Televised lecture instruction produced no significant achievement-test differences versus traditional campus sections in a psychology and a biology course¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 1955 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? T-tests showed no significant differences between the sections in either course in standardized achievement tests. → Evans 1955

Evidence¶

Evans 1955¶

Evans, Richard I.; Roney, H. Burr; and McAdams, Walter J. (1955). An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Instruction and Audience Reaction to Programming an Educational Television Station. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 277-79. doi:10.1037/h0042123

q2 · i? · causal · r1

Quasi-experimental comparison at the University of Houston: in the psychology course 17 subjects took a TV-lecture only (correspondence) section, 96 a traditional campus lecture section, and 30 TV-lectures plus two weekly campus discussion periods; the biology course had matched traditional and TV-plus-discussion sections. The article reports "no significant differences betwee~ the sections" on standardized achievement tests; equivalence was not tested.

"Results: (a) T-tests showed no significant differences betwee~ the sections in e~ther course in standardized achievement tests."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Televised Navy indoctrination instruction produced no differences in achievement scores compared with conventional instruction — related
• A Facts About Science Test showed no significant differences between instruction types or ability levels, but below-average pupils preferred televised biology while above-average pupils preferred conventional instruction — related
• One biology test showed televised instruction significantly more effective than conventional instruction, with effects uniform across ability groups — reports the opposite
• Almost 90 percent of comparisons between television and conventional instruction showed no substantial differences in achievement or information gain — a broader claim this one bears on