 |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Impact on Students University of Dayton In the redesign, did students learn more, less or the same compared to the traditional format? Improved Learning In the winter 2001 course pilot, students were randomly assigned to either a redesigned, online section of the class or to a traditional lecture-oriented section of the course. There were no significant differences in learning between the two groups as measured by student performance on the exams and collaborative exercises. In the fall 2001 semester, the redesign was fully implemented in all sections. There were no significant differences in performance between the winter 2001 and the fall 2001 redesign groups. In the winter 2002 semester, two sections of the redesign and two sections of the traditional course were offered. Performance in the redesigned sections was significantly higher than that of the winter 2001 and fall 2001 redesigned courses (p<.01) and significantly higher than performance in the winter 2001 traditional course. Improved Retention The course experienced problems with students dropping or withdrawing from the course as summarized in the following table:
|
 |
Program in Course Redesign Quick Links: Program In Course Redesign Main Page... Lessons Learned: Savings: Project Descriptions: |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||