Statistical Literacy as a Function of Online Versus Hybrid Course Delivery Format for an Introductory Graduate Statistics Course

References

• Allen, I. E. and Seaman, J. (2015), Grade Level: Tracking Online Learning in the United States, Wellesley, MA: Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC.
   Google Scholar
• Anastasi, J. S. (2007), “Methods and Techniques: Full-Semester and Abbreviated Summer Courses–An Evaluation of Student Performance,” Teaching of Psychology, 1, 19–22.
   Google Scholar
• Artino, A. R. and Stephens, J. M. (2009), “Academic Motivation and Self-Regulation: A Comparative Analysis of Undergraduate and Graduate Students Learning Online,” Internet and Higher Education, 12, 146–151.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Austin, A. M. and Gustafson, L. (2006), “Impact of Course Length on Student Learning,” Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 1, 5, 26–37.
   Google Scholar
• Bailey, K. D., and Morais, D. B. (2005), “Exploring the Use of Blended Learning in Tourism Education,” Journal of Teaching in Travel and Tourism, 4, 4, 23–36.
   Google Scholar
• Barcikowski, R. S. (1981), “Statistical Power with Group Mean as the Unit of Analysis,” Journal of Educational Statistics, 3, 6, 267–285.
   Google Scholar
• Billings, D. M., Skiba, D. J., and Connors, H. R. (2005), “Best Practices in Web-based Courses: Generational Differences Across Undergraduate and Graduate Nursing Students,” Journal of Professional Nursing, 2, 21, 126–133.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., Lack, K. A., and Nygren, T. I. (2014), “Interactive Learning Online at Public Universities: Evidence from a Six-Campus Randomized Trial,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33, 94–111.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, D. G. (2001), “Hybrid Courses are Best,” Syllabus Magazine, 15, 22.
   Google Scholar
• Burbules, N. C. and Callister, T. A. (2000), “Universities in Transition: The Promise and the Challenge of New Technologies,” Teachers College Record, 102, 271–293.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carnevale, D. (2002), “Online Students don't Fare as Well as Classroom Counterparts, Study Finds,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48, 38.
   Google Scholar
• Chametzky, B. (2013), Offsetting the Affective Filter: A Classic Grounded Theory Study of Post-secondary Online Foreign Language Learners. Prescott Valley, AZ: Northcentral University.
   Google Scholar
• Chance, B. (2002), “Components of Statistical Thinking and Implications for Instruction and Assessment,” Journal of Statistics Education, 10.
   Google Scholar
• Daniel, E. L. (2000), “A Review of Time-Shortened Courses Across Disciplines,” College Student Journal, 34, 298–306.
   Google Scholar
• delMas, R. C. (2002), “Statistical Literacy, Reasoning, and Learning: A Commentary,” Journal of Statistics Education, 10.
   Google Scholar
• delMas, R., Garfield, J., Ooms, A., and Chance, B. (2006), “Assessing Students' Conceptual Understanding After a First Course in Statistics,” Paper presented at American Educational Research Association Annual Conference, April 9 at San Francisco, CA.
   Google Scholar
• DelMas, R., Garfield, J., Ooms, A., and Chance, B. (2007), “Assessing Students' Conceptual Understanding after a First Course in Statistics,” SERJ, 2, 28–58.
   Google Scholar
• Dereshiwsky, M. I. (1998), “Go Figure: The Surprising Successes of Teaching Statistics Courses via the Internet,” in Proceedings of the Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference, Honolulu, HI.
   Google Scholar
• Dutton, J. and Dutton, M. (2005), “Characteristics and Performance of Students in an Online Section of Business Statistics,” Journal of Statistics Education, 3.
   Google Scholar
• Dutton, J., Dutton, M., and Perry, J. (2001), “Do Online Students Perform as well as Lecture Students?,” Journal of Engineering Education, 90, 131–136.
   Google Scholar
• Dziuban, C. D. (2016), “Assessing Outcomes in Online and Blended Learning Research,” in Conducting Research in Online and Blended Learning Environments, eds. C. D. Dziuban, A. G. Picciano, C. R. Graham, and P. D. Moskal, New York, NY: Routledge Taylor and Francis, pp. 158–172.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, J. M. and DeFelice, A. E. (2010), “Length of Online Course and Student Satisfaction, Perceived Learning, and Academic Performance,” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2, 73–84.
   Google Scholar
• Gal, I. (2002), “Adults' Statistical Literacy: Meanings, Components, Responsibilities,” International Statistical Review, 70, 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Garfield, J. (2002), “The Challenge of Developing Statistical Reasoning,” Journal of Statistics Education, 10.
   Google Scholar
• Graham, J. W. (2009), “Missing Data Analysis: Making it Work in the Real World,” Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 549–576.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, J. A. and Azevedo, R. (2007), “A Theoretical Review of Winne and Hadwin's Model of Self-Regulated Learning: New Perspectives and Directions,” Review of Educational Research, 77, 334–372.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haughton, J. and Kelly, A. (2015), “Student Performance in an Introductory Business Statistics Course: Does Delivery Mode Matter?,” Journal of Education for Business, 90, 31–43.
   Google Scholar
• James, S., Swan, K., and Daston, C. (2016), “Retention, Progression and the Taking of Online Classes,” Online Learning, 2, 75–96.
   Google Scholar
• Kakish, K., Pollacia, L., Heinz, A., Sinclair, J. L., and Thomas, A. (2012), “Analysis of the Effectiveness of Traditional Versus Hybrid Student Performance of an Elementary Statistics Course,” International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6, 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• Keefe, T. J. (2003), “Using Technology to Enhance a Course: The Importance of Interaction,” EDUCAUSE Quarterly, 26, 24–34.
   Google Scholar
• Kwak, D. W., Menezes, F. M., and Sherwood, C. (2015), “Assessing the Impact of Blended Learning on Student Performance,” Economic Record, 91, 91–106. doi: 10.1111/1475-4932.12155.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, N., and Horsfall, B. (2010), “Accelerated Learning: A Study of Faculty and Student Experiences,” Innovative Higher Education, 35, 191–202.
   Google Scholar
• Margulieux, L. E., Bujak, K. R., McCracken, W. M., and Majerich, D. M. (2014), “Flipped, Blended, Flipped, and Inverted: Defining Terms in a Two Dimensional Taxonomy,” Paper presented at 12th Annual Hawaii International Conference on Education, January 5–9, at Honolulu, HI.
   Google Scholar
• Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., and Jones, K. (2010), Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
   Google Scholar
• Mensch, S. (2013), “The Impact of Course Length on Online Numeric-Based Course Grades,” Contemporary Issues in Education Research, 6, 4.
   Google Scholar
• Mortenson, T. G. (2005), State Tax Fund Appropriations for Higher Education: FY1961 to FY2005. Oskaloosa, LA: Postsecondary Education Opportunity.
   Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J. C. and Berstein, I. H. (1994), Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Oblender, T. E. (2002), “A Hybrid Course Model: One Solution to the High Online Drop-out Rate,” Learning & Leading with Technology, 6, 42–46.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J. (2001), “Critical Thinking Skills: A Comparison of Doctoral- and Master's-Level Students,” College Student Journal, 3, 477–481.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, R. (2009), “A Learning Community Approach to Doctoral Education in the Social Sciences,” Teaching in Higher Education, 1, 14, 43–54.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Picciano, A. G. (2015), “Research in Online and Blended Learning: New Challenges, New Opportunities,” in Conducting Research in Online and Blended Learning Environments, eds. C. D. Dziuban, A. G. Picciano, C. R. Graham, and P. D. Moskal, New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis, pp. 1–11.
   Google Scholar
• Postman, N. (2011), Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, New York: Random House Digital, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Raftery, A. E. (1995), “Bayesian Model Selection in Social Research,” Sociological Methodology, 25, 111–163.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rumsey, D. J. (2002), “Statistical Literacy as a Goal for Introductory Statistics Courses,” Journal of Statistics Education, 10.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, T. L. (2001). The No Significant Difference Phenomenon (5th ed.), Chapel Hill, NC: Office of Instructional Telecommunication, North Carolina State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sami, F. (2011), “Course Format Effects on Learning Outcomes in an Introductory Statistics Course,” MathAMATYC Educator, 2, 48–51.
   Google Scholar
• Scherrer, C. R. (2011), “Comparison of an Introductory Level Undergraduate Statistics Course Taught with Traditional, Hybrid, and Online Delivery Methods,” INFORMS Transactions on Education, 11, 106–110.
   Google Scholar
• Scherrer, C. R. (2015), “Comparison of an Introductory Level Undergraduate Statistics Course Taught with Traditional, Hybrid, and Online Delivery Methods,” INFORMS Transactions on Education, 11, 106–110.
   Google Scholar
• Scott, P. A. (1996), “Attributes of High-Quality Intensive Course Learning Experiences: Student Voices and Experiences,” College Student Journal, 30, 69–77.
   Google Scholar
• Seamon, M. (2004), “Short- and Long-Term Differences in Instructional Effectiveness Between Intensive and Semester-Length Courses,” Teachers College Record, 4, 106, 852–874. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9620.2004.00360.x.
   Google Scholar
• Shaw, M., Chametzky, B., Burrus, S. W., and Walters, K. J. (2013), “An Evaluation of Student Outcomes by Course Duration in Online Higher Education,” Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration[ online]. Available at http://www.westga.edu/∼distance/ojdla/winter164/shaw_chametzky_burrus_walters164.
   Google Scholar
• Snijders, T. A. B. and Berkhof, J. (2008), “Diagnostic Checks for Multilevel Models,” in Handbook of Multilevel Analysis, eds. J. de Leeuw, and E. Meijer, New York: Springer, pp. 141–175.
   Google Scholar
• Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. (1989), “Institutional Ecology, Translations and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertegrate Zoology, 1907–39,” Social Studies of Science, 3, 387–420.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Twigg, C. A. (2013), “Improving Learning and Reducing Costs: Outcomes from Changing the Equation,” Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45, 6014.
   Google Scholar
• Utts, J., Sommer, B., Acredolo, C., Maher, M. W., and Matthews, H. R. (2003), “A Study Comparing Traditional and Hybrid Internet-Based Instruction in Introductory Statistics Classes,” Journal of Statistics Education, 3.
   Google Scholar
• Ward, B. (2004), “The Best of Both Worlds: A Hybrid Statistics Course,” Journal of Statistics Education, 3.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, J. and Callingham, R. (2003), “Statistical Literacy: A Complex Hierarchical Construct,” Statistics Education Research Journal, 2, 3–46.
   Google Scholar
• Watson, J. M. (2011), “Foundations for Improving Statistical Literacy,” Statistical Journal of the IAOS, 27, 197–204. doi: 10.3233/SJI20110728.
   Google Scholar
• Wisker, G., Robinson, G., and Shacham, M. (2007), “Postgraduate Research Success: Communities of Practice Involving Cohorts, Guardian Supervisors, and Online Communities,” Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44, 301–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Young, J. R. (2002), “‘Hybrid’ Teaching Seeks to End the Divide Between Traditional and Online Instruction,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, 48, A33–A34.
   Google Scholar