta and Laferrière, 2007]), including students of science. Althoughtechnology can describe nearly any tool, here we definetechnology relatively narrowly to include computer-based hardware and software employed in the classroom. Multimedia presentations can enhance exposure to multifaceted, intricate problems across different representational forms (Pellegrino, 1995) and this can serve to increase learning (Halpern, 1998). Professors may also employ technological techniques to increase student engagement (Pemberton, Borrego, & Cohen, 2006). Increased engagement; broadly defined to include numerous aspects of class participation, class interest, number of completed assignments, informal and formal student collaborations, other required and optional student work and interactions, as well as student initiated attempts to incorporate the material into their life; correlates with increased academic achievement ([Kuh et al., 2005] and[Newman, 1992]), decreased absenteeism (Galichon & Friedman, 1985), and other general positive academic outcomes ([Kuh et al., 2005] and[Newman, 1992]). For traditionally disengaging and distancing subjects likeresearch methods that examine the scientific method in detail, students frequently leave class hoping never to engage in science again (Newman, 1998). To address this, more professors could incorporatetechnology into their classrooms to engage students and foster achievement (Pellegrino, 1995).
 
Perhaps one reason professors do not utilizetechnology results from the relative paucity of studies examining its effectiveness. Although some studies have supportedtechnology’s contributions (cf.,[Forsyth and Archer, 1997] and[Pemberton et al., 2006]), surprisingly, little systematic, scientifically rigorousresearch evaluates the effectiveness of technological contributions, and even less examines the mechanisms by which thesetechnologies foster (or fail to foster, cf.,DeBord, Aruguete, & Muhlig, 2004) positive outcomes (Phipps & Merisotis, 1999). Despite repeated calls for evaluations, systematic, empiricalresearch in this field remains lacking (Moore, 2007). Thus, while numerous applications oftechnology have been suggested and adopted ([Jonassen, 1996] and[Resta and Laferrière, 2007]), the determinants and predictors of success (and failure) go unaddressed. Moreover, professors may find themselves struggling to determine how they might evaluate the efficacy of changes in their specific classes. The current examination, a pilot study, sought to address these concerns by implementing a quasi-experimental design to evaluate whether atechnology enhanced classroom (TEC) led to increased student engagement and achievement in aresearch methods in psychology class. Thisresearch gives an example of how one might use the TEC to increase engagement (described below), provides professors with an illustration of the quasi-experimental design to examine change generally, and systematically evaluates whether the TEC elevated student engagement or academic achievement.
Quasi-experimental designs make use of pre-existing groups to examine the effects of anexperimental manipulation (Shadish, Cook, & Campbell, 2002). This method provides a particularly appropriate opportunity to professors who teach multiple sections of the same class, by introducing change to one class, e.g., the TEC, and holding other variables as constant as possible, e.g., teaching a separate section identically but without the technological enhancement, one can examine change associated with the pedagogical manipulation. This method lacks the strong causal attributions possible inexperimental designs, but we can rarely assign students to classes and comparing a pedagogical manipulation across pre-existing classes provides a better method for evaluation than case studies and other less rigorous designs (Shadish, 2006). Professors may adopt the technique solely to decide whether to introduce a change in their own future classes, or, perhaps, as concerned us, one might use the practice as a pilot study to provide the basis for a more programmatic, institution wide pedagogical investigation. Without initial pilot studies, larger scaleresearch that requires substantial investments of time and money (e.g., additional costlytechnology) can rarely occur. A professor’s investment in their own future classes or an institution’s investment in programmaticresearch should not occur without some empirical and systematic demonstration of effectiveness. Quasi-experimental designs provide this opportunity.
We used this method to examine whether students learning the scientific method who experienced a TEC classroom (theexperimental manipulation) that primarily usedtechnology to provide students with superior feedback on group discussions (see description below) demonstrated increased engagement and improved academic achievement. Cognitive, social and evolutionary psychology all express numerous conduits by which feedback leads to learning and engagement ([Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991],[Butler and Winne, 1995],[Halpern and Hakel, 2002],[Pinker, 2002] and[Williams et al., 1981]). As a result, we hypothesized that increasing the specificity and immediacy of feedback, as well as the professor’s presence ([Garrison and Archer, 2000] and[Rourke et al., 1999]), through a TEC would lead to increased student engagement on a standardized measure of student engagement and lead to positive changes in students’ academic achievement.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants (n = 25) included students enrolled in two sections of an undergraduateresearch methods in psychology class offered in the summer semester at a midsized, public, primarily undergraduate, comprehensive university in the Southeast US. At this university, a section refers to one of several offerings of a particular class. For the class studied here,research methods in psychology, the same professor taught both sections. Students in the TEC had a mean age of 25.24 (STD = 7.37: range: 20–52) and students in the control classroom had a mean age of 24.33 (STD = 7: range: 19–38). In both classes, participants were primarily female (72% and 67%, respectively) and predominantly juniors and seniors.
2.2. Procedure
At this university, the Department of Psychology offers aresearch methods in psychology class. We randomly chose one of two available class sections to receive theexperimental manipulation, i.e., thetechnology enhanced classroom, and the other served as the control class. The first author taught both.
2.2.1. Generalresearch methods classroom experience
Both class sections (control and TEC) met biweekly and a single instructor taught each. Both sections regularly experienced short lectures (identical in content) based in class-wide discussion (which differed to some extent given that students asked different questions across the sections). Both sections completed identical assignments at the same times across the entire semester. These included numerous individually authored chapter-based writings, frequent small group discussions that focused on developing collaborative communication and critical thinking skills, and short coauthored papers based on the small group discussions that focused on transferring discussion material to new topics and augmented written collaborative communication. Both sections received identical midterms and final exams given at the same points in the semester. Each section submitted assignments and received class-wide and individualized feedback via section specific Blackboard (Bb) sites. Formative feedback extended beyond simple “right/wrong” guidance, and instead used examples to model and highlight aspects of the process of scientific inquiry. With the exceptions noted below, the Bb experience delivered to students across the sections did not differ. The control group received the generalresearch methods classroom experience.
2.2.2.Technology enhanced classroom (TEC) (experimental class)
Theexperimental pedagogical manipulation in the TEC consisted of two main features. First, the professor recorded all small group discussions for each group using portable audio devices, e.g., iPods. Widely available software, e.g., iTunes, allowed the professor to rapidly (within 1–2 days) transfer the recordings to a computer and listen to short, randomly selected pieces of the recordings to concretely augment group specific and individualized feedback with examples taken from the actual discussions. The recordings allowed students to feel the professor effectively participated in all of the groups all of the time. Additionally, we hoped that recording the sessions would allow the students to focus on the discussion itself and minimize their attention to a feeling that they must arrive at a concrete end. Finally, the software allowed the professor to easily manage and organize the set of recordings, as well as rapidly process the recordings. Second, the professor recorded all lectures and delivered them via Bb within 24 h as a download or as a podcast (students could subscribe to an RSS feed directly through Bb or publically via any available podcatching software, e.g., iTunes).
2.3. Measures
2.3.1. Achievement
Using academic records, we objectively examined students’ academic achievement in this class across several course components: average scores on regular, chapter-based individually authored papers; average scores on “other” assignments, e.g., collaborative papers based on in class group discussions; midterm exam scores; final exam scores; and a final course grade based on a weighted summary of the course components. For both TEC and control, Blackboard allowed the professor to download all assignments without students’ names as identifiers. This allowed the professor to grade all assignments blind to students’ class membership (TEC vs. control).
2.3.2. Engagement
Students anonymously self-reported their engagement at the end of the semester using the classroom survey of student engagement (CLASSE:Ouimet & Smallwood, 2005), a standardized measure of classroom engagement adapted with permission from the national survey of student engagement (NSSE:Kuh, 2001). On a four point Likert scale (e.g., “Never”, “1–2 Times”, “3–5 Times” and “More than 5 Times”), 30 items assess behaviors associated with student engagement inside and outside of the classroom, including but not limited to: asking questions in class, note taking in class, communicating with the professor outside of class, study time and behaviors (e.g., note reviewing) outside of class, discussing class ideas with family and friends, etc.
The NSSE collects institution level information, e.g., at your institution how often did you contribute to a class discussion. The CLASSE differs only in its class specific information collection, e.g., how often did you come to yourresearch methods class without having completed the readings. No published data specifically address the psychometric properties of the CLASSE. However, psychometric data for the NSSE (Kuh, 2001) demonstrate appropriate validity and reliability, e.g., coefficient alphas of 0.85 and 0.90. Given minimal between survey differences we expect similar findings would result for the CLASSE, however some caution is warranted.
3. Results
Given the a priori directional nature of our hypotheses and the fact that the small sample size included in our pilot study limited power, we used one-tailed t-tests to examine change in engagement and achievement across the TEC and control students.1Research ([Clason and Dormody, 1994] and[Sisson and Stocker, 1989]) supports the use of t-tests with the Likert type response options used on the CLASSE (e.g., options correspond to clearly defined frequencies). However,research does not support the use of t-tests with the more ordinal letter grades. Thus, we used the Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney U-test to examine differences in final grades. TEC students endorsed elevated, statistically significant differences for several engagement items. Students in the TEC classroom reported that, on average, they more frequently contributed to class discussions (t = 1.94, 23, p = 0.04, d = 0.74, CI0.95 = 0.95, 0.32), took more notes in class on average (t = 1.57, 23, p = 0.02, d = 0.58, CI0.95 = 0.69, 0.23), and, on average, they more frequently reviewed their notes prior to class (t = 2.00, 23, p = 0.03, d = 0.83, CI0.95 = 1.06, 0.35). Moreover, across the entire set of CLASSE item differences, students in the TEC generally endorsed increased engagement. Effects sizes, as measured by Cohen’s d (Cohen, 1988), ranged from 0.02 to 0.8, and averaged 0.12. However, power ranged from 0.05 to 0.057, averaged 0.08, and limited our ability to confidently ascribe these differences to non-chance factors. With regard to academic achievement, TEC students demonstrated greater and statistically significant average chapter-based writing scores (t = 1.93, 23, p = 0.03, d = 0.56, CI0.95 = 91.40, 76.60). Similar to the engagement measures, among the achievement score differences, TEC students showed superior achievement for each component; Cohen’s d ranged from 0.00 to 0.56, and averaged 0.15. Resultantly, power ranged from 0.05 to 0.34, averaged 0.09.Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, effects sizes, t-values, and confidence intervals for the statistically significant differences among the CLASSE items and achievement measures across groups.2
Table 1.
Means, standard deviations, t-values, probabilities, confidence intervals and effects sizes for statistically significant measures of engagement and achievement
MTECSDTECMcontrolSDControltdfpCI0.95d
Contributed to a class discussion 3.75 0.71 3.12 0.86 1.94 23 0.04 0.95, 0.32 0.74
How frequently did you take notes? 3.88 0.35 3.41 0.80 1.57 23 0.02 0.69, 0.23 0.58
How often did you review your notes prior to class? 3.00 0.76 2.29 0.85 2.00 23 0.03 1.06, 0.35 0.83
Writing assignment achievement (% score) 86% 18 68% 34 1.93 23 0.03 91.40%, 76.60% 0.53
Full-size table
View Within Article
4. Discussion
This preliminary investigation used a quasi-experimental design to examine the effects of atechnology enhanced classroom (TEC) on student engagement and achievement in aresearch methods class. Using a standardized measure of student engagement, results showed that TEC students endorsed statistically significant changes in their reported levels of engagement. Recording small group discussions, providing timely formative feedback explicitly tied to each group’s discussion using the recordings, and delivering recordings of each class as podcasts lead to increased engagement. With regard to grades, TEC students also showed statistically significant improvement in their academic achievement. These findings support previous efforts to use computer-basedtechnology to enhance engagement and achievement among college students ([Forsyth and Archer, 1997] and[Pemberton et al., 2006]) and bolster arguments regarding the expediency of similar endeavors in the future.
Several explanations may jointly account for these outcomes. With regard to engagement, findings from social psychology demonstrate that social loafing occurs more frequently in unmonitored group situations ([Pinker, 2002] and[Williams et al., 1981]). Students’ awareness that the professor would listen to their discussions through recordings, i.e., monitor their discussion, may have decreased social loafing and increased discussion engagement by increasing the professor’s presence ([Garrison and Archer, 2000] and[Rourke et al., 1999]). Additionally, increased individual engagement may have allowed a deepened discussion that incorporated greater heterogeneity in perspectives and topics. Increased heterogeneity may have then augmented engagement in a circular fashion. Diverse viewpoints and topics may have allowed students new intellectual and conversational entry points and eased their entry to the discussion and subsequent engagement with the task. Finally, improved engagement in one course activity (discussion) may have generalized to enhanced engagement in other aspects of the course, thereby increasing engagement within and without the course.
Research also demonstrates that failure to receive any group work feedback, formative, summative, specific, or general, often limits students’ motivation to participate a priori (Bonwell & Eison, 1991). Recording devices visually supported the instructor’s explicitly stated intent to provide feedback, and perhaps knowing that they would (and then did) receive timely and specific feedback reduced motivational barriers and increased students’ discussion engagement odds. Additionally, recordings allowed the professor to provide specific individualized feedback that included positive reinforcement for engagement behaviors. Positive reinforcement that tied unambiguously to the group’s and the individual‘s achievements may have helped students appreciate the value of their contribution, reinforced future contributions and generally increased engagement.
Feedback resulting from recordings likely contributed to changes in achievement as well. Cognitive psychologists have consistently described the importance of frequent, specific, formative feedback in learning ([Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991],[Butler and Winne, 1995] and[Halpern and Hakel, 2002]). By recording group discussions and using the recordings as a guide, the professor provided formative feedback to a given group as a whole and individuals within each group. This feedback addressed the unique and subtle nuisances that arose for each group and/or individual. Thus, while common errors or accomplishment arose across groups and individuals, the feedback students received tied to the discussion they experienced and provided a more specific guide for students’ attempts to correct their misunderstandings. Finally, TEC students may have used class discussion recordings available via Bb and/or iTunes to augment their notes, review material they missed, prepare for exams, etc., which also may have served to increase their academic achievement.
In sum, empirical evidence from numerous psychological theories converges to posit a reasonable explanation for the fact that a technologically enhanced classroom experience led to statistically significant increases in student engagement and academic achievement relative to an identical classroom that did not receive the technological enhancement. Nevertheless, some aspects of the study limit the extent of the conclusions.
4.1. Limitations
This pilot study represents a step forward in evaluating the effects of atechnology enhanced classroom and it offers an example of how professors and institutions might systematically examinetechnology’s effectiveness within their own classrooms and institutions. Despite its value, some features constrain the study. First, our inability to randomly assign students to classrooms limits our capacity to make causal inferences. Given the quasi-experimental design, we cannot unambiguously attribute differences in student engagement to our classroom manipulation. Second, given the pilot nature of the study, small sample sizes limited the study’s ability to powerfully detect even large effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). Effect sizes ranged from 0.02 to 0.8, and averaged 0.12. Subsequently, power ranged from 0.05 to 0.057, and averaged 0.08. Thus, although the majority of differences suggested enhanced engagement and achievement for TEC students, we could not reliably attribute these differences to our manipulation. Third, it remains unclear to what extent these findings would generalize to other classes, differently sized classes, other universities, etc. Future efforts to replicate these findings using larger sample sizes, across different classes and class sizes, will simultaneously address these concerns. Finally, differential levels of assessment effort (e.g., time spent assessing student work) across the TEC and control classes may have contributed to the differences described here. Althoughtechnology-based assessment time added no more than 5 h to the TEC class as compared to the control class, future work better disentangling assessment time andtechnology should address this issue.
5. Conclusion
Notwithstanding its limitations, this study represents an important effort to evaluatetechnology’s capability to affect student engagement and achievement, especially in the college science classroom. We found that atechnology enhanced classroom can increase both student achievement and engagement. The extent to which students engage with a course can increase transfer and support higher order learning (Halpern, 1998) and engagement predicts a number of important markers of academic success ([Kuh et al., 2005] and[Newman, 1992]). Despite hopeful, almost default, assumptions thattechnology will enhance student outcomes, professors must systematically establish that changes in their teaching do lead to improved outcomes. Additionally, becausetechnology certainly comes at a financial cost, Universities and professors need to empirically and systematically assess the consequences of technological additions to the classroom. This pilot study did both using a quasi-experimental design. It provides an example of how professors might evaluate pedagogical changes, demonstrates the potential positive contribution that TEC offer science professors and others, and posits some interesting explanations for these positive changes in engagement. As we begin to examine the manner in whichtechnology affects engagement and learning, we need to seek the psychological underpinnings that lead to change. We look forward to future studies that replicate these findings and elucidate their foundations.
Acknowledgements
We thank Tara J. Carle and Margaret Carle for their unending support and guidance. Additionally, we thank Dan Richard for his insightful comments on an early version of this manuscript. The University of North Florida’s office of Academic Affairs graciously provided financial support for thetechnology used in this study.
References
 
Bangert-Drowns et al., 1991 R.L. Bangert-Drowns, C.C. Kulik, J.A. Kulik and M. Morgan, The instructional effect of feedback in test-like events, Review of EducationalResearch 61 (2) (1991), pp. 213–238.Full Text via CrossRef
 
 
Bonwell and Eison, 1991 C.C. Bonwell and J.A. Eison, Active learning: Creating excitement in the classroom, ASHE-ERIC highereducation report No. 1, The George Washington University, School ofEducation and Human Development, Washington, DC (1991).
 
 
Butler and Winne, 1995 D.L. Butler and P.H. Winne, Feedback and self-regulated learning: A theoretical synthesis, Review of EducationalResearch 65 (3) (1995), pp. 245–281.Full Text via CrossRef
 
 
Clason and Dormody, 1994 D.L. Clason and T.J. Dormody, Analyzing data measured by individual Likert-type items, Journal of AgriculturalEducation 35 (4) (1994), pp. 31–35.
 
 
Cohen, 1988 J. Cohen, Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1988).
 
 
DeBord et al., 2004 K.A. DeBord, M.S. Aruguete and J. Muhlig, Are computer-assisted teaching methods effective?, Teaching of Psychology 31 (1) (2004), pp. 65–68.Full Text via CrossRef |View Record in Scopus |Cited By in Scopus (13)
 
 
Forsyth and Archer, 1997 D.R. Forsyth and C.R. Archer, Technologically assisted instruction and student mastery, motivation, and matriculation, Teaching of Psychology 24 (3) (1997), pp. 207–212.View Record in Scopus |Cited By in Scopus (16)
 
 
Garrison and Archer, 2000 D.R. Garrison and W. Archer (A transactional perspective on teaching and learning: A framework for adult and highereducation), Pergamon, Oxford, UK (2000).
 
 
Galichon and Friedman, 1985 J.P. Galichon and H.H. Friedman, Cutting college classes: An investigation, College Student Journal 19 (1985), pp. 357–360.
 
 
Halpern, 1998 D.F. Halpern, Teaching critical thinking for transfer across domains dispositions, skills, structure training, and metacognitive monitoring, American Psychologist 53 (4) (1998), pp. 449–455.Abstract |Full Text via CrossRef |View Record in Scopus |Cited By in Scopus (88)
 
 
Halpern and Hakel, 2002 In: D.F. Halpern and M.D. Hakel, Editors, Applying the science of learning to the University and beyond. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2002).
 
 
Jonassen, 1996 In: D.H. Jonassen, Editor, Handbook ofresearch on educational communication andtechnology, MacMillan, New York (1996).
 
 
Kuh, 2001 G.D. Kuh, The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual framework and overview of psychometric properties, Indiana University, Center for PostsecondaryResearch, Bloomington, IN (2001).
 
 
Kuh et al., 2005 G.D. Kuh, J. Kinzie, J.H. Schuh and E.J. Whitt et al., Student success in college: Creating conditions that matter, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (2005).
 
 
Moore, 2007 G.M. Moore (Handbook of distanceeducation), Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2007).
 
 
Newman, 1992 F.M. Newman, Student engagement and achievement in American secondary schools, Teachers College Press, New York (1992).
 
 
Newman, 1998 J.H. Newman, Rapprochement among undergraduate psychology, science, mathematics, engineering, andtechnology education, American Psychologist 53 (9) (1998), pp. 1032–1043.Abstract |Full Text via CrossRef |View Record in Scopus |Cited By in Scopus (2)
 
 
Ouimet and Smallwood, 2005 J.A. Ouimet and R.A. Smallwood, CLASSE – The class-level survey of student engagement, Journal of Assessment Update: Progress, Trends, and Practices in HigherEducation 17 (6) (2005), pp. 13–15.
 
 
Pellegrino, 1995 J.W. Pellegrino,Technology in support of critical thinking, Teaching of Psychology 22 (1) (1995), pp. 11–12.Full Text via CrossRef
 
 
Pemberton et al., 2006 J.R. Pemberton, J. Borrego and L.M. Cohen, Using interactive computertechnology to enhance learning, Teaching of Psychology 33 (2) (2006), pp. 145–147.Full Text via CrossRef |View Record in Scopus |Cited By in Scopus (3)
 
 
Phipps and Merisotis, 1999 R. Phipps and J. Merisotis (What’s the difference? A review of contemporaryresearch on the effectiveness of distance learning in highereducation), The Institute for HigherEducation, Washington, DC (1999).
 
 
Pinker, 2002 S. Pinker, The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature, Viking, New York (2002).
 
 
Resta and Laferrière, 2007 P. Resta and T. Laferrière,Technology in support of collaborative learning, Educational Psychology Review 19 (1) (2007), pp. 65–83.Full Text via CrossRef |View Record in Scopus |Cited By in Scopus (7)
 
 
Rourke et al., 1999 L. Rourke, T. Anderson, D.R. Garrison and W. Archer, Assessing social presence in asynchronous text-based computer conferencing, Journal of DistanceEducation 14 (2) (1999), pp. 50–71.
 
 
Shadish et al., 2002 W.R. Shadish, T.D. Cook and D.T. Campbell,Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston (2002).
 
 
Shadish, 2006 W.R. Shadish, Critical thinking in quasi-experimentation. In: R.J. Sternberg, H. Roediger and D. Halpern, Editors, Critical thinking in psychology, American Psychological Association, Washington, DC (2006).
 
 
Sisson and Stocker, 1989 D.A. Sisson and H.R. Stocker, Analyzing and interpreting Likert-type survey data, The Delta Pi Epsilon Journal 31 (2) (1989), pp. 81–85.
 
 
Williams et al., 1981 K. Williams, S. Harkins and B. Latané, Identifiability as a deterrent to social loafing: Two cheering experiments, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 40 (2) (1981), pp. 303–311.Abstract |Full Text via CrossRef |View Record in Scopus |Cited By in Scopus (99)
 
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 904 620 3573; fax: +1 904 620 3814.
1 Due to incomplete data for one student in each section (i.e., one TEC and one control student), we could only include 23 students’ CLASSE responses in our CLASSE analyses.
2 The set is available upon request.
Computers & Education
Volume 52, Issue 2, February 2009, Pages 376-380


Result list | previous < 3 of 44,299 > next
Home Browse Search - selected My Settings Alerts Help
About ScienceDirect  | Contact Us  | Information for Advertisers  | Terms & Conditions  | Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2010Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.
'); //]]>'); //]]>