|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Hartlep, Karen—Self-Reference and Instructor Self-Disclosure:
Is Gossip Easier to Remember? - Page 9
Exchanges: The On-line Journal of Teaching and Learning in the CSU
Procedure
The life-span class met for 90 minutes, three times per week for ten weeks, for a total of 30 class meetings. Mid-term exams occurred every tenth class meeting and covered material presented in class lectures and assigned textbook readings for the previous nine class meetings. Since the last portion of the course included a paper assignment and student presentations, I used only the first two mid-term exams and their associated class meetings in this study.
I used the first day of class to introduce the syllabus and familiarize the students to the pair-share technique, using a few practice examples. Also, the class following the first mid-term exam was devoted in part to a discussion of the exam. That left 16 full lectures, eight for each mid-term exam, that were actually part of the experimental manipulation.
For each class meeting, students viewed an outline of the day's lecture on a large screen at the front of the room. All of the outlines followed the same format, and simply listed the topics in the order in which they would be covered that day—without any further elaboration. I presented the lecture following the projected outline, but from a more extensive collection of notes that reflected one of the four lecture conditions. I randomly divided the 16 lectures into the four treatment conditions, four lectures per condition, with the exception that no two consecutive classes would use the same condition. Three exam questions for each lecture gave a total of 12 questions per each treatment condition.
For analysis, I calculated four separate totals for each student on each exam. I counted the number of correct answers the student got on each exam for the six questions from each treatment condition.
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
References |
|
|
Back to Research Articles
Back to Exchanges |
|
|
