Courseware impact varied by context: positive on average in 4-year institutions but insignificant in 2-year colleges, more positive in biology, psychology, and math/statistics, and positive when the comparison course was face-to-face rather than the same modality.¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesis r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2004 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Evidence quality · No study behind this claim is a peer-reviewed article with a DOI: it rests on a source with no registered publication record (a web page, book or unpublished report). It is kept because a design page cites it; treat it as a lead to check, not an established finding.

Subclaims¶

q2 i? The courseware impact estimate was positive for implementations in 4-year institutions and insignificant in 2-year colleges. → Barbara Means and Julie Neisler 2004 q2 i? Implementations in biology, psychology, and math/statistics had more positive impacts. → Barbara Means and Julie Neisler 2004 q2 i? Positive impacts were found on average when the comparison version was taught face-to-face but not when it was the same modality as the courseware condition. → Barbara Means and Julie Neisler 2004 (2)

Evidence¶

Barbara Means and Julie Neisler 2004¶

Barbara Means and Julie Neisler. (2004). Continuous Improvement for Student Success. Digital Promise Global. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/12/06/the-bell-curve

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r?

Summary of moderator analyses across NGCC impact data sets, reporting that impacts were "positive for implementations in 4-year institutions and insignificant in 2-year colleges" and more positive in biology, psychology, and math/statistics. No effect sizes are printed.

"On average, the courseware impact estimate was positive for implementations in 4-year institutions and insignificant in 2-year colleges. Courseware implementations in biology, psychology, and math/statistics had more positive impacts."

Barbara Means and Julie Neisler 2004 (2)¶

Barbara Means and Julie Neisler. (2004). Continuous Improvement for Student Success. Digital Promise Global. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2004/12/06/the-bell-curve

q2 · i? · quant-synthesis · r2

A second moderator finding from the same set of NGCC impact analyses: comparisons against face-to-face versions showed positive average impacts, while same-modality comparisons did not.

"Positive impacts were found on average when the comparison version of the course was taught face-to-face but not when it was the same modality as the treatment (courseware) condition."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• NGCC adaptive courseware had a small positive, statistically significant average impact on course grades, with the top 25% of implementations showing impacts equivalent to 12 percentile points. — related
• Of 77 impact data sets submitted by NGCC projects, only 28 had adequate sample sizes and reasonably comparable conditions; the rest were eliminated for small samples, confounds, or baseline inequivalence. — related
• Course modality moderated student experience: instructor responsiveness was more prevalent in face-to-face classes and online students reported more frustration — related
• Adaptive courseware in a corequisite statistics course was associated with improved course outcomes, particularly for Pell-eligible and corequisite students, but effects are confounded with instructor practices — related
• Impacts of charter middle schools on achievement varied considerably across schools and students — a broader claim this one bears on
• Students in focus groups were positive about adaptive courseware but reported alignment, access, and reliability concerns — related
• Most instructors using adaptive courseware believed it improved student learning and would use it again — related
• General psychology prevails as the prerequisite for educational psychology, with thirty institutions requiring it and some professors suggesting biology instead — related