Cold calling and web postings: Do they improve students’ preparation and learning in statistics?

Main Article Content

Dan Levy
Josh Bookin

Abstract

Getting students to prepare well for class is a common challenge faced by instructors all over the world. This study investigates the effects that two frequently used techniques to increase student preparation -- web postings and cold calling -- have on student outcomes. The study is based on two experiments and a qualitative study conducted in a statistics course that Masters in Public Policy (MPP) students take in their second semester at the Harvard Kennedy School. When used together, web postings and cold calling seem to increase the amount of time that students devote to reading before class by about an hour. This effect is both statistically and practically significant. However this increase in pre-class reading did not translate into increased learning (measured by average test scores on the midterm exam). Neither of the two techniques seems to be better than the other one at increasing reading time, test scores, and other student outcomes. 

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Levy, D., & Bookin, J. (2014). Cold calling and web postings: Do they improve students’ preparation and learning in statistics?. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 14(5), 92–109. https://doi.org/10.14434/josotlv14i5.13091
Section
Articles

References

Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., & Cocking, R.R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, D.C: National Academy Press.

Burchfield, C.M. & Sappington, J. (2000). Compliance with required reading assignments. Teaching of Psychology, 27 (1), 58-60.

Chi, M.T.H., De Leew, N., Chiu, M.-H., & Lavancher, C. (1994). Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science, 18, 439-477.

Carney, A. G., Fry, S. W., Gabriele, R. V., & Ballard, M. (2008). Reeling in the big fish: Changing pedagogy to encourage the completion of reading assignments. College Teaching, 56 (4), 195-200. doi: 10.3200/CTCH.56.4.195-200

Cobb, G. W. (1987). Introductory textbooks: A framework for evaluation. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 321-339.

Chance, B., Ben-Zvi, D., Garfielf, J., & Medina, E. (2007). The role of technology in improving student learning in statistics. Technology Innovations in Statistics Education, 1 (1), 1-26.

Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Journal of Physics, 69 (9), 970-977. doi: 10.1119/1.1374249

Doyle, W. (1983). Academic work. Review of Educational Research, 53 (2), 159-199. doi: 10.3102/00346543053002159

Ferguson-Hessler, M. G. M., & de Jong, T. (1990). Studying physics texts: Differences in study processes between good and poor performers.” Cognition and Instruction, 7, 41-54. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci0701_2

Gardiner, L. F. (1994). Redesigning higher education: Producing dramatic gains in student learning. Washington, D.C.: Graduate School of Education and Human Development, George Washington University.

Garvin, D. A. (2003). Making the case: Professional education for the world of practice. Harvard Magazine, 106.

Harwell, M. R., Herrick, M. L., Curtis, D., Mundfrom, D., & Gold, K. (1996). Evaluating statistics texts used in education. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21 (1), 3-34. doi: 10.3102/10769986021001003

Linn, M. C., & Eylon, B. S. (2006). Science education. In P. A. Alexander & P. H. Winne (Eds.) Handbook of educational psychology, 2nd edition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

McKeachie, W. J., Pintrich, P. R., Lin, Y-G., Smith, D. A. F., & Sharma, R. (1990). Teaching and learning in the college classroom: A review of the research literature (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: NCRIPTAL, University of Michigan.

McKeachie, W.J., & Svinicki, M. (2010). McKeachie’s teaching tips: Strategies, research, and theory for college and university teachers (13th ed.). Belmont: Wadsworth.

Nilson, L. B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college instructors (3rd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Nuthall, G. (1999). The way students learn: Acquiring knowledge from an integrated science and social studies unit. Elementary School Journal, 99 (4), 303–341. doi: 10.1086/461928

Reder, L. M., & Anderson, J. R. (1982). Effects of spacing and embellishment on memory for the main points of a text. Memory and Cognition, 10 (2), 97-102. doi: 10.3758/BF03209210

Reiser, B. J. (2004). Scaffolding complex learning: The mechanism of structuring and problematizing student work. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 273-304. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls1303_2

Seering, W., & Britter, R. (2007). Teaching the fundamentals: A study of pedagogical approaches. Final Project Report of the Cambridge-MIT Institute.

White, B., & Frederiksen, J. (1998). Inquiry, modeling, and metacognition: Making science accessible to all students. Cognition and Instruction, 16 (1), 3-118. doi: 10.1207/s1532690xci1601_2

Williams, S. M. (1992). Putting case-based instruction into context: Examples from legal and medical education. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 2 (4), 367-427. doi: 10.1207/s15327809jls0204_2

Wood, D., Bruner, J. S., & Ross, G. (1976). The role of tutoring in problem solving. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Descriptions, 17, 89-100. doi: 10.1111/j.14697610.1976.tb00381.x