Table VIII Summary of quantitative...

Table VIII

Summary of quantitative analysis results for selected case studies

Institution	Independent variable	Dependent variable	Statistical method	Description of result	Effect size type	Effect size [95% CI]	Interpretation of effect size
Georgia Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon University	Higher-order thinking behaviours	Test score	Regression	The average posttest score of the treatment group (with higher-order thinking behaviour) was significantly higher than that of the control group (without higher-order thinking behaviour)	Hedge’s g	0.237 [0.018, 0.492]	Small-to-medium effect size
Hong Kong Institute of Education	“Contribution” and “innovation” from students’ postings in discussion forum	Final grade	χ² test of independence	Students who obtained better grades usually contributed more in-depth contents in their posts which linked to other concepts compared to those with lower grades who tended to provide isolated facts with little or no connection or transition from one concept to another	Odds ratio (OR)	0.634 [0.504, 0.798]	The students who contributed more in-depth contents were 63.4% more likely to get a higher grade than those contributing isolated facts
Marist College	Intervention	Final grade	One-way ANOVA	Groups receiving intervention obtained significantly higher final grade than groups receiving no intervention	Hedge’s g	0.373 [0.176, 0.571]	Small-to-medium effect size
Nottingham Trent University	Level of engagement rating	Progression status	Descriptive categorical data analysis^a	A much larger proportion of students with satisfactory to high engagement ratings obtained progression status than those with low engagement ratings	–	–	–
Paul Smith’s College	Intervention	Grade, suspension or probation rate, graduation rate	Descriptive categorical data analysis^a	Student groups receiving intervention were less likely to get a grade D or below, to end a semester with probation or suspension, and more likely to get good standing by GPA and to graduate on time	–	–	–
Purdue University	Intervention	Retention rate	χ² test of independence	Student groups receiving intervention had a higher retention rate than those receiving no intervention	Odds ratio (OR)	0.455^b [0.427, 0.485]	The intervention group was 45.5% less likely to dropout than the non-intervention group

Institution	Independent variable	Dependent variable	Statistical method	Description of result	Effect size type	Effect size [95% CI]	Interpretation of effect size
Georgia Institute of Technology and Carnegie Mellon University	Higher-order thinking behaviours	Test score	Regression	The average posttest score of the treatment group (with higher-order thinking behaviour) was significantly higher than that of the control group (without higher-order thinking behaviour)	Hedge’s g	0.237 [0.018, 0.492]	Small-to-medium effect size
Hong Kong Institute of Education	“Contribution” and “innovation” from students’ postings in discussion forum	Final grade	χ² test of independence	Students who obtained better grades usually contributed more in-depth contents in their posts which linked to other concepts compared to those with lower grades who tended to provide isolated facts with little or no connection or transition from one concept to another	Odds ratio (OR)	0.634 [0.504, 0.798]	The students who contributed more in-depth contents were 63.4% more likely to get a higher grade than those contributing isolated facts
Marist College	Intervention	Final grade	One-way ANOVA	Groups receiving intervention obtained significantly higher final grade than groups receiving no intervention	Hedge’s g	0.373 [0.176, 0.571]	Small-to-medium effect size
Nottingham Trent University	Level of engagement rating	Progression status	Descriptive categorical data analysis^a	A much larger proportion of students with satisfactory to high engagement ratings obtained progression status than those with low engagement ratings	–	–	–
Paul Smith’s College	Intervention	Grade, suspension or probation rate, graduation rate	Descriptive categorical data analysis^a	Student groups receiving intervention were less likely to get a grade D or below, to end a semester with probation or suspension, and more likely to get good standing by GPA and to graduate on time	–	–	–
Purdue University	Intervention	Retention rate	χ² test of independence	Student groups receiving intervention had a higher retention rate than those receiving no intervention	Odds ratio (OR)	0.455^b [0.427, 0.485]	The intervention group was 45.5% less likely to dropout than the non-intervention group

Notes: ^aThe results presented in the case studies of these two institutions did not involve any statistical tests and complete information for the data – that is, sample size for each category was not provided. Therefore, no effect size could be calculated from the available data; ^bthe effect size was computed by combining the data for the second-year retention rate for three cohorts (2007, 2008, 2009) from the original tables in Mattingly et al. (2012)

[ViewLarge]

Sharing Unavailable