Standardized History Test Scores Of High School Students

The standardized history test scores of high school students who

Practice Test 2 – Part II [answers/possible answers in red] Question 1 Answer parts a, b, and c for this research hypothesis: The standardized history test scores of high school students who viewed DVDs from the History Channel will be significantly higher than students who listened to their history teacher’s lectures. a. State the null hypothesis. The standardized history test scores of high school students who viewed DVDs from the History Channel will not be significantly higher than students who listened to their history teacher’s lectures. OR There will be no significant difference between standardized history test scores of students viewing DVDs from the History Chanel and those who learned from their teacher’s lectures. b. Indicate what statistical test you would use to analyze the data, and explain why you chose that test. Independent t-test: We are looking for a difference rather than a correlation, and the two groups of scores are from two different groups of people. c. There are six possible results listed below. For the statistical test you chose in part b above, explain the results in your own words (circle the results you are explaining). Indicate whether the null hypothesis is accepted or rejected, the reason for acceptance/rejection, and what that means in terms of the "real" situation described in the hypothesis. Assume you are explaining this to a teacher who does not understand research (be clear and thorough). Spearman Rho Rho = .45 (p=.02) t-test (indep) t = 3.27 (p=.12) Pearson r r = .45 (p=.03) t-test (dep/rel) t = 8.57 (p=.14) Chi Square X2 = 11.29 (p=.02) ANOVA F = 4.78 (p=.15) The results of the independent t-test show that the null hypothesis must be accepted, that is, that there is no significant difference in history test scores based on different teaching methods. The number 3.27 is simply the result of the t-test calculation. The “p=.12” tells us that there is a 12% probability that this difference happened by chance. In education, we only allow at most a 5% probability of a results happening by chance. Another way to look at it is that we are only 88% sure of our results (100% minus 12%), but we insist on being at least 95% sure before we can say there is truly a difference. So, while the two sets of scores were apparently different, there was not enough of a difference to be considered “real.”

Paper For Above instruction

The proposed research aims to examine the effectiveness of a multimedia educational intervention—viewing DVDs from the History Channel—on high school students’ standardized history test scores, compared to traditional teacher-led lectures. The study primarily seeks to test the hypothesis that students who watch these documentaries will outperform their peers in standardized assessments, thereby providing evidence for integrating multimedia resources into history education. To evaluate this hypothesis effectively, a clear and methodologically sound plan detailed below will be implemented.

The research employs a quantitative approach, primarily utilizing an independent samples t-test. This statistical test is chosen because it is appropriate for comparing the means of two independent groups—students who viewed the DVDs versus students who received traditional lectures—to determine whether a significant difference exists in their test scores. The null hypothesis posits that there is no difference between these two groups’ performance, meaning that the multimedia intervention has no measurable effect on standardized history scores.

Data collection will involve administering the same standardized history test to both groups under similar conditions. For the students who participate in the DVD viewing, test scores will be recorded after the intervention. For the control group, students will be tested following their usual lecture-based instruction. This design ensures comparability and allows for a straightforward comparison of the two teaching methods’ outcomes. The data analysis will focus on calculating the mean test scores of each group and conducting an independent t-test to test the null hypothesis. A significance level of p

Additionally, to strengthen the robustness of the findings, a pretest-posttest design could be employed if resources permit. In this variation, students’ baseline knowledge would be assessed before viewing the DVDs, and their post-intervention scores would be compared to measure gains within each student, as well as differences between groups. This approach controls for individual differences in prior knowledge and allows for more accurate attribution of score improvements to the intervention.

Complementing the quantitative data, qualitative methods could be used to assess students’ engagement, motivation, and perceptions of the DVD-based lessons. Surveys could be administered to students and teachers, focusing on their attitudes towards multimedia learning, perceived effectiveness, and enjoyment. Follow-up focus group interviews could explore in depth how students perceive the impact of the DVDs on their interest in history and their learning experience. Teachers’ observations during the lessons would provide additional contextual information on student engagement and behavioral responses. Journals or reflection logs maintained by students could offer personal insights into their learning process and how the multimedia approach influenced their interest and understanding.

The qualitative data will be analyzed through thematic coding, identifying common themes, sentiments, and patterns in students’ and teachers’ responses. This analysis will help determine whether the intervention not only impacts scores but also enhances engagement and enthusiasm for history learning. Combining quantitative test scores with qualitative feedback will provide a comprehensive assessment of the intervention’s effectiveness.

In conclusion, the evaluation plan includes administering standardized tests to both groups, employing statistical analysis through independent t-tests, and supplementing with qualitative data to understand student engagement and perceptions. If the analysis reveals significant differences favoring the DVD group, and positive qualitative feedback, conclusions can be drawn about the efficacy of multimedia resources in improving history achievement and student motivation. Conversely, if no significant differences or negative perceptions emerge, this would suggest the need to revise or reconsider the multimedia approach.

References

• Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Houghton Mifflin.
• Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications.
• Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. McGraw-Hill Education.
• Johnson, R. B., & Christensen, L. (2019). Educational Research: Quantitative, Qualitative, and Mixed Approaches. SAGE Publications.
• Lavrakas, P. J. (2008). Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. SAGE Publications.
• McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2010). Research in Education: Evidence-Based Inquiry. Pearson.
• Patel, L. (2011). Qualitative Inquiry in Educational Contexts. Routledge.
• Royse, D., Thyer, B. A., & Padgett, D. K. (2015). Program Evaluation: An Introduction. Cengage Learning.
• Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2009). Research Methods in Education. Pearson.
• Zikmund, W. G., Babin, B. J., Carr, J. C., & Griffin, M. (2010). Business Research Methods. Cengage Learning.