As funding cuts increase (Field, 2011), there are more large lecture classes. One challenge faced by instructors of large lectures is formatively assessing all students in a timely manner. Student Response Systems, also known as “clickers,” provide a way for instructors to gather formative feedback from their students efficiently and effectively. The present study, guided by the General Model of Instructional Communication (Katt et al., 2009), examines the effect of clickers on instructor communicative traits in a large lecture setting. Using Structural Equation Modeling, analysis shows that perceptions of learning and engagement through clickers are related to perceptions of instructor communicative traits of socio-communicative style, caring, and nonverbal immediacy, as well as student affective and cognitive learning. / Access to thesis permanently restricted to Ball State community only. / Department of Communication Studies

Phrasal verbs are a pervasive and distinctly Germanic part of the spoken English language that has been alive for centuries. They have preceded American history, and yet considered to be "the most active and creative pattern and word formation in the American language" (Meyer, 1975). Distinctly colloquial, idiomatic and varying in shades of literalness and figurativity, phrasal verbs are largely dominant in casual usage, such as conversation, while the Latinate verbs of English are dominant in formal usage, such as in making reports (McArthur 1989). While foreign educators and their students, such as from Chinese countries, are found to emphasize English study for formal and academic purposes, the acquisition of phrasal verbs may not be considered instrumental to the purposes of the students coming to the United States in pursuit of academic degrees. Because of the pervasiveness of phrasal verbs in spoken English language, and because of the largely conversational nature of American lectures, this study is intended to answer the following research questions: 1. In university classrooms, are the phrasal verbs spoken by native English speaking lecturers? 2. Are figurative phrasal verbs in academic lectures significantly greater in frequency than non-figuratively classified phrasal verbs in the academic lectures? 3. Do certain academic subjects tend to generate a significant increase in the number of phrasal verbs spoken by instructors, of either figurative phrasal verbs, or the more literal non-figuratively classified phrasal verbs?

In the US, an estimated 25% of four-year college students and up to 80% of community college students suffer from a moderate to high degree of mathematics anxiety (MA) (Chang & Beilock, 2016). Many scholars have noted that mathematics anxiety can be regarded as a significant factor in determining a student's achievement and mathematics related jobs. In the existing literature body, many researchers noted that MA may stem from teaching methods that are more conventional and rule-bounded such as lecture-style classroom models. On the other hand, MA can be mitigated by inquiry-based learning classroom models where students construct knowledge through inquiry, communication, critical thinking, and group work. However, the current literature has not built the connection between different teaching styles and students' individual differences with respect to MA. The individual differences are associated with the personality of the learner, learning styles, learning speed, and needs and interests of the learner. Depending on a student's learning style and a compatible teaching style, the student may actively participate in their own learning with less mathematics anxiety. Thus, the purpose of this study is to determine the influence of different teaching styles on MA, when interacted with Kolb’s and Gregorc’s (1984) four different learning and thinking styles. The research questions investigated in this study are: 1) What is the difference between a lecture classroom model (LCM) and an inquiry-based learning classroom model (IBL) on students’ mathematics anxiety levels over a fifteen-week semester of a college-level remedial mathematics course?; 2) What is the difference between a lecture classroom model (LCM) and an inquiry-based learning classroom model (IBL) on mathematics anxiety levels for students with different learning and thinking styles (as defined by Kolb’s and Gregorc’s learning styles) over a fifteen-week semester?; and 3) What aspects of instructional approaches (LCM and IBL) do students with different learning and thinking styles report as being related to mathematics anxiety? The abbreviated version of the mathematics anxiety rating scale (A-MARS), Kolb’s learning styles inventory, Gregorc’s thinking styles, and Written questionnaire were used to measure students’ MA levels and identify their learning and thinking styles. The results provided evidence that IBL instruction is beneficial for the students with MA, especially with mathematics test anxiety and mathematics course anxiety. Only numerical task anxiety was not significant. Thus, student-centered learning pedagogies turned out to be an effective and engaging method for lowering MA. However, there was no evidence to support the overall relationship between the constructs of learning and thinking styles and MA levels, above and beyond the instructional approaches. Classifying students according to learning and thinking styles did not influence students’ MA levels in this study over the 15 academic weeks. Moreover, after a 15 academic weeks, students in both LCM and IBL classes responded positively to key components of LCM and IBL classroom models. This implies that both LCM and IBL approaches still are important models regardless of students’ MA levels.

Graduation date: 1995

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2003. / Advisor: Robert Reiser, Florida State University, College of Education, Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed Apr. 8, 2004). Includes bibliographical references.

Mémoire (M.Sc.Ed.)--Université du Québec à Chicoutimi, 1996. / Résumé disponible sur Internet. CaQCU Document électronique également accessible en format PDF. CaQCU

Thesis (M.A.)--Indiana University, 2007. / Title from screen (viewed on June 27, 2007) Department of English, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) Includes vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 77-80)

No description available.

Testing is the most common way to assess student learning at all ages and grade levels. Testing is traditionally viewed as a measure of knowledge, and not as a way to enhance learning. Nonetheless, a large body of literature demonstrates that testing is actually an effective way to facilitate learning and enhance long-term memory for information. This finding, that retrieval of information from memory leads to better retention than re-studying or re-reading the same information, has been termed the testing effect. The benefit of testing compared to review of material is typically seen after a delay between practice and final test, with review being a better strategy when the test is given immediately or after a short delay. This phenomenon has been shown across a variety of contexts, test formats, retention intervals, and ranges of ages and abilities. However, one domain in which the testing effect has not been shown to work is in the review of student-produced lecture notes. Lecture note-taking is a ubiquitous learning strategy and notes have been shown to be highly correlated with academic outcomes such as test performance and GPA. Note-taking in itself is a cognitively demanding process, and students often struggle to take accurate and complete notes from lecture, thus limiting the benefits of note-taking and review. There is limited research on ways to improve the review function of notes. Thus, this dissertation sought to understand the effect of integrating the testing effect into the context of lecture note-taking on memory for information compared to review of notes and a lecture-only control. A sample of 59 high school students watched a video lecture and took notes on the information. The lecture was divided into three sections with two-minute pauses in between each segment. During each pause, students were asked to either reread their notes from the previous section (review group), recall and write down what they remembered to be the most important ideas from the lecture they were just shown (self-testing group), or complete a distractor word search puzzle for the duration of the pause (lecture-only control group). Participants were given a written recall test of lecture information following a one-day delay. Comparisons were made between lecture groups on test performance and note quantity. Measures of sustained attention and mind-wandering during lecture were examined as covariates. While participants in the self-testing group scored higher on the written recall test, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Self-testing and reviewing notes during lecture pauses were both significantly better than lecture note-taking alone. Results also showed that it was actually the students in the review group who took significantly more notes than those in the lecture-only control. There was a main effect for time, indicating that students in all lecture groups took increasingly more notes as the lecture progressed. Note quantity was found to be a significant predictor of test performance. Examination of attentional variables showed that students who reported lower instances of mind-wandering took significantly more notes and did significantly better on the recall test. Further, students in the self-testing group reported less of an increase in mind-wandering as the lecture progressed compared to those in the control group. Differences between the results of this study and other studies in the testing effect literature are hypothesized to be due several factors, including complexity of lecture information, encoding difficulties, and the presentation of new information at each self-testing time point. Future research should continue to explore the testing effect in conjunction with note taking.

As distance learning evolved, course designers and teachers quickly recognized the value of integrating online features into the classroom. The result was blended learning, a combination of online and face-to-face components. This complex and dynamic new form of education has raised many questions about the role of computer-mediated communication in education and has provided new opportunities for extending research in learning and communication. The purpose of the study was to determine whether a blended class will produce different (and possibly better) results in terms of student perceptions of the overall learning experience and student satisfaction than traditional lecture-based face-to-face instruction or learning that is delivered entirely online. The main goals of this study were to compare the effectiveness of face-to-face, online, and blended instruction, and to examine the role of interactions in the effectiveness of each educational method. While each form of instruction received very positive feedback from both students and instructors and the newly introduced blended courses proved very successful in terms of overall satisfaction with the learning experience, the traditional lecture-based courses produced more positive attitudes toward the subject matter. The possible causes of these discrepancies between some of the quantitative and qualitative results point toward the role of previous experience with online learning, cognitive development, and learning styles.