Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorJudd, Eunice C.,en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-08-16T12:29:07Z
dc.date.available2013-08-16T12:29:07Z
dc.date.issued1984en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11244/5257
dc.description.abstractConclusions. The findings based on the two sets of test data were mixed. Student achievement, measured by the TUCE scores, was significantly increased by the instructional objective treatment; but a significant difference did not exist according to an analysis of the teacher-made test scores. Student achievement, measured by the teacher-made test scores, was significantly increased by conventional classroom instruction; but a significant difference did not exist according to an analysis of the TUCE scores. An analysis of the TUCE scores indicated that student achievement was significantly increased by the use of instructional objectives with programmed instruction.en_US
dc.description.abstractPurpose. The major purpose of this study was to discover if specific instructional objectives are more effective in terms of student achievement in elementary microeconomics when used with programmed instruction or conventional instruction.en_US
dc.description.abstractOne implication of this investigation is that a variety of instructional modes should be offered to the economics student. The student should be encouraged to match instructional methodology to preferential learning patterns.en_US
dc.description.abstractTwo testing instruments were administered to measure student achievement: (1) the Revised Test of Understanding in College Economics, and (2) a teacher-made test.en_US
dc.description.abstractProcedures. The experiment was conducted at Oscar Rose Junior College, Midwest City, Oklahoma, during the spring semester, 1982. The subjects were 88 students in four sections of Principles of Microeconomics. Each section was randomly assigned to an instructional method and to an experimental treatment or control category. The experimental treatment consisted of distributing study-related lists of instructional objectives. The instructor showed the students how to incorporate the objectives into their study routine, frequently demonstrated the relevancy of the objectives to classroom activities and study assignments, and purposely pointed out the relationship between the objectives and the questions on unit tests.en_US
dc.description.abstractMethod of Analysis. Six major hypotheses were tested. Analysis of covariance was performed on the post-test scores of the TUCE test and the teacher-made test; GPA scores were used as the covariate representing prior academic achievement. Eight subhypotheses were tested; Duncan's Multiple Range Test as performed on the groups means.en_US
dc.format.extentix, 173 leaves ;en_US
dc.subjectEducation, Curriculum and Instruction.en_US
dc.titleA comparison of the effect of instructional objectives on the achievement of community college students who study elementary microeconomics under two modes of instruction /en_US
dc.title.alternativeA comparison of the effect of instructional objectives on the achievement of community college students ...en_US
dc.typeThesisen_US
dc.thesis.degreePh.D.en_US
dc.thesis.degreeDisciplineJeannine Rainbolt College of Educationen_US
dc.noteSource: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 45-07, Section: A, page: 1976.en_US
ou.identifier(UMI)AAI8423981en_US
ou.groupJeannine Rainbolt College of Education


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record