Students in blended composition sections reported using and perceiving a wider range of learning materials as helpful than F2F students¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Experimental-group students showed more diverse and less consensual responses about effective and least-effective learning tools than control-group students, indicating use of a wider range of materials. → Stouck 2019

Evidence¶

Stouck 2019¶

Stouck, J. (2019). Complementary Learning: Piloting a Blended Format for Canadian Composition Courses. The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.5206/cjsotl-rcacea.2019.1.7992

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Questionnaire responses from 18 experimental-group volunteers across three blended sections, ranked against control-group rankings (Table 2). The article reports "a wider range of responses and less consensus on the least effective learning tool than in the control group".

"Clearly, students felt class content and online writing exercises were most effective, and, by a small margin, class discussions least effective. However, there is a wider range of responses and less consensus on the least effective learning tool than in the control group"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• LMS tracking confirmed that blended-section students selected discipline-specific writing materials according to their own interests and future plans — related