You are here:

Moving the classroom to the computer lab: Can online learning with in-person support improve outcomes in community colleges?
ARTICLE

Economics of Education Review Volume 70, Number 1, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

Colleges are experimenting with integrating technology into the classroom to improve student learning and reduce costs. While fully online models appear to have negative effects on student learning compared to in-person instruction, there is less evidence about models that blend elements of online and in-person instruction. In this study, I estimate the effect of adopting a blended approach to teaching called the emporium model in which students complete online work in an on-campus lab with instructors onsite to assist. Using a triple difference identification strategy, I find that using the emporium model compared to traditional instruction in remedial math courses in a state community college system reduces course pass rates, retention, and degree attainment. Effects were generally consistent across all three levels of remediation, suggesting there was little variation by students’ incoming placement test score.

Citation

Kozakowski, W. (2019). Moving the classroom to the computer lab: Can online learning with in-person support improve outcomes in community colleges?. Economics of Education Review, 70(1), 159-172. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved October 3, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on June 3, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.03.004

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Abadie, A., Athey, S., Imbens, G.W., & Wooldridge, J. (2017). When should you adjust standard errors for clustering?.
  2. Allen, I.E., & Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park, MA: Babson Survey Research Group.
  3. Alpert, W.T., Couch, K.A., & Harmon, O.R. (2016). A randomized assessment of online learning. American Economic Review, 106(5), pp. 378-382.
  4. Bailey, T., Jeong, D.W., & Cho, S.- W. (2009). Referral, enrollment, and completion in developmental education sequences in community colleges. Economics of Education Review, 29(2), pp. 255-270.
  5. Belfield, C., Jenkins, P.D., & Lahr, H.E. (2016). Is corequisite remediation cost-effective? Early findings from Tennessee.
  6. Bettinger, E.P., Fox, L., Loeb, S., & Taylor, E.S. (2017). Virtual classrooms: How online college courses affect student success. American Economic Review, 107(9), pp. 2855-2875.
  7. Boatman, A. (2012). Evaluating institutional efforts to streamline postsecondary remediation: The causal effects of the Tennessee development course redesign initiative on early academic success.
  8. Bork, R.H., & Rucks-Ahidiana, Z. (2013). Role ambiguity in online courses: An analysis of student and instructor expectations. New York: Columbia University: Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
  9. Bowen, W.G., Chingos, M.M., Lack, K.A., & Nygren, T.I. (2014). Interactive learning online at public universities: Evidence from a six-campus randomized trial. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(1), pp. 94-111.
  10. Chen, X. (2016). Remedial coursetaking at US public 2-and 4-year institutions: Scope, experiences, and outcomes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
  11. Collier, P.J., & Morgan, D.L. (2008). “Is that paper really due today?” Differences in first-generation and traditional college students’ understandings of faculty expectations. Higher Education, 55(4), pp. 425-446.
  12. Council on Postsecondary Education. (2010). SB 1 unified strategic plan for college and career readiness. Retrieved from http://cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/704758BF-AE6C-474B-8F73-493AF898F0B0/0/9_SB1UnifiedStrategicPlan.pdf. [Accessed 20 April 2016].
  13. de Vise, D. (2012). At Virginia Tech, computers help solve a math class problem. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/at-virginia-tech-computers-help-solve-a-math-class-problem/2012/04/22/gIQAmAOmaT_story.html. [Accessed 20 April 2016].
  14. Deming, D.J., Goldin, C., Katz, L.F., & Yuchtman, N. (2015). Can online learning bend the higher education cost curve. American Economic Review, 105(5), pp. 496-501.
  15. Fay, M.P. (2017). Computer-mediated developmental math courses in Tennessee high schools and community colleges: An exploration of the consequences of institutional context. New York, NY: Columbia University, Teachers College, Community College Research Center.
  16. Figlio, D., Rush, M., & Yin, L. (2013). Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(4), pp. 763-784.
  17. Goodman-Bacon, A. (2018). Difference-in-differences with treatment effect heterogeneity.
  18. Jaggars, S.S. (2014). Choosing between online and face-to-face courses: Community college student voices. American Journal of Distance Education, 28(1), pp. 27-38.
  19. Jepsen, C., Troske, K., & Coomes, P. (2014). The labor-market returns to community college degrees, diplomas, and certificates. Journal of Labor Economics, 32(1), pp. 95-121.
  20. Joyce, T., Crockett, S., Jaeger, D.A., Altindag, O., & O'Connell, S.D. (2015). Does classroom time matter?. Economics of Education Review, 46, pp. 64-77.
  21. National Center for Academic Transformation [NCAT]. (2013). How to Redesign a Developmental Math Program by Using the Emporium Model. Retrieved from http://www.thencat.org/Guides/DevMath/DM1.%20The%20Essential%20Elements%20of%20the%20Emporium%20Model.pdf. [Accessed 2 October 2017].
  22. National Center for Academic Transformation [NCAT] (2016). Project descriptions sorted by discipline. NY: Saratoga Spring. Available online: http://thencat.org/PCR/Proj_Discipline_all.html.
  23. Parsad, B., & Lewis, L. (2008). Distance education at degree-granting postsecondary institutions: 2006–2007 (NCES 2009-044). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  24. Quillen, M. (2010). KCTCS proposal and budget narrative: CPE Senate Bill 1 Implementation Grant. Versailles, KY: Kentucky Community and Technical College System. Available online: http://cpe.ky.gov/NR/rdonlyres/24C71754-FF06-4AC9-9361-71ACE31236F2/0/KCTCS.pdf.
  25. Rutschow, E.Z., & Schneider, E. (2011). Unlocking the gate: What we know about improving developmental education. New York: MDRC.
  26. Scott-Clayton, J., Crosta, P.M., & Belfield, C.R. (2014). Improving the targeting of treatment: Evidence from college remediation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(3), pp. 371-393.
  27. Twigg, C. (2011). The math emporium: Higher education's silver bullet. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 43(May-June), pp. 25-34.
  28. Twigg, C. (2013). Improving learning and reducing costs: Outcomes from changing the equation. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 45(July-August), pp. 6-14.
  29. Venezia, A., Bracco, K.R., & Nodine, T. (2010). One shot deal? Students’ perceptions of assessment and course placement in california's community colleges. San Francisco: WestEd.
  30. Xu, D., & Jaggars, S.S. (2013). The impact of online learning on students’ course outcomes: evidence from a large community and technical college system. Economics of Education Review, 37, pp. 46-57.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read

Related Collections