Psy635 Week Two Scenario Three Instructors Teach The Same On

Psy635 Week Two Scenariothree Instructors Teach The Same Online Course

Psy635 Week Two Scenario Three instructors teach the same online course and have devised an experimental intervention to improve student motivation to actively participate in discussions. The course is a core requirement for all psychology students, and students are assigned to particular sections at random rather than by instructor choice. The average class size for this particular course is 45 students. To get a large enough sample for adequate analysis, the instructors have decided to include two sections for each instructor in the experiment. The first section will serve as the control group (no experimental intervention), and the second section will receive the intervention.

Anonymous data about the dependent variable will be pooled for the three sections comprising the control group and the three sections that receive the intervention. The independent variable is the intervention, which may be an incentive such as digital badges or an instructional intervention involving changing the instructions for the guided response. The dependent variable will be the number of response (not initial) posts per student that exceed two lines of text. The researchers have decided to use the Week Four discussion for data collection, reasoning that it may take some time for the intervention to become effective.

Paper For Above instruction

The scenario presents a typical experimental design in educational research aimed at enhancing student engagement through intervention strategies. In this design, instructors teaching the same online course implement two types of instructional conditions—control and intervention—to evaluate their impact on student participation, specifically measured by the number of substantial response posts within a discussion forum. Such a methodology exemplifies a quasi-experimental approach, using natural class groupings and random assignment to sections, to infer causal relationships between interventions and student behaviors. This paper discusses the design, potential implications, and considerations of this experimental approach, emphasizing its relevance and potential for educational enhancement.

The core of this research lies in manipulating the independent variable—the intervention—which could range from motivational incentives like digital badges to instructional modifications such as revised guidance to promote deeper engagement. By comparing pooled data across multiple sections assigned to control and experimental conditions, the researchers aim to isolate the effect of these interventions on student responses. The dependent variable, quantifying engagement through the number of responses exceeding two lines of text, provides a quantifiable measure of active participation that reflects both cognitive and behavioral dimensions. This focus aligns with pedagogical theories emphasizing formative assessment and active learning, which suggest that increased participation correlates with deeper understanding and retention.

The decision to collect data in the Week Four discussion reflects an understanding of the lag effect often observed in behavioral interventions—allowing sufficient time for students to adjust and respond to new instructional strategies. It also underscores the importance of timing in educational experiments; too early, and the intervention's effects might not fully manifest; too late, and confounding variables could influence the results. This temporal consideration is critical in ensuring the validity and reliability of findings, particularly when generalizing results to broader contexts or implementing scalable interventions.

When analyzing such experimental data, researchers must consider several methodological factors. Pooling data from multiple sections assumes similarities among student groups, but variability in instructor delivery, student demographics, and prior motivation can introduce confounding factors. Random assignment at the section level helps mitigate some of these issues, but statistical controls and thorough data analysis are essential for credible conclusions. Additionally, ethical considerations, including data anonymity and voluntary participation, are paramount in educational research involving student data.

From a broader perspective, such experimental designs have significant implications for higher education practices. If interventions—like digital badges or clearer instructional prompts—prove effective in increasing meaningful participation, these strategies can be adopted widely to foster more active learning environments. The potential for scalable, evidence-based improvements aligns with institutional goals of enhancing student engagement, retention, and success, especially in online learning contexts where passive participation can be prevalent.

In conclusion, the outlined experimental intervention exemplifies a thoughtful approach to improving student engagement through empirical investigation. By systematically manipulating instructional variables and measuring behavioral responses, educators and researchers can develop data-driven strategies to enrich online learning experiences. Future research should focus on longitudinal effects, diverse instructional methods, and scaling successful interventions across various contexts to maximize their impact on student learning outcomes.

References

1. Cook, D. A., & West, C. P. (2012). Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Medical Education, 46(10), 943-952.
2. Freeman, S., Eddy, S. L., McDonough, M., Smith, M. K., et al. (2014). Active learning increases student performance in science, engineering, and mathematics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(23), 8410-8415.
3. Garrison, D. R., & Vaughan, N. D. (2008). Blended learning in higher education: frameworks, principles, and practices. Jossey-Bass.
4. Kuh, G. D. (2009). What student affairs professionals need to know about student engagement. Journal of College Student Development, 50(6), 683-706.
5. Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones, K. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education.
6. Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. H. (2002). Motivation in education: Theory, research, and applications. Pearson Education.
7. Wang, A. I. (2015). The wear out effect of a game-based student response system. Computers & Education, 82, 217-227.
8. Zimmerman, B. J. (2002). Becoming a self-regulated learner: An overview. Theory into Practice, 41(2), 64-70.
9. Yuan, H., & Kim, H. (2020). Digital badging as a motivator for online student engagement. Journal of Educational Technology Development and Exchange, 13(1), 45-60.
10. Shuell, T. J. (1996). Cognitive Task Analysis: The development of a methodology for understanding student learning. University of Wisconsin.