부산대학교 도서관

The purpose of this quasi-experimental study was to compare the effects of new developmental statistics-based courses to traditional algebra-based developmental courses. The study used extant data from eight institutions and a matched sample of 2,041 students (Treatment, N = 748; Comparison, N = 1,293). All students enrolled in a treatment or comparison course in the 2017-18 school year and had not declared science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) majors. After adjusting for covariates, evidence was found that treatment courses positively influenced whether students passed developmental math ([beta]= 0.083, p<0.001). Seventy-seven percent of treatment students passed developmental math compared to sixty-nine percent of comparison students who did. Treatment students were also more likely to enroll in a subsequent credit-bearing math course than comparison students ([beta]= 0.141, p<0.001). Forty-nine percent of treatment students enrolled in credit-bearing math, relative to 34 percent of comparison students who did. Once enrolled in a credit-bearing math course, treatment students successfully passed at similar rate as comparison students (p=0.601). Taking the treatment or comparison course did not significantly predict whether students remained continuously enrolled and/or graduated during the study (p=0.711). The study concluded that the treatment courses facilitated students' ability to pass developmental math and enroll in credit-bearing math courses.