1. Implications of Mediated Instruction to Remote Learning in Mathematics Joy L. Matthews-López Educational Testing Service Sergio R. López-Permouth David Keck Ohio University

2. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 2 Background Basic math skills should be in place prior to entrance into college/university because students need to be able to satisfactorily complete prerequisite course work Higher Ed. $ resources are limited –Faculty –Classroom space Redundancy is hard to justify to financiers

3. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 3 Questions If given a choice, do students naturally gravitate to a remote learning environment? Is class attendance positively correlated with class performance?

4. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 4 The traditional approach… Students attend class Faculty lecture Specific time is designated for office hours All students are taught at the same pace, on the same schedule Little formative feedback is provided to the students Class sizes tend to be large

5. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 5 The mediated approach… Designates the instructor as a facilitator of learning rather than a deliverer of information Permits students to advance at their own pace Personalizes the presentation of material Lends itself well to a remote learning model

6. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 6 Methodology 3 sections of Math 101 students (with 20 students per section) –Section 1: full attendance was required (3 days + a test) –Section 2: partial attendance was required (1day + a test) –Section 3: no attendance was required (test only) A custom-designed Basic Skills Test (BST) was administered to all students on the first day of class (r =.92). –The BST consisted of 20 constructed response items. –Content consisted of arithmetic and basic pre-algebra.

7. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 7 Data 5 measures per student*: –Daily attendance (recorded by instructors) –Daily time spent on-line (recorded by the software) –Pre-test score (BST) (given on the 1 st day of class) –Post-test score (BST) (given on the last day of class) –Final course grade (7 common tests + final exam) –Summative course evaluation (specifically made for this project) (*IRB approval was sought and obtained.)

8. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 8 Analyses Pre-test Scores –ANOVA Used to determine initial group equivalence Attendance was recorded by each instructor in order to ensure adherence to attendance policies.

9. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 9 Time Spent On-line Time spent on-line was automatically recorded by the software. –This information was collected to see how students in the different groups spent their study time. –ANOVA

10. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 10 Analyses, cont. Post-test Scores –ANOVA (to examine for post-course group mean differences) –Filtered correlations (to examine with-in group relationships between pre- and post-test scores)

11. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 11 Analyses, cont. Gain scores –Computed to be the difference between pre- and post- test scores –ANOVA Performed to examine for between-group differences. Final Course Grades –ANOVA Time Spent On-line –ANOVA to examine for between-group mean differences

12. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 12 Results Pre-test Scores: no group differences

13. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 13 Results Attendance –All students were found to be in compliance with the attendance policies for their particular section.

14. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 14 Results Gain scores: (F = 2.88, p =.065, α =.05) Group Mean Gain Scores Standard Error 1 2 3 4.22 2.61 2.11.76.70.46

15. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 15 Gain Scores, cont. Counts: Group 1 0667Pre (13) 00127Post (19) Group 2 03114Pre (15) 01611Post (17) Group 3 1594Pre (13) 00613Post (19) 02015105Raw Score

16. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 16 Results Pre-test to post-test correlations

17. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 17 With-in Group Correlations Low:High Low:Low Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

18. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 18 Time Spent On-line: Results Regardless of group membership, students spent approximately the same amount of time on-line, overall. There were different patterns to time spent on-line. –Group 1…steady usage –Group 2…heavier usage prior to test day –Group 3…heaviest usage immediately prior to test day

19. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 19 Post-test Scores: Results Group mean scores were not significantly different from one another (F = 1.937, p =.154, α =.05).

20. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 20 Final Grades: Results Final grade mean scores were not significantly different across groups (F =.059, p =.943, α =.05)

21. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 21 Conclusions Students enrolled in a mediated learning environment naturally gravitate to a remote learning model –i.e. When given the option, students chose not to attend class. Academic performance did not appear to be adversely impacted by the remote learning environment –…however, what about learning?

22. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 22 Recommendations Students scoring lower than a 70% on the BST should be required to attend class, whether mediated or not. Students scoring 70% or higher should be allowed to utilize a remote mediated learning model.

23. Unpublished work © 2002 by Educational Testing Service 23 Limitations Sample size is small. Results may be course specific. Remedial vs. non-remedial courses should be examined.