東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

Effects of Traditional versus Tactua...

Masera, Ronald M.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive-Whiteboard instruction on primary students' vocabulary achievement- and attitude-test scores.

紀錄類型:	書目-語言資料,印刷品 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	Effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive-Whiteboard instruction on primary students' vocabulary achievement- and attitude-test scores./
作者:	Masera, Ronald M.
面頁冊數:	140 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-09, Section: A, page: 3209.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International71-09A.
標題:	Education, Pedagogy. -
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3421863
ISBN:	9781124221090

Effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive-Whiteboard instruction on primary students' vocabulary achievement- and attitude-test scores.
Masera, Ronald M.

Effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive-Whiteboard instruction on primary students' vocabulary achievement- and attitude-test scores. - 140 p.

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-09, Section: A, page: 3209.

Thesis (Ed.D.)--St. John's University (New York), School of Education and Human Services, 2010.

This researcher examined the effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive Whiteboard instruction on short- and long-term word-recall and attitude-test scores of primary students. The sample included 87 children, 45 kindergarten and 42 first-grade students. Participants were 41 males and 46 females from a suburban elementary school in eastern Long Island, NY.

ISBN: 9781124221090Subjects--Topical Terms:

1669025
Education, Pedagogy.

Effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive-Whiteboard instruction on primary students' vocabulary achievement- and attitude-test scores.
LDR:03806nam 2200337 4500 001 1393685
005 20110406093029.5
008 130515s2010 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9781124221090
035 $a (UMI)AAI3421863
035 $a AAI3421863
040 $a UMI $c UMI
100 1 $a Masera, Ronald M. $3 1672248
245 1 0 $a Effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive-Whiteboard instruction on primary students' vocabulary achievement- and attitude-test scores.
300 $a 140 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 71-09, Section: A, page: 3209.
500 $a Adviser: Aliya Holmes.
502 $a Thesis (Ed.D.)--St. John's University (New York), School of Education and Human Services, 2010.
520 $a This researcher examined the effects of Traditional versus Tactual/Kinesthetic versus Interactive Whiteboard instruction on short- and long-term word-recall and attitude-test scores of primary students. The sample included 87 children, 45 kindergarten and 42 first-grade students. Participants were 41 males and 46 females from a suburban elementary school in eastern Long Island, NY.
520 $a Elementary Learning Style Assessment (ELSA) (Dunn, Rundle & Burke, 2007) was administered to determine students' learning-style preferences. Using a repeated-measures-counter-balanced design, three subdivided groups were taught sight words in three different instructional methods. Students were taught 45 words, 15 per treatment, and received: pre-tests before each instructional unit, short-term posttests immediately following instruction, and long-term posttests six weeks later. The Comparative Value Scale (CVS) (O'Connell, 1999) was administered to determine attitudinal differences.
520 $a Student achievement was determined by gain-scores derived by subtracting the pre-test scores from both the short- and long-term posttests. The data showed significantly higher short- and long-term word-recall scores when students were instructed through Tactual/Kinesthetic instructional methods over the Traditional (p < .05) or Interactive Whiteboard ( p < .001) approaches In addition, students enjoyed learning with Tactual/Kinesthetic resources more than the other methods (p < .001).
520 $a A correlation analysis indicated that students who were less tactile and those who were analytic processors achieved statistically better with Traditional methods in both the short- and long-term. Amongst lower-achieving students, those with kinesthetic preferences scored significantly better (p < .05) on short-term posttests in the Tactual/Kinesthetic treatment. In addition, less tactile, low-achieving students performed statistically better with Traditional methods (p = .01).
520 $a These findings support that one reading approach may not be appropriate for all students. In this study the Interactive Whiteboard approach was least effective. The researcher acknowledges that shared access and turn taking using Interactive Whiteboards may have undermined student learning gains, as compared to the other treatments. It appears clear, however, that especially for low-achieving students, when instructional presentation is congruent with students' preferred learning modality the greatest achievement gains occur. Overall, students achieved their highest test scores and expressed the most positive attitudes with the Tactual/Kinesthetic resources that engaged the children actively, through Tactual/Kinesthetic activities.
590 $a School code: 1334.
650 4 $a Education, Pedagogy. $3 1669025
650 4 $a Education, Reading. $3 1017790
650 4 $a Education, Technology of. $3 1018012
690 $a 0456
690 $a 0535
690 $a 0710
710 2 $a St. John's University (New York), School of Education and Human Services. $3 1251163
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 71-09A.
790 1 0 $a Holmes, Aliya, $e advisor
790 $a 1334
791 $a Ed.D.
792 $a 2010
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=3421863