TABLE 4.

Survey results: Course satisfaction by effect size.

Study	Survey items	nobservation	TC M (SD)	FC M (SD)	p	d
Wilson, 2013	Excellent course	TC = 2 classes of 20 to 25, FC = 2 classes of 20 to 25	3.85 (0.35)	4.40 (0.42)	n/a	1.42
Peterson, 2016	Overall quality of this course	TC = 12, FC = 21	4.00 (0.74)	4.71 (0.46)	<0.01	1.15
Bhagat et al., 2016	Satisfaction	TC = 41, FC = 41	2.96 (0.74)	3.66 (0.74)	<0.05	0.95
Peterson, 2016	Course was a significant contribution	TC = 12, FC = 21	3.83 (0.85)	4.48 (0.88)	0.047	0.75
Peterson, 2016	Course was well organized	TC = 12, FC = 21	4.67 (0.50)	4.81 (0.40)	0.37	0.31
Nielsen et al., 2018	Overall course rating	TC = 208, FC = 130	6.15 (1.25)	6.36 (1.14)	>0.05	0.18
Gundlach et al., 2015	Course rating	TC = 273, FC = 39	4.21 (0.75)	4.31 (0.69)	>0.05	0.14
Li et al., 2017	Course satisfaction score	TC = 45, FC = 75	91.69	103.42	<0.001	n/a
Touchton, 2015	Course mean	TC = 40, FC = 43	4.27	4.33	>0.05	n/a
Haughton and Kelly, 2015	Rating of course (Spring, 2013)	TC + FC = 231	2.93	3.17	0.08	n/a
Haughton and Kelly, 2015	Rating of course (Fall, 2013)	TC + FC = 250	2.73	2.81	0.98	n/a
Van Sickle, 2016	Overall, I rate the course as excellent	TC = 34, FC = 43	4.34 (0.74)	3.95 (1.06)	0.04	–0.43
DeSantis et al., 2015	Post-lesson feedback survey [It appeared that the lower the value, the higher the satisfaction]	TC = 21, FC = 26	2.36 (0.50)	2.72 (0.46)	0.01	–0.75

Bold values indicate significant results.