Quantitative Skills, Critical Thinking, and Writing Mechanics in Blended Versus Face-to-Face Versions of a Research Methods and Statistics Course

Abstract

Hybrid or blended learning (BL) has been shown to be equivalent to or better than face-to-face (FTF) instruction in a broad variety of contexts. We randomly assigned students to either 50/50 BL or 100% FTF versions of a research methods and statistics in psychology course. Students who took the BL version of the course scored significantly lower on measures of quantitative mastery of statistical concepts than those who took the FTF version; however, the size of this effect was quite small. We detected no significant difference between BL and FTF in the expression of critical thinking through writing or writing mechanics. The greatest difference in performance was among instructors regardless of instruction type. We discuss these results in the context of increasing online and BL instruction, particularly with regard to teaching psychological statistics, research methods, and critical thinking.

Exploring Female Undergraduate Education Students’ Perceptions of Collaborative Online Project-Based Learning (COPBL)

“…The result of this question is consistent with what some researchers (Dridi et al, 2020;Goode et al, 2018;Kaur, 2013;Woodall, 2010) have indicated about the challenges facing the application of blended learning in general, and the COPBL's strategy in particular. These challenges are the difficulty of accessing the Internet, reorganizing the classroom environment in proportion to blended learning, meeting all students at the same time online, the need for workplaces and high-speed networks, the need for the teacher to possess the technical skills necessary for this type of learning, and providing all the necessary materials for the sessions to be interactive so that the learner does not lose interest and become passive.…”

Research based practices for improving the effectiveness of asynchronous online discussion boards.

“…Some studies have shown that instructors’ level of interactivity is a greater predictor of students’ critical thinking skills than the mode of instruction. Goode et al (2018) found this to be the case when comparing online and hybrid courses. Mandernach, Forrest, Babutzke, and Manker (2009) found that the instructor was a more important factor than modality when comparing online to face-to-face courses.…”

“…Recent studies have shown that one of the most important factors for student engagement in the discussion is an engaging instructor (Goode et al, 2018). According to Mandernach et al (2009), “An online instructor fulfills a number of roles within the threaded discussion: questioning, listening, responding, encouraging, challenging, reflecting, and summarizing” (p. 58).…”

Blended Learning in STEM and Non-STEM Courses: How do Student Performance and Perceptions Compare?

“…The study highlights the importance of having significant content available online (e.g., web-based lectures) and the importance of immediate feedback to consolidate student learning. In contrast, a study by Goode, Lamoreaux, Atchison, Jeffress, Lynch, and Sheehan (2018) found that students in a blended psychology statistics course performed significantly lower than face-to-face counterparts, although the effect size was negligible. Of interest in this study was that blended students spent 50% of class time only viewing online videos without interacting with peers or the instructor.…”