A Quasi-Experimental Comparison Of Spreadsheet- And Classroom-Based Statistics Tutorials

http://sap.sagepub.com/
South African Journal of Psychology
http://sap.sagepub.com/content/43/1/34
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0081246312474416
2013 43: 34
Warren King, Susan Malcolm-Smith, Jacob Jaftha, Johann Louw and Colin Tredoux
tutorials
A quasi-experimental comparison of spreadsheet- and classroom-based statistics
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Psychological Society of South Africa
can be found at:
Additional services and information for
http://sap.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Email Alerts:
http://sap.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Permissions:
http://sap.sagepub.com/content/43/1/34.refs.html
Citations:
at SAGE Publications on March 18, 2013
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

What is This?
- Mar 1, 2013
Version of Record
>>
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

South African Journal of Psychology 43(1) 34–45 © The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0081246312474416 sap.sagepub.com
A quasi-experimental comparison of
spreadsheet- and classroom-based
statistics tutorials
Warren King, Susan Malcolm-Smith, Jacob
Jaftha, Johann Louw and Colin Tredoux
Abstract
This article reports an evaluation of a set of eight spreadsheet-based tutorials developed for
the statistics portion of an undergraduate psychology research methods course. The evaluation
involved a quasi-experimental comparison of spreadsheet-based and traditional classroom
teaching methods in a course that gave equal teaching time to both solutions, and took the
unique approach of investigating both outcomes-based and attitudinal measures in the same
study. Compared to traditional pen-and-paper-based tutorials, the spreadsheet-based tutorials
improved student outcomes-based performance on an end-of-semester test. After using the
spreadsheet-based tutorials, student attitudes towards the course material were found to have
improved on some, but not all, of the measures used. Taken together, these results indicate that
spreadsheet-based tutorials may be advantageous in the teaching of statistics, although effect sizes
were small to moderate.
Keywords
Attitudes, Excel, outcomes, spreadsheets, statistics, teaching, tutorials
The advantages of using spreadsheets as a tool in teaching statistics have been expounded for more
than 25 years (e.g., Soper & Lee, 1985). Although many authors have advocated the use of spread-
sheet-based teaching (e.g., Beare, 1993; Crowe & Zand, 2000, 2001; Drier, 2001; Frith, Jaftha, &
Prince, 2004), opinion is divided on whether spreadsheet programs are a useful tool to perform and
teach statistics. Many authors favour spreadsheet programs due to the numerous advantages they
afford when used in statistics teaching (e.g., Beare, 1993; Drier, 2001; Hall, 1995; Hunt, 1995;
Warner & Meehan, 2001), although other authors are more critical, primarily due to the
University of Cape Town, South Africa
Corresponding author:
Warren King, Department of Psychology, University of Cape Town, Private Bag, Rondebosch, Cape Town 7701, South
Africa.
Email: warren.g.king@gmail.com
474416SAP43110.1177/0081246312474416South African Journal of PsychologyKing et al.
2013
Article
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

King et al. 35
weaknesses of Excel in performing certain statistical functions (e.g., Dell’Omodarme & Valle,
2006; McCullough & Wilson, 1999; Nash, 2008; Teixeira, Rosa, & Calapez, 2009; Yalta, 2008).
In general, positive results in favour of spreadsheet-based teaching have been found by previous
empirical studies using outcomes-based measures. Flynn, Concannon, and Campbell (2006) exam-
ined the impact of spreadsheet-based assessments on undergraduate students, and discovered that
the more spreadsheet-based assessments that were completed, the greater the impact on the course
outcome. The study suffered from confounding students’ motivation with students’ use of technol-
ogy, however, as participation in the assessments was voluntary.
A study that used interactive spreadsheet-based instruction as an adjunct to classroom teaching
(Frith et al., 2004) found that such instruction could achieve some impact on the teaching of fun-
damental mathematical and statistical concepts. The authors concluded, ‘It appears that while the
lecture room tutorial taught the students how to calculate the various statistics, the computer tuto-
rial was more effective in giving them an understanding of the concepts and they retained better
what they had learned’(p. 163). Despite being one of the few studies to involve a direct comparison
of classroom- and spreadsheet-based teaching, the scope was limited (N = 67), and a pre/post-test
method with no proper within-subjects control was employed.
Positive results from spreadsheet-based teaching have not always been achieved. Calder,
Brown, Handley, and Darby (2005) found that although a spreadsheet-based teaching approach led
more directly to an algebraic thinking process, a classroom-based approach elicited more rigorous
descriptions of the processes involved in mathematical problem-solving and thinking. Mills (2002)
has also noted that even though software may enable students to master the mechanics of data
analysis, they may still find abstract statistical concepts difficult to understand.
Despite the repeated emphasis on the importance of attitudes towards statistics in the statistics
teaching literature (Garfield & Ben-Zvi, 2007), there are few studies of spreadsheet-based teaching
that have included attitudinal measures. Most studies are based on other types of technologies,
such as those of Meletiou, Myers, and Lee (1999), and Meletiou-Mavrotheris, Lee, and Fouladis
(2007). Both these studies found that students taught with technologically based activities experi-
enced increased enjoyment and appreciation of statistics, despite negative attitudes at the begin-
ning of the course, compared to students taught using traditional teaching methods.
Ware and Chastain (1989), in a study concerning the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS; a software program for quantitative data analysis), discovered that students in the com-
puter-assisted group had more favourable attitudes towards statistics than those who did not use the
computer. A more recent study (Schuyten & Dekeyser, 1996) noted a minimal impact of using
SPSS on students’ attitudes towards statistics, demonstrating that more positive attitudes are not
always obtained.
We could find only one study that dealt with spreadsheet-based statistics teaching, and that also
used attitudinal measures. This study was by Warner and Meehan (2001), who obtained favourable
student ratings for a set of Excel-based homework assignments, although no comparison with tradi-
tional pen-and-paper-based (PAP) assignments was done. The lack of focus on attitudinal outcomes
in the literature is surprising given that such outcomes may be more diagnostic than performance
measures of the value of computer technology in introductory courses, where a major task of the
educator is to overcome anxiety about performance in an unfamiliar field (Crowe & Zand, 2000).
No study has yet, to the best of our knowledge, investigated both outcomes-based and attitudi-
nal measures in a comparison of spreadsheet-based and traditional PAP statistics teaching methods,
in a course that gave equal teaching time to both solutions. This would allow all students in the
course to gain any potential benefits from either method of instruction, while equally shielding
them from any potential detriments. The aims of this study were therefore twofold: First, to
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

36 South African Journal of Psychology 43(1)
determine whether any differences resulted from using spreadsheet as opposed to PAP tutorials, as
measured by standard course outcome measures; and second, to determine whether any differences
between these two teaching methods were evident, as measured by attitudinal measures. Due to the
often-conflicting results obtained in previous studies, for both outcomes-based and attitudinal
measures, no specific hypotheses regarding the superiority of one form of teaching over the other
were made.
Method
Participants
Participants were a class (N = 169) of the second-year research methods course in the Department
of Psychology at the University of Cape Town (UCT). The average age was 19 years, with 73% of
students being female and 27% male. The class was not demographically different from other
cohorts in the recent past. Most students were familiar with the use of Excel as this is part of the
first-year psychology curriculum. Students were not aware that they were participating in the
experiment, and were debriefed at the end of the semester.
Informed consent was not sought, but this is in line with American Psychological Association
(APA) ethical guidelines, which state that informed consent may be dispensed with where research
involves the study of normal educational practices and curricula, and is unlikely to cause harm to
participants (APA, 2010). As the course was compulsory for a major in psychology, students had
to complete the course in any case.
Materials
Spreadsheet-based tutorials (SBTs). One spreadsheet-based tutorial was developed for each of the
eight topics taught: central tendency and variability; probability; the normal distribution; regres-
sion; correlation; the sampling distribution; hypothesis testing; and t tests. Examples of sheets from
the tutorials on t tests and the normal distribution are depicted in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. One
senior tutor was available during tutorials to deal with questions related to the course material. Two
junior tutors were available to deal with software-related issues.
The tutorials included extensive explanations of the relevant concepts, demonstrations of the
computations required, and, in most cases, interactive demonstrations of the concepts in the form
of animations and simulations. Students interacted with the tutorials by performing actions such as
typing in answers to theoretical and practical questions, selecting among multiple choice response
options from drop-down boxes, and performing calculations using the built-in statistical functions
of Excel. A basic knowledge of Excel is required to use the tutorials, and all knowledge of statisti-
cal and other Excel functions is explained in the SBTs themselves.
The SBTs were developed with Microsoft Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) using the
Microsoft Object Model; thus, developing a set of SBTs requires the appropriate programming
knowledge in VBA. Although the average academic is unlikely to have such knowledge, it should
be available in most computer science departments.
Pen-and-paper-based (PAP) tutorials. These were taken from the supplementary materials provided
with the course textbook (Tredoux & Durrheim, 2002). These are a set of worksheet problems that
were provided to students ahead of the tutorial, where a senior tutor worked with the students as
they solved the problems using pen and paper.
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

King et al. 37
Design
Students signed up to a tutorial group in one of two streams, with each tutorial group randomly
assigned to either stream. Stream A received tutorial 1 in spreadsheet form, tutorial 2 in pen-and-
paper form, and continued alternating forms in this order (i.e. S-P-S-P-S-P-S-P; S = SBT, P = PAP
tutorial). Stream B received the tutorials in the opposite order (i.e. P-S-P-S-P-S-P-S). Students
signed up to tutorial groups based on their scheduling needs, blind to their assigned stream. The
study design was therefore quasi-experimental.
Procedure
Ethical clearance was obtained from the departmental ethics committee prior to commencement of
the study, which ran for the entire first teaching semester. To prevent students in either stream from
being advantaged or disadvantaged in terms of their learning, each stream received instruction in
both SBT and PAP form, with a new tutorial occurring every week. All tutorial sessions ran for 120
Figure 1. Example of a sheet from the Excel tutorial on t tests.
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

min, with both types typically taking 150–180 min to complete. The same senior tutors presented
both tutorial types. Students were expected to complete any worksheets they could not finish in
their own time, and to submit them for course credit.
Measures
Attitudinal measures. Seven items were included in an end-of-semester test. Item 1 was used to
determine which method of instruction was found to be more helpful in general, and Item 2 was
used to determine whether students felt that some material was better suited to one tutorial type
over the other. Item 3 was used to establish whether students used both tutorial types to study for
all sections of the course, for some sections, or only for the context in which they learned each
section. This item measured preferences for using the material to study from, as well as potential
contamination across streams and conditions. Contamination was possible as both tutorial types
were made available online, as it was regarded as unethical to withhold any form of the tutorials
from students. The next four items were Likert-type (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree),
and determined how strongly students felt the laboratory (Item 4) and classroom tutors to be pre-
pared and helpful (Item 5), as well as how strongly they felt the laboratory (Item 6) and classroom
tutorials (Item 7) provided instruction and preparation for the test.
Figure 2. Example of a sheet from the Excel tutorial on the normal distribution.
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

King et al. 39
After each individual tutorial, students completed five Likert-type items (also with 1 = strongly
disagree to 4 = strongly agree) measuring attitudes towards the course material, the relative per-
ceived difficulty of the material, and the perceived usefulness of the tutorial. Continuous assess-
ment was preferred in order to overcome attitudes towards the final tutorial dominating an
end-of-course survey.
Outcomes-based measure. This was total scores on an end-of-semester test, which covered all
topic areas taught and was for 100 marks. Students completed each section in the respective for-
mat in which it was taught to them (i.e. sections taught using SBTs were completed using Excel,
and sections taught in the classroom were completed on pen-and-paper). Half the questions were
therefore completed using Excel, and half using pen-and-paper. As the test counted significantly
towards their overall mark, students were motivated to prepare thoroughly. The test contained a
combination of theoretical and practical questions, with part marks being awarded for various
steps in completing calculations, even if the final answer was not correct. The test was written in
a university computer laboratory under examination conditions, with students allotted 2 h for its
completion.
Results
Attitudes
An alpha level of .05 was used for all analyses. Responses for Items 1–3 of the survey in the
end-of-semester test (see the ‘Measures’ sub-section earlier in the article) were analysed using
chi-squared goodness-of-fit tests. The sample size for each analysis differs slightly due to miss-
ing data from students who did not answer certain items. Expected frequencies were derived
assuming equal proportions of students would fall into each of three categories, as there was no
a priori reason to expect any particular percentage of students to favour one response category
over another.
For Item 1, 33.14% (56) of the students indicated that they found the SBTs more helpful in
general, 30.18% (51) found the PAP tutorials more helpful, and 28.40% (48) found both tutorial
types helpful. Differences between these and expected frequencies were not statistically signifi-
cant, χ2(2, N = 155) = 0.63, p = .729, Cramer’s φ = 0.04.
The preferences for each type of tutorial (as measured by Item 2) were as follows: A preference
for having only SBTs was expressed by 32.54% (55) of the students, a preference for only PAP
tutorials was expressed by the least number of students – 22.49% (38), and the most popular prefer-
ence was for particular spreadsheet and particular PAP tutorials, which was expressed by 36.09%
(61) of students. Differences between these and expected frequencies approached statistical sig-
nificance, χ2(2, N = 154) = 5.55, p = .062, Cramer’s φ = 0.13.
Responses to Item 3 indicated that the materials were used only in context by 33.27% (57) of the
students, with 33.14% (56) using both materials for some sections. The least number of students,
23.08% (39), used both materials for all sections. Differences between the observed and expected
frequencies were not statistically significant, χ2(2, N = 152) = 4.04, p = .133, Cramer’s φ = 0.12.
Wilcoxon tests were used to evaluate responses on the Likert-type items in the end-of-semester
test. Students perceived the laboratory tutors as more prepared and helpful than the classroom
tutors (z = 3.83, p < .001; mean rank in favour of laboratory tutors = 48.58; mean rank in favour of
classroom tutors = 39.02), but did not feel that the SBTs provided better instruction and preparation
for the test than the PAP tutorials (z = 0.18, p = .856; mean rank in favour of SBTs = 57.73; mean
rank in favour of PAP tutorials = 62.55).
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

For the items completed after each individual tutorial, Cronbach’s α ranged from .77 (adminis-
tration after the seventh tutorial) to .99 (administration after the first tutorial), indicating a moder-
ate to high degree of reliability. The results from the five items were summed and averaged. A
two-tailed dependent samples t test indicated that students had a more positive attitude towards the
material when tutorials were conducted using SBTs (M = 25.59, standard deviation [SD] = 7.49)
compared to PAP tutorials (M = 22.75, SD = 10.42), t(168) = 4.08, p < .01, d = 0.31, r = .53. Effect
size was calculated using Equation 3 in Dunlap, Cortina, Vaslow, and Burke (1996).
Outcomes-based performance
An alpha level of .05 was used for all analyses. A mixed-designs analysis of variance (ANOVA)
with type of tutorial as the within-subjects variable and stream (A or B) as the between-subjects
variable was run to examine scores on the end-of-semester test. Skewness values indicated the data
to be reasonably normally distributed for both the computer-based (−0.022) and PAP (0.316) sec-
tions of the test. Since the sample sizes were considerably different across streams (120 and 49,
respectively), a combination of the complex sampling algorithm in SPSS, and the general linear
model (GLM) was used, dropping 71 cases from the larger group, and running the GLM 1000
times with the bootstrap sample. The average F-ratio estimate for stream was not statistically sig-
nificant, F(1, 96) = 1.86, p = .267, ηp
2 = 0.02, as was the estimate for the interaction between
stream and type of tutorial, F(1, 96) = 2.46, p = .210, ηp
2 = 0.03. The average F-ratio estimate for
type of tutorial was statistically significant, F(1, 96) = 13.96, p < .001, ηp
2 = 0.13, with students
performing better on the computer-based compared to the PAP section of the test (see Table 1).
Increased pass rates were also evident for the computer-based section (with a pass mark being
≥25/50). Specifically, 59.80% of students passed this section, whereas 39.60% of students passed
the PAP section.
A mixed-designs ANOVA was also run using only students who used the materials in context,
to examine whether contamination of experimental conditions had any effect on the results. Six
extreme outliers were detected and subsequently removed. Skewness values after deletion of the
outliers indicated the data to be reasonably normally distributed for both the computer-based
(−0.295) and PAP (0.460) sections of the test. A similar bootstrapping procedure as described
above was used, again due to disparity in sample size (n = 34 for stream A; n = 17 for stream B),
but now with 17 cases from stream A removed each time. The same pattern of results was evident
as for the total sample: The average F-ratio estimate for stream was not statistically significant,
F(1, 32) = 3.08, p = .151, ηp
2 = 0.09, as was the estimate for the interaction between stream and
type of tutorial, F(1, 32) = 0.45, p = .593, ηp
2 = 0.01, while the average F-ratio estimate for type of
tutorial was statistically significant, F(1, 32) = 6.48, p = .025, ηp
2 = 0.16. Students again performed
better on the computer-based section, compared to the PAP section of the test (see Table 2).
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for end-of-semester test results for the total sample.
Stream N Spreadsheet-based
section (SD)
Pen-and-paper-based
section (SD)
A 120 25.92 (6.43) 24.03 (10.55)
B 49 25.17 (9.48) 20.84 (8.52)
Total 169 25.69 (7.42) 23.10 (10.09)
The maximum possible score obtainable for either the spreadsheet- or pen-and-paper-based sections of the test was 50.
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

King et al. 41
Increased pass rates were again evident for the computer-based section, with 54.90% of students
passing this section, whereas 25.50% of students passed the PAP section.
Discussion
The finding that the SBTs resulted in better outcomes-based performance is consistent with the
results of previous similar studies (e.g. Flynn et al., 2006; Frith et al., 2004), with the use of an
actual course test in this study increasing the validity of the findings. Although the percentage
increase in marks for the computer-based section compared to the PAP section of the test was
small, a greater percentage of students in this study passed the former section compared to the lat-
ter, indicating that increased pass rates may potentially be achieved by using SBTs.
Although the outcomes-based results are in favour of the SBTs, two caveats should be noted.
First, although many authors (e.g. Beare, 1993; Drier, 2001; Flynn et al., 2006; Frith et al., 2004;
Hall, 1995) have proffered processes that may explain improved outcomes-based performance
when using spreadsheet programs to teach statistics (e.g. more realistic and interactive examples,
simulation-based activities improving understanding, etc.), these processes were not directly inves-
tigated in this study. The precise reasons for the better test performance of students therefore
remain unknown. Future research could focus more directly on the processes and/or mechanisms
leading to improved outcomes-based performance when using SBTs.
Second, given the small effect sizes in this study, the improved test scores may be due to simple
factors such as fewer errors in calculations when tests are done on computer (Moore, 1997;
Schuyten & Dekeyser, 1996). Another possible explanation is that more questions could be com-
pleted in the test due to the faster calculation speed provided by computers (Crowe & Zand, 2000).
Future studies that examine factors such as number of calculation errors made, time taken to com-
plete calculations, and the like would be enlightening. A study using purely theoretical questions
on a test would control for these factors; however, this would neglect the important practical com-
ponent of statistics. Another factor contributing to improved performance may be that as the test
was written in the computer laboratory, the performance on the computer-based section was
enhanced as the conditions of the test matched more closely with the conditions of the learning
environment in which the SBTs were done.
For the attitudinal data, mixed results were obtained. The two positive findings were as follows:
(a) The laboratory tutors were perceived as being more prepared and helpful than the classroom
tutors; and (b) students had a more positive attitude towards the course material when it was taught
using SBTs. With regards to the first finding, this result is unlikely to be attributable to shortcom-
ings of the classroom tutors, as those same senior tutors presented both tutorial types. As the SBTs
were designed to incorporate some of the explanation of concepts traditionally given in the
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for end-of-semester test results for students using the materials only in
context.
Stream n Spreadsheet-based
section (SD)
Pen-and-paper-based
section (SD)
A 34 24.56 (6.73) 21.71 (8.24)
B 17 21.85 (8.84) 17.41 (5.51)
Total 51 23.66 (7.52) 20.27 (7.66)
The maximum possible score obtainable for either the spreadsheet- or pen-and-paper-based sections of the test was 50.
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

classroom setting, it may be that the laboratory tutors were perceived as more prepared and helpful
as some of the burden of teaching, and hence preparation, is reduced when using SBTs. Given that
one reason for developing our SBTs was to counter the large student-to-tutor ratio, it may also be
that tutors in the laboratory tutorials are able to engage with students in more interactions of greater
quality than in the classroom, whereas in the latter environment, the tutor is more limited in the
amount of time he or she can spend with any one student.
It is possible that this result could be because there were three tutors in the laboratory sessions
and only one in the classroom sessions. Although the two junior tutors in the laboratory sessions
were supposed to answer only software-related questions, we could not explicitly control the pos-
sibility that they might answer questions on the course material. The tutors are unlikely to have
answered a large number of these questions, however, as their knowledge of the material was lim-
ited. The second finding, of a more positive attitude towards the course material, is consistent with
previous studies on computer-assisted statistics instruction in general, such as those of Meletiou
et al. (1999), Meletiou-Mavrotheris et al. (2007), and Ware and Chastain (1989), as well as the
study by Warner and Meehan (2001) on SBTs, in particular.
The three results from this study that indicated no difference in attitude were as follows: (a) No
preference for either type of tutorial on the helpfulness of the tutorial material in general; (b) no
preference for either type of tutorial regarding the suitability of some of the course material to a
particular method of instruction; and (c) a large number of students using both tutorial types for at
least some sections of the course. This set of findings may indicate a lack of preference and are
similar to those of Schuyten and Dekeyser (1996), who noted a minimal impact of computer-
assisted instruction on attitudes.
In terms of the finding of students using both tutorial types to prepare for the test, another expla-
nation besides lack of preference is that those students using both materials may be attempting to
prepare as thoroughly as possible. When both types of materials are available, students may be
motivated to use both from fear that they are being deprived of information by only using one tuto-
rial type. As anxiety often surrounds statistics courses (Crowe & Zand, 2001), this explanation
should not be discounted, although in the absence of qualitative explanations from the students, it is
not possible to say for certain which possibility is correct, or whether there are any other reasons for
students using both materials. A study comparing a group receiving only SBT instruction with a
group receiving only traditional classes, where attendance is voluntary and outcomes are not directly
linked to formal marks, may help prevent cross-contamination between conditions in future.
Taken together with the two aforementioned positive findings, the attitudinal results as a whole
indicate that although attitudinal differences did not always emerge, the two differences that did
emerge were both in favour of the SBTs. Engendering better student attitudes towards even a few
aspects of statistics may be a major advantage of SBTs, since the goal of improving attitudes is
often seen as an implicit objective of introductory statistics courses (Schau, 2003).
With regard to the limitations of the study, the study did not have a random assignment of stu-
dents to each of the two teaching streams. Although a design employing true random assignment
would have been preferable, within the confines of a semester-long course within a university where
students take many different course combinations, it was neither practical nor possible to assign
students randomly to streams, as this would have led to lecture and tutorial clashes for students.
As the same senior tutors taught both streams, the only difference between streams was the
order in which students did the two types of tutorial, with this order being counterbalanced. It is
therefore unlikely that the lack of random assignment of students to a stream compromised the
results, as both main effects for stream and both interaction effects between stream and type of
tutorial failed to reach statistical significance. A direct comparison between a stream taught
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

King et al. 43
exclusively using SBTs and a stream taught exclusively using PAP tutorials was not ethically pos-
sible, given the use of an actual course test as the outcomes-based measure. This view is in
accordance with certain previous studies (e.g. Frith et al., 2004) that have found an advantage of
spreadsheet-based teaching over traditional teaching methods. Such a comparison could therefore
have led, potentially, to one group of students being disadvantaged in terms of their preparation
for the test. Potential selection bias is also possible when comparing two groups that receive dif-
ferent treatments (Basturk, 2005).
Finally, the results of this study are limited in generalisability to other contexts where different
applications may be used. However, a set of SBTs similar to the ones used in this study have been
used for the UCT Mathematics curriculum and have also been shown to be more effective empiri-
cally than classroom-based tutorials alone (see Frith et al., 2004).
Conclusion
Overall, the results of this study concur with most previous research on the efficacy of using SBTs
to teach statistics. Compared to traditional PAP methods, SBTs may improve students’ marks, pass
rates, and their attitude towards aspects of the course material.Aword of caution is in order though,
bearing in mind the small effect sizes in this study as well as positive findings on only some of the
attitudinal measures; thus, the utility of SBTs may have been overstated in previous research.
Moreover, spreadsheet-based applications that are too difficult or frustrating for students to interact
with may lead to less encouraging results.
It was also not possible to determine whether any differences occurred due to the particular
content of the SBTs and PAP tutorials, which cannot be compared for equivalency, or whether dif-
ferences arose because one type of tutorial is presented in a high-technology medium and the other
is not. Despite these limitations, the present set of results indicates that using SBTs to teach statis-
tics may have positive, although modest, effects on both test scores and attitudes towards statistics,
especially since the PAP tutorials did not emerge more favourably in any comparison.
Acknowledgment
Thank you to Vera Frith who assisted in the development of some of the spreadsheet-based tutorials.
Declaration of conflicting interests
The authors declare that they do not have any conflict of interest.
Funding
This work was made possible by generous funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation. The Foundation
had no involvement in the study design, data collection, and decision to submit for publication.
References
American Psychological Association (APA). (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/principles.pdf
Basturk, R. (2005). The effectiveness of computer-assisted instruction in teaching introductory statistics.
Educational Technology & Society, 8(2), 170–178.
Beare, R. (1993). How spreadsheets can aid a variety of mathematical learning activities from primary to
tertiary level. In B. Jaworski (Ed.), Technology in mathematics teaching: A bridge between teaching and
learning (pp. 117–124). Birmingham, UK: University of Birmingham.
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

Calder, N., Brown, T., Handley, U., & Darby, S. (2005). Varying pedagogical filters: Forming conjectures
through a spreadsheet lens. In D. Hewitt (Ed.), Proceedings of the British Society for Research into
Learning Mathematics, 25(3), pp. 27–32.
Crowe, D., & Zand, H. (2000). Computers and undergraduate mathematics 1: Setting the scene. Computers
& Education, 35, 95–121.
Crowe, D., & Zand, H. (2001). Computers and undergraduate mathematics 2: On the desktop. Computers &
Education, 37, 317–344.
Dell’Omodarme, M., & Valle, G. (2006). Teaching statistics with Excel and R. Retrieved from http://arxiv.
org/ftp/physics/papers/0601/0601083.pdf
Drier, H. S. (2001). Teaching and learning mathematics with interactive spreadsheets. School Science and
Mathematics, 101, 170–179.
Dunlap, W. P., Cortina, J. M., Vaslow, J. B., & Burke, M. J. (1996). Meta-analysis of experiments with
matched groups or repeated measures designs. Psychological Methods, 1, 170–177.
Flynn, A., Concannon, F., & Campbell, M. (2006). An evaluation of undergraduate students’ online assess-
ment performances. Advanced Technology for Learning, 3(1), 15–21.
Frith, V., Jaftha, J., & Prince, R. N. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of interactive computer tutorials for
an undergraduate mathematical literacy course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35, 159–171.
Garfield, J., & Ben-Zvi, D. (2007). How students learn statistics revisited: A current review of research on
teaching and learning statistics. International Statistical Review, 75, 372–396.
Hall, A. G. (1995). A workshop approach using spreadsheets for the teaching of statistics and probability.
Computers & Education, 25, 5–12.
Hunt, N. (1995). Teaching statistical concepts using spreadsheets. Proceedings of the 1995 Conference of the
Association of Statistics Lecturers in Universities. Retrieved from http://www.coventry.ac.uk/ec//~nhunt/
ASLU.htm
McCullough, B. D., & Wilson, B. (1999). On the accuracy of statistical procedures in Microsoft Excel 97.
Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 31, 27–37.
Meletiou, M., Myers, M., & Lee, C. (1999). The role of technology in the introductory statistics class-
room: Reality and potential. In D. A. Thomas (Ed.), Proceedings of the International Conference on
Mathematics/Science Education and Technology (pp. 292–297). Charlottesville, VA: AACE.
Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Lee, C., & Fouladis, R. T. (2007). Introductory statistics, college student atti-
tudes and knowledge – A qualitative analysis of the impact of technology-based instruction. International
Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 38, 65–83.
Mills, J. D. (2002). Using computer simulation methods to teach statistics: A review of the literature. Journal
of Statistics Education, 10(1). Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/v10n1/mills.html
Moore, D. S. (1997). New pedagogy and new content: The case of statistics. International Statistical Review,
65, 123–165.
Nash, J. C. (2008). Teaching statistics with Excel 2007 and other spreadsheets. Computational Statistics &
Data Analysis, 52, 4602–4606.
Schau, C. (2003, August 3–7). Student attitudes: The ‘other’ important outcome in statistics education. Paper
presented at the American Statistical Association Joint Statistical Meetings, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved
from http://www.statlit.org/pdf/2003SchauASA.pdf
Schuyten, G., & Dekeyser, H. (1996). Computer software in statistics education: Student views on the impact
of a computer package on affection and cognition. In J. B. Garfield & G. Burrill (Eds.), Research on the
role of technology in teaching and learning statistics (pp. 207–217). Voorburg, The Netherlands: ISI.
Soper, J. B., & Lee, M. P. (1985). Spreadsheets in teaching statistics. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society:
Series D (The Statistician), 34, 317–321.
Teixeira, A., Rosa, A., & Calapez, T. (2009). Statistical power analysis with Microsoft Excel: Normal tests for
one or two means as a prelude to using non-central distributions to calculate power. Journal of Statistics
Education, 17(1). Retrieved from http://www.amstat.org/publications/jse/teixeira.html
Tredoux, C., & Durrheim, K., (Eds.) (2002). Numbers, hypotheses and conclusions: A course in statistics for
the social sciences. Cape Town, South Africa: UCT Press.
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

King et al. 45
Ware, M. E., & Chastain, J. D. (1989). Computer-assisted statistical analysis: A teaching innovation?
Teaching of Psychology, 16, 222–227.
Warner, C. B. C., & Meehan, A. M. (2001). Microsoft Excel as a tool for teaching basic statistics. Teaching
of Psychology, 28, 295–298.
Yalta, A. T. (2008). The accuracy of statistical distributions in Microsoft Excel 2007. Computational Statistics
& Data Analysis, 52, 4579–4586.
sap.sagepub.com
Downloaded from

A Quasi-Experimental Comparison Of Spreadsheet- And Classroom-Based Statistics Tutorials

More Related Content

Similar to A Quasi-Experimental Comparison Of Spreadsheet- And Classroom-Based Statistics Tutorials (20)

More from Karla Adamson (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

A Quasi-Experimental Comparison Of Spreadsheet- And Classroom-Based Statistics Tutorials