Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2004. / Title from first page of PDF file. Document formatted into pages; contains ix, 124 p.; also includes graphics (some col.). Includes abstract and vita. Advisor: David L. Haury, School of Teaching and Learning. Includes bibliographical references (p. 98-108).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Tennessee Technological University, 2009. / Title from title page screen (viewed on Mar. 3, 2010). Bibliography: leaves 56-61.

Thesis--PlanB (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Stout, 2002. / Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2003. / Title from first page of PDF file. Document formatted into pages; contains xiv, 146 p. Includes abstract and vita. Advisor: Wayne K. Hoy, College of Education. Includes bibliographical references (p. 132-140).

published_or_final_version / Educational Psychology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Educational Psychology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

The primary purpose of this study was to measure differences in student achievement as a result of using different types of worksheets. The worksheets were designed to incite different ways of processing textual information. Students across five randomly selected fifth-grade classrooms were divided into three equal levels on the basis of reading achievement scores. Within levels, students were randomly assigned to treatments, consisting of different types of worksheets. The treatment was conducted for three days and consisted of students completing one of three different kinds of worksheets following teacher reading of a lesson from the social studies textbook. The types of worksheets included: (1) "drill" designed to elicit recall or recognition of factual information, (2) "comprehension" designed to promote understanding of concepts, and (3) "structuring" requiring students to select main ideas from the textual material. The dependent variables included: (1) an achievement posttest, (2) a follow-up achievement test administered four weeks following treatment, (3) engaged learning time (ELT), (4) allocated learning time, and (5) measures of student attitude toward the worksheets. The posttest consisted of equal numbers of items in four categories: (1) recall or recognition items identical or similar to questions asked on the "drill" worksheets (RN subscale), (2) items calling for recall or recognition of factual information not included on any of the worksheets (RI subscale), (3) comprehension items similar to those on the comprehension worksheets (CN subscale), and (4) comprehension items reflecting material not included on any of the worksheets (CI subscale). The follow-up achievement measure consisted of five items from each of the categories used for the posttest divided into recognition and recall (R) and comprehension (C) subscales. In terms of student achievement, the results indicated: (1) No significant differences were found among treatment groups on the posttest. (2) High and middle ability readers performed better than low ability readers on the posttest (p < .01) (2)High and middle ability readers performed better than low ability readers on the posttest (p <.01). (3) Across students, performance was highest for the RN subscale of the posttest (p < .01). Students also performed better on the RI and CN subscales than on the CI subscale (p < .01). (4) Regardless of treatment, high and middle ability readers out-performed low ability readers on the R subscale of the follow-up test (p < .01). (5) High ability readers in the drill and comprehension groups performed significantly better than low abilty readers in the drill and comprehension groups ont he C subscale of the follow-up test (p < .05). Examination of the time variables revealed that: (1) Students in the structuring group alloted more time to task completion than students in the drill or comprehension groups (p < .01). (2) Low ability readers alloted more time to task completion than high ability readers (p < .01). (3) ELT was least for high ability readers in the drill group, idfferences being significant between that group and: (1)low ability readers in the drill group (p < .01), (2)high and middle ability readers in the structuring group (p < .05), and (3)all levels of readers in the comprehension group (p < .05). One measure of attitude toward the worksheets revealed a significant difference among groups (p < .01). More students int he drill group perceived the worksheets to be of an appropriate or high interest level than did students in the structuring and comprehension groups.

No description available.

There is no abstract available for this thesis.

The purpose of the study was to determine if differences existed in perceptions expressed by selected eighth grade students concerning relations between personal academic achievement and influence of family encouragement and expectation.Three Indiana school corporations were selected to participate in the study. From school records of 1979-80 eighth graders, students were classified by specific criteria of intelligence and grade point average into three groups: (1) highly capable academic achievers, (2) average ability academic overachievers, (3) highly capable academic underachievers. Twenty-five students for each group were randomly selected, making a total of seventy-five students.The Questionnaire, developed by combining the .Brookover Scales with modified sections of the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale, was administered to small groups of selected students. Completed Questionnaires were computer processed using an analysis of variance to examine nine null hypotheses. The hypotheses compared expressed perceptions among the three groups concerning Family Encouragement and Expectation, Self-Concept, and Academic Achievement.A ratio of between group sum of squares and within group sum of squares provided an F value to determine significant difference of means between compared groups. Degrees of freedom were 1 and 48, used to determine the .05 level of confidence.Data showed significant differences in expressed perceptions of personal academic achievement compared between highly capable achievers and average ability overachievers and between highly capable achievers and highly capable underachievers to reject two hypotheses. Seven hypotheses were not rejected.Data analysis showed significant mean differences for two of three groups comparing male and female responses. Highly capable achiever males and females showed no difference in perceptions for any area. Average ability overachiever males showed higher mean scores than females of the group in areas of Academic Achievement, Family Encouragement and Expectation, and Family Encouragement as isolated. Highly capable underachiever females showed higher mean scores than males of the group in areas of Self-Concept, Family Encouragement and Expectation, and Family Encouragement as isolated.Based on data, conclusions are:1. Grade point average has no bearing on perceptions of students concerning family encouragement and expectation. Highly capable achievers show stronger family expectation than highly capable underachievers show. Average ability overachiever males indicate stronger family encouragement than females of the group. Highly capable underachiever females indicate stronger family encouragement than males of the group.2. Grade point average is not related to personal self-concept. Within the highly capable underachiever group, females express higher self-concept than males.3. Average ability overachievers identify with highly capable underachievers in personal academic achievement rather than with highly capable achievers. Within the average ability overachiever group, males feel more capable academically than females of the same group.Recommendations were made based on findings and conclusions:1. Educators should early identify highly capable students to cooperatively encourage maximum development of student academic potential.2. Educators should incorporate sound, innovative academic processes to interest and challenge underachieving students regarding school activities. Experiences with activities would enable underachievers to experience self satisfaction at school.3. Educators should cooperate actively with parents in encouraging students.4. Educators should ascertain if average ability students achieving academically beyond predicted levels feel as capable as highly capable achieving students.Recommendations for further research were based on using different populations and modified hypotheses.