Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 91Online and Blended LearningStatistics Education and MethodologiesManagement and Marketing Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A blended model: simultaneously teaching a quantitative course traditionally, online, and remotely

Lightner, Constance A., Lightner-Laws, Carin A.·2016·Interactive Learning Environments
DOI 10.1080/10494820.2013.841262
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

As universities seek to bolster enrollment through distance education, faculty are tasked with maintaining comparable teaching/learning standards in traditional, blended, and online courses. Research has shown that there is an achievement gap between students taking courses exclusively offered online versus those enrolled in face-to-face classes. In an effort to mitigate these observed differences, the School of Business faculty at the research institution investigated various course models to meet the needs of a diverse, non-traditional, and multifaceted student population. Ultimately, a blended course model for statistics and quantitative method courses was developed that allowed students to choose between online, remote (via interactive television), and traditional course delivery modes each week. This model is more flexible and agile than existing blended courses that have more static components. Multiple regression analysis, χ2, and t-tests are used to demonstrate the efficacy of our model in maintaining student performance standards.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10494820.2013.841262

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Research works printed but not linked: 26

  1. Affouf, M., & Walsh, T. P. (2007). An assessment of web-based homework in the teaching of college Algebra. International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 14(4), 163–167.
  2. 10.1080/00336297.2001.10491727 · DOI
  3. 10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00325.x · DOI
  4. 10.1108/18363261211281744 · DOI
  5. Du, C. (2011). A comparison of traditional and blended learning in introductory principles of accounting course. American Journal of Business Education, 4(9), 1–10.
  6. Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology? Educational Technology, 31(5), 7–12.
  7. Farinella, J. (2007). Professor and student performance in online versus traditional introductory finance courses. Journal of Economics and Finance Education, 6(1), 40–47.
  8. 10.1080/03098770903026149 · DOI
  9. 10.3200/JOEB.79.4.237-244 · DOI
  10. 10.1080/15228835.2011.568678 · DOI
  11. McCabe, M. (2007). Assessment, blending and creativity: The ABCs of technology in mathematics teaching. The International Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education, 14(1), 54–59.
  12. 10.1111/j.0011-7315.2004.00015.x · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.compedu.2010.10.011 · DOI
  14. Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, cognition, and learning. New York, NY: Elsevier.
  15. Rogers, C. R., & Freiberg, H. J. (1994). Freedom to learn (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.
  16. 10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.79 · DOI
  17. 10.1287/ited.1110.0063 · DOI
  18. Sitter V. Carter C. Mahan R. Massello C. & Carter T. (2009). Hybrid course design: Faculty and student perceptions. Proceedings of the 2009 ASCUE Summer Conference N. Myrtle Beach SC pp. 40–51.
  19. Sprague, D., Maddux, C., Ferdig, R., & Albion, P. (2007). Editorial: Online education: Issues and research questions. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 157–166.
  20. 10.1111/j.1540-4609.2011.00333.x · DOI
  21. 10.1007/s10755-005-1938-x · DOI
  22. Tallman, J., & Fitzgerald, M. (2005). Blending online and classroom learning environments: Reflections on experiences and points to consider. Knowledge Quest, 34(1), 25–28.
  23. 10.1080/10691898.2003.11910722 · DOI
  24. Ward, B. (2004). The best of both worlds: A hybrid statistics course. Journal of Statistics Education, 12(3). Retrieved February 15, 2012, from www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v12n3/ward.html
  25. Wilson, D., & Allen, D. (2011). Success rates of online versus traditional college students. Research in Higher Education Journal, 14, 4–12.
  26. 10.1080/01587910903236320 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Lightner, C. A., & Lightner-Laws, C. A.
Affiliations
  • Fayetteville State University (US)
  • Bonnie Speed Logistics
Corresponding author
Lightner-Laws, Carin A.
ORCID
Lightner-Laws, Carin A.
Venue
Interactive Learning Environments
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2013-09-30
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
224-238
ISSN
  • 1049-4820 (ISSN-L)
  • 1744-5191
DOI
10.1080/10494820.2013.841262
OpenAlex
W2051115401
Cited by
91
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.org/10.1080/policies-text-data-mining (tdm)
Locations
  • Interactive Learning Environments (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalCommons@Fayetteville State University (Fayetteville State University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistics Education and Methodologies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Management and Marketing Education
Keywords
blended learning, online learning, distance education, statistics education, quantitative methods course, course delivery methods, student performance, achievement gap, non-traditional students, business education, interactive television

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.