This study compared electronic mail, traditional, and combination approaches for teaching graduate introductory statistics classes. The electronic course that was the focus of this study was offered in fall terms of 1995 through 1999. There were 23 participants in the electronic only classes, 69 in the traditional only classes, and 27 in the combination classes, with a majority membership of white females in all classes. Multiple choice pretests and posttests were given. An analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was run using posttest scores as the response variable and pretest scores as the covariate. Random selection was not possible since participation in any version of the course was optional. Normality and homoscedasticty across all groups were verified. Homogeneity of regression was observed in scatterplots of pretest scores versus posttest scores and their trend lines by treatment and control groups. Therefore, the assumptions required for ANCOVA seemed to be reasonably well met. The test indicated that the null hypothesis of no statistically significant difference among the traditional, electronic, and both traditional and electronic classes' scores could not be rejected at the 0.05 level, with an effect size of f=0, a negligible effect according to J. Cohen. It is concluded that offering the course through electronic mail or a combination of electronic mail and the traditional approach did not appear to hinder the performance of the students, to the extent measured by the multiple-choice tests. Attachments include the ANCOVA report and a course description and syllabus. (Contains 26 references.) (SLD)