Delivery Method: Does it Matter? A Study of the North Carolina Developmental Mathematics Redesign

References

• Ariovich, L., & Walker, S. A. (2014). Assessing course redesign: The case of developmental math. Research and Practice in Assessment, 9, 45–57.
   Google Scholar
• Barragan, M., & Cormier, M. S. (2013). Enhancing rigor in developmental education. Inside Out, 1 (4). Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/enhancing-rigor-in-developmental-education.html
   Google Scholar
• Bickerstaff, S., Fay, M. P., & Trimble, M. J. (2016). Modularization in developmental mathematics in two states: Implementation and early outcomes (CCRC Working Paper no. 87). CCRC, Teacher’s College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/publications/modularization-developmental-mathematics-two-states.html
   Google Scholar
• Brothen, T., & Wambach, C. (2000). A research based approach to developing a computer-assisted course for developmental students. In J. L. Higbee, & P. L. Dwinell (Eds.), The many faces of developmental education (pp. 59–72). Warrensburg, MO: National Association of Developmental Education. Retrieved from http://www.nade.net/site/documents/publications/monograph/Mono%2000/monograph00.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Clark, K. R. (2015). The effects of the flipped model of instruction on student engagement and performance in the secondary mathematics classroom. Journal of Educators Online, 12 (1), 81–115. Retrieved from the ERIC database. (ED1051042). doi: 10.9743/JEO.2015.1.5
   Google Scholar
• Clark, R. E. (2009). How much and what type of guidance is optimal for learning from instruction? In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 158–183). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Epper, R. M., & Baker, E. D. (2009, January). Technology solutions for developmental math: An overview of current and emerging practices. Retrieved from https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/technology-solutions-for-developmental-math-jan-2009.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ertmer, P., & Newby, T. (1993). Behaviorism, cognitivism, constructivism: Comparing critical features from an instructional design perspective. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 6 (4), 50–72. doi:10.1111/j.1937-8327.1993.tb00605.x
   Google Scholar
• Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using SPSS statistics. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Fletcher, J. D. (2009). From behaviorism to constructivism: A philosophical journey from drill and practice to situated learning. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 242–263). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ginsberg, M. B., & Wlodkowski, R. J. (2009). Diversity and motivation: Culturally responsive teaching in college. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Goldstein, L. B., Burke, B. L., Getz, A., & Kennedy, P. A. (2011). Ideas in practice: Collaborative problem-based learning in intermediate algebra. Journal of Developmental Education, 35 (1), 26–30, 32–35, 37.
   Google Scholar
• Gresalfi, M. S., & Lester, F. (2009). What’s worth knowing in mathematics? In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 264–290). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Guy, G. M., Cormick, J., Holt, R. J., & Russel, A. S. H. (2015). Accelerated developmental arithmetic using problem solving. Journal of Developmental Education, 39 (1), 2–8.
   Google Scholar
• He, K. (2013). Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (3rd ed.), some reflections (1): On a deeper understanding of the constructivist learning principles and constructivist instructional design. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 6 (2), 1–12. doi:10.18785/jetde.0602.01
   Google Scholar
• Herman, P., & Gomez, L. M. (2009). Taking guided learning theory to school: Reconciling the cognitive, motivational and social contexts of instruction. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 62–81). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• IBM Corp. (2016). IBM SPSS statistics for windows (24). Armonk, NY: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Jaggars, S. S., & Stacey, G. W. (2014, January). What we know about developmental education outcomes. CCRC, Teacher’s College, Columbia University. Retrieved from http://academiccommons.columbia.edu/catalog/ac%3A170486
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, B., & Christensen, B. (2012). Educational research: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed approaches (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Kahl, D. H., & Venette, S. (2010). To lecture or let go: A comparative analysis of student speech outlines from teacher-centered and learner-centered classrooms. Communication Teacher, 24 (3), 178–186. doi:10.1080/17404622.2010.490232
   Google Scholar
• Karagiorgi, Y., & Symeou, L. (2005). Translating constructivism into instructional design: Potential and limitations. Educational Technology & Society, 8 (1), 17–27.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kintsch, W. (2009). Learning and constructivism. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 223–241). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A. (2009). Epistemology or pedagogy, that is the question. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 144–157). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experimental, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41 (2), 75–86. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuhn, D. (2007). Is direct instruction an answer to the right question? Educational Psychologist, 42 (2), 109–113. doi:10.1080/00461520701263376
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MacSuga-Gage, A. S., Simonsen, B., & Briere, D. E. (2012). Effective teaching practices that promote a positive classroom environment. Beyond Behavior, 22 (1), 14–22. Retrieved from ERIC database. (EJ1006541). doi: 10.1177/107429561202200104
   Google Scholar
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Constructivism as a theory of learning versus constructivism as a prescription for instruction. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 184–200). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• MDC, & Achieving the Dream. (2014). Adopting and adapting computer-assisted learning strategies: A practitioner brief. Retrieved from http://achievingthedream.org/resource/12626/right-from-the-start-adopting-and-adapting-computer-assisted-learning-strategies
   Google Scholar
• National Center for Academic Transformation. (2013). How to redesign a developmental math program with the emporium model. Retrieved from http://thencat.org/Guides/DevMath/DMChapterI.html
   Google Scholar
• NCCCS. (2011). Developmental math modular curriculum: Module outlines and notes. Raleigh, NC. Retrieved from http://www.successnc.org/sites/default/files/inititiative-docs/Final2012%20NCCCS%20DevelopmentalMathModules.pdf
   Google Scholar
• NCCCS. (2013). Success NC: North Carolina Community Colleges final report. Retrieved from http://www.successnc.org/successnc2013finalreport
   Google Scholar
• Pang, K. (2010). Creating stimulating learning and thinking using new models of activity-based learning and metacognitive-based activities. Journal of College Teaching and Learning, 7 (4), 29–38.
   Google Scholar
• Parcell, A. (2014). Right from the start: An institutional perspective on developmental education reform adopting and adapting computer-assisted learning strategies. Retrieved from http://www.mdcinc.org/resources/publications/right-start-institutional-perspective-developmental-education-reform
   Google Scholar
• Rosenshine, B. (2009). The empirical support for direct instruction. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 201–220). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, H. G., De Volder, M. L., De Grave, W. S., Moust, J. H. C., & Patel, V. L. (1989). Explanatory models in the processing of science text: The role of prior knowledge activation through small-group discussion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 610–619. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.4.610
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schmidt, H. G., Loyens, S. M. M., von Gog, T., & Paas, F. (2007). Problem-based learning is compatible with human cognitive architecture: Commentary on Kirschner, Sweller, and Clark (2006). Educational Psychologist, 42 (2), 91–97. doi:10.1080/00461520701263350
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spradlin, K., & Ackerman, B. (2010). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in developmental mathematics. Journal of Developmental Education, 34 (2), 12–18, 42.
   Google Scholar
• Stigler, J. W., Givvin, K. B., & Thompson, B. J. (2010). What community college developmental students understand about mathematics. MathAMAYTC Educator, 1 (3), 4–16.
   Google Scholar
• Stylianides, A. J., & Stylianides, G. J. (2007). Learning mathematics with understanding: A critical consideration of the learning principles in the principles and standards for school mathematics. The Montana Mathematics Enthusiast, 4 (1), 103–114.
   Google Scholar
• Sweller, J. (2009). What human cognitive architecture tells us about constructivism. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 127–143). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tobias, S. (2009). An eclectic appraisal of the success or failure of constructivist instruction. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 335–350). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Tobias, S., & Duffy, T. M. (2009). The success or failure of constructivist instruction: An introduction. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 3–10). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Vogel-Walcutt, J. J., Gebrim, J. B., Bowers, C., Carper, T. M., & Nicholson, D. (2010). Cognitive load theory vs. constructivist approaches: Which best leads to efficient deep learning? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 133–145. doi:10.1111/1365-2729.201000381.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wise, A. F., & O’Neill, K. (2009). Beyond more versus less: A reframing of the debate on instructional guidance. In S. Tobias, & T. M. Duffy (Eds.), Constructivist instruction: Success or failure? (pp. 82–105). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Wlodkowski, R. J., & Ginsberg, M. B. (2010). Teaching intensive and accelerated courses: Instruction that motivates learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Zavarella, C., & Ignash, J. M. (2009). Instructional delivery in developmental mathematics: Impact on retention. Journal of Developmental Education, 32 (3), 2–13.
   Google Scholar
• Zhu, Q., & Polianskaia, G. (2007). A comparison of traditional lecture and computer-mediated instruction in developmental education. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 24 (1), 63–82.
   Google Scholar
• Zientek, L. R., Ozel, Z. E. Y., Fong, C. J., & Griffin, M. (2013). Student success in developmental mathematics courses. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 37, 990–1010. doi:10.1080/10668926.2010.491993
   Google Scholar