Using U‐Pace instruction to improve the academic performance of economically disadvantaged undergraduates

Abstract

This study was undertaken to evaluate whether the student success associated with the U-Pace instructional approach, which integrates mastery-based learning with proactive instructor support in an online learning environment, would replicate for both economically disadvantaged students and students who are not economically disadvantaged. Undergraduates were enrolled in U-Pace (intervention) or comparison sections of a gateway course at two universities with different learning management systems. Course content was held constant. At both universities, intervention students earned a significantly greater percentage of objectively determined final grades of A or B. This academic success was found for both economically disadvantaged intervention students and intervention students who were not economically disadvantaged. Improvement from the beginning to the end of the semester in intervention students' rate of mastering concepts was found at University 1, but not at University 2. The assessment of learning conducted at University 1, independent of final course grades, showed that intervention students scored significantly higher on the proctored cumulative exam than comparison students. Findings suggest that the U-Pace instructional intervention holds promise for increasing the success of undergraduates regardless of economic status.

Randomized controlled trials of U‐Pace instruction: Outcomes in two gateway courses

“…Consequently, the efficacy of U‐Pace instruction for at‐risk students and students not at‐risk could be determined. The results not only confirm previous findings of greater academic success and greater learning associated with U‐Pace instruction (Fleming et al, ; Reddy et al, ; 2013) but also clearly demonstrate that U‐Pace instruction produces greater learning and greater academic success than conventional face‐to‐face instruction. Further, the findings of this research reveal that these student outcomes generalize across courses in two disciplines for both students at‐risk for college noncompletion and students not at‐risk, providing strong support for the efficacy of U‐Pace instruction.…”

“…Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were conducted to rigorously evaluate the efficacy of U‐Pace instruction in the contexts of introductory sociology and introductory political science. Although previous research has not examined U‐Pace instruction's efficacy in a gateway course other than introductory psychology (Fleming et al, ; Reddy et al, ), U‐Pace instruction's empirical grounding supports the assertion that U‐Pace instruction would produce greater academic success for students across course/discipline. Individualized mastery learning courses have been used to improve student outcomes in diverse subject areas (e.g., Block & Burns, ; Kulik, Kulik, & Bangert‐Drowns, ; Rae & Samuels, ; Svenningsen & Pear, ), and proactive instructor support could be applied in a variety of academic disciplines and educational settings.…”

“…Previous research has shown U‐Pace instruction to be successful when implemented with students in introduction to psychology courses. A significantly greater percentage of U‐Pace students was found to earn final grades of A or B compared with students in the conventionally taught face‐to‐face sections of the course (Fleming et al, ; Reddy et al, ). Further, compared with conventionally taught introduction to psychology students, U‐Pace students also scored significantly higher on cumulative exams measuring core course concepts, suggesting better retention of course material for students in U‐Pace instruction (Fleming et al, ; Reddy et al, ).…”

“…A significantly greater percentage of U‐Pace students was found to earn final grades of A or B compared with students in the conventionally taught face‐to‐face sections of the course (Fleming et al, ; Reddy et al, ). Further, compared with conventionally taught introduction to psychology students, U‐Pace students also scored significantly higher on cumulative exams measuring core course concepts, suggesting better retention of course material for students in U‐Pace instruction (Fleming et al, ; Reddy et al, ). Introduction to psychology was chosen as the course context for the initial studies of U‐Pace instruction because this gateway course enrols a large number of first‐year students and students from a variety of academic disciplines (Adelman, ).…”

Increasing Undergraduate Success: A Randomized Controlled Trial of U-Pace Instruction

“…In Fleming et al (2016), random assignment of undergraduates to instructional condition occurred at one of the two institutions in the study, but as in the two previous studies, U-Pace was only compared to face-to-face instruction. It was found that U-Pace instruction was associated with a greater percentage of final grades of A or B at both universities, located in geographically distinct areas, but the improvement in rate of content mastery for U-Pace students across the semester was found at only one of the two institutions.…”