trosado.weebly.comtrosado.weebly.com/.../rosado_tammy_blended_learning_study_… · Web viewThe...

RUNNING HEAD: BLENDED LEARNING IN THE SOCIAL STUDIES CLASSROOM: A STUDY OF STUDENTS’ ACHIEVEMENT AND GENDER DIFFERENCES1

BLENDED LEARNING IN SOCIAL STUDIES 22

Blended Learning in the Social Studies Classroom:

A Study of Students’ Achievements and Gender Differences

Tammy Rosado

Kennesaw State University

Dr. Adams and Dr. Taasoobshirazi

Applied Research – EDRS 8900

May 2, 2014

Introduction

Orientation to the Topic

The state of Georgia has received a waiver from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and has developed several designations for schools that receive extra support for a three year period of time (Priority, Focus, and Alert, 2012). Schools were designated as a focus school because of the achievement gap between subgroups or because of their low graduation rates. The school was determined to be one of the one hundred and fifty six focus schools in the state of Georgia, and was designated as such because of the achievement gap between regular education and Students With Disabilities (SWD) or Inclusion Students (IS), and the gap between these two groups on the CRCT must be lessened. The school was tasked with improving the achievement scores of all students to be removed from the focus list designation.

Social Studies has historically seen the lowest rate of “meeting” and “exceeding” on the Georgia Criterion Reference Competency Test (CRCT) at the focus school. During the 2009 – 2010 school year thirty percent of the students in the seventh grade passed the social studies test, with only thirty six passing in the 2010 – 2011 school year. In the 2012 – 2013 school year, the state of Georgia implemented a new evaluation instrument for schools called the CCRPI (College & Career Ready Performance Index). This index was created to gain a waiver from the Federal No Child Left Behind Act. This new system will help schools and the State of Georgia Department of Education informs parents and the community how schools are performing. (Georgia Department of Education, 2012) Each school receives a score out of 100 points that indicates how they scored based on three main areas: Achievement (total of 70 points possible), Progress (15 points possible), and Achievement Gap (15 points possible) with 10 additional Challenge points available. The study school scored 30.8 points out of 70 possible for the category of Achievement with only 3.9 points earned out of 10 for Social Studies Achievement. (GADPE CCRPI, n.d.)

Results from the school’s Fall 2013 Comprehensive Instructional Review (CIR) (Blake, L. 2013), indicated 22% of the observations performed included some form of instructional materials which was technology based, 30% utilized textbooks, 19 % used worksheets and 5% used manipulatives. The same observations showed that 95% of the classroom observations in core classes indicated no opportunities for differentiated instruction. In order to improve instruction and student achievement, a change in instructional strategies and activities needed to be utilized. The CIR was requested by the new school principal to provide baseline observations to assist with planning for instruction school wide. The complete report of the CIR is provided to the principal and staff for internal use to improve instructional practices.

The Teacher Keys Effectiveness System (TKES) has been instituted in the state of Georgia as the basis for teachers’ annual evaluation. TKES covers areas in which technology can be implemented in the planning and delivery of instruction, differentiation of instruction, and assessment of learning; yet technology integration is still seen as being at basic levels during classroom observations by school administrators and outside evaluators.

Students must improve their academic achievement in all subject areas including Social Studies. The main focus of No Child Left Behind was in Mathematics and English, while Science and Social Studies took a back seat to new strategies, funds for materials, and technology integration. With the new CCRPI, schools must focus on finding ways to improve instruction in Social Studies. The CCRPI Performance Targets for the upcoming years indicate that the focus school must make improvement in all academic areas. Integrating technology is one teaching strategy teachers can utilize to improve academic achievement in Social Studies. The format of blended learning activities is a strategy that has not been utilized at the study school which should be studied to determine its effectiveness.

Purpose Statement

The purpose of this study is to determine the effect of blended learning activities on student achievement and achievement if any differences by gender of their inner city middle school’s Social Studies classes. I hypothesized the students participating in the blended learning activities (experimental group) would show the greatest statistical difference between pre and posttests. I hypothesized that male students in the blended learning (experimental group) would show the greatest statistical difference between pre and posttests.

Research Questions

Is there a statistically significant difference in the social studies achievement of seventh grade students receiving instruction in a blended learning format and seventh grade students receiving instruction in a traditional format?

Is there a statistically significant difference in the social studies achievement of seventh grade students receiving instruction in a blended learning form and seventh grade students receiving instruction in a traditional format by gender?

Importance of the Study

This study was significant because of the lack of studies being completed to determine the effect of blended learning on student achievement in middle schools with African American students. According to Drysdale, Graham, Spring & Halverson (2013) after examining two hundred five dissertations and master’s theses about blended learning, only eight percent covered K-12 learning. Results from the United States Department of Education meta-analysis study of the effectiveness of online learning that contrasted online and face to face instruction, indicated only five studies were published covering K-12 and of those five only three worked with middle school (Means et al., 2009). This seemed to indicate a significant number, but statistically counted for less than 1.5 percent of the studies examined for participation. While many blended learning studies existed, most covered participants in post high school or professional instructional situations, and they covered the perceptions of blended learning and not the impact on student achievement.

The discussion of gender equity has been researched on various levels. Bidjerano 2005; Chyung, 2007: Lee, 2002; Price, 2006: Rovai & Baker, 2005 (as cited in Yukselturk and Bulnet, 2009) state “There is a need for more research on gender debate about differences and similarities form learning strategies to performance.”

At the focus school, technology integration has not been widely adapted as an instructional strategy; yet when students are provided access to computers and utilize them for instruction they are more highly engaged. The school population was over 98% African American when combined with the free and reduced lunch rate over 96% made this school a unique location to study the effect of blended learning and made the study significant.

Definition of terms

Blended learning – Blended learning or hybrid learning as it is sometimes called utilizes computer activities for students in collaboration with face to face instruction from 30 – 79% of class time and computer activities can include videos, online discussions, and virtual field trips. The activities are designed to meet the needs of all students through different learning styles (Cramer, 2008).

CCRPI – (College and Career Ready Performance Index) – The Georgia Department of Education received a waiver in February 2012 from the No Child Left Behind Act but was required to create a new accountability system for staff and students. (Georgia Department of Education, 2012) The Index measures three areas: Achievement, Progress and the Achievement Gap resulting in a score out of 100.

Focus School –The Georgia Department of Education has received funding through the Race to the Top (RT3) initiative and has developed several categories for schools to receive extra support (Priority, Focus, Alert, 2012) based on student achievement or graduation rates. The school of study is one of one hundred fifty six schools identified as a focus school, and is designated because of the gap in achievement between regular education students and SWD (Priority, Focus, Alert, 2012). We must increase our test scores and lessen the gap between regular education students and SWD to remain off the Alert list or face possible reconstitution.

Inclusion or Students With Disabilities (SWD) – For this study, an inclusion student is one that has been determined to be a SWD by a committee in the school district composed of regular and special education teachers as well as professionals in specific areas of special education such as a psychologist, and a specialist in speech. Each student has an Individual Education Plan (IEP) that dictates services that are to be provided to create the least restrictive environment (LRE). The goal of providing instruction in the least restrictive environment is to engage students with general education students as much as possible, while still providing for individual needs based on a determined disability found in the IEP. The students in this study are characterized as Specific Learning Disabled (SLD), Emotional Behavior Disorder (EBD), Mildly Intellectually Disabled (MID), and requiring services for speech.

TKES – As part of the Race to the Top Initiative, the state of Georgia created the TKES as the Teacher Keys Effectiveness System with the purpose to “optimize student growth” through improved instruction by implementing a professional training and evaluation system which focuses on student achievement and learning. The system contains ten professional standards related to instructional strategies, differentiation, professionalism, communication and others; within the standards of instructional strategies and differentiation, technology in the form of planning and use is included. (Teacher Keys Effectiveness System, 2013, p. 11)

Literature Review

Since the adoption of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), schools have tended to focus on mathematics and reading to meet the requirements set forth by the United States Department of Education. The state of Georgia in the 2007-2008 school year began the implementation of Social Studies Georgia Performance Standards and along with forty-four others adopted the Common Core Standards in July 2010 with full implementation beginning in school years 2012-2013 (CCGPS, n.d.) The focus of the Common Core Georgia Performance Standards (CCGPS) is “for English Language Arts, mathematics, and literacy in science, history/social studies, and technical subjects will ensure that all Georgia students have an equal access and opportunity to master the skills and knowledge needed for success beyond high school.” (CCGPS, n.d.). As a profession, most educators have become data driven. We examine the data from pre and posttests, the results of criterion, and norm referenced exams and the differences between various groups of students.

The integration of technology into the math and reading/English language arts classes has helped to increase the scores of students across the state of Georgia, our district, and my school. Science and especially Social Studies have not been the focus of technology integration as a whole due in part to the lack of emphasis of reporting progress in these subjects; while reading, English Language Arts and mathematics results have been the focus. Teachers are now evaluated using the TKES (Teacher Keyes Effectiveness System) which contains requirements for technology integration.

The first computers were made to assist in the areas of science and engineering and mathematics. Computers have been used to solve problems, assist in large number computations, and provide real world problems to students to be solved. They have become an important part of the educational process to keep track of data, create and share information, and to prepare students for their chosen profession. The United States Department of Education in 2010 stated “technology is at the core of virtually every aspect of our daily lives.” (as cited in Wolfe, T.J., 2011)

As computers become common in classrooms and homes students are learning from them, but what is the best way for students to learn? Researchers have examined several methods for students to learn utilizing computers and technology: distance education, online learning, blended learning, and flipped classroom. Education often uses many terms that can be confusing to define. Distance education and online learning is a learning environment where students are separated from their instructors by a distance whether due to lack of highly qualified teachers in an area, financial reasons, or others. The students complete over 80% of the work online in this type of course. (Cramer, 2008) This type of computer learning is growing very popular in the United States. The National Center for Education Statistics estimated that in 2004 – 2005 over thirty seven percent of school districts in the United States had some students engaged in online learning. Picciano and Seaman in their 2008 study (as cited in Means et al., 2009) estimated that over 700,000 students were learning through distance or online learning. Thorne argues that blended instruction and learning has been developed to overcome the problems of online distance learning in that it uses instructional designs and practices to enhance delivery to the student (as cited in Lim, D, Morris, M., Kupritz, V., 2007, p. 28).

Drysdale, Graham, Spring & Halverson (2013) performed a meta-analysis which examined two hundred five dissertations and master’s theses about blended learning. The authors located the scholarly works by using Pro Quest Dissertation and Theses Database. They found that blended learning has grown rapidly since 2005, with 77% of the dissertations and theses covering topics dealing with higher education, 13% covering corporate topics and only 8% covering K-12 learning environments. The researchers found that over 51% of the studies they examined addressed learner outcomes with 28.3% of those discussing performance outcomes, and one in five compared blended learning to face to face learning.

The United States Department of Education supported a meta-analysis study on blended learning that was completed in 2009. The authors examined studies on the effectives of online learning that contrasted online and face-to face instruction which were conducted using experimental methods. They looked at over 1100 studies and through the process of examining them weeded them down to 176 studies that focused on blended learning effectiveness. The studies covered higher educational settings with only nine of the 176 studies covering K-12 educational settings (Means, 2009, p. xii). The report also states that only five studies were published from 2006 – 2008 that were included in the report in the area of K-12. Of the five studies examined from 2006 – 2008, one involved elementary students in writing, one involved electronic (virtual) field trips in middle school, one involved 8th, 9th and 10th graders in Algebra I, involved science lab integration in Taiwan and the final involved a Spanish course in the West Virginia Virtual School. The United States Department of Education report (2009) “Overall, results from Bernard et al. (2004) and other reviews of the distance education literature (Cavanaugh 2001; Moore 1994) indicate no significant differences in effectiveness between distance education and face-to-face education, suggesting that distance education, when it is the only option available, can successfully replace face-to-face instruction.”(Means et al., 2009)

A study that examined middle school students and blended learning was performed in Texas using the Technology Immersion Model (Shapley et al., 2011). This study examined a one to one laptop technology emergence program and the effects of technology immersion on students’ learning opportunities (classroom activities and engagement), and its effectiveness on academic achievement in Math and Reading over several years with middle school students from all over Texas. The findings state that while the results were not significantly and statistically different overall, individual results for students indicated great growth in groups of students which were economically disadvantaged.

The quasi-experimental study of the effectiveness of the Louisiana Algebra I online course examined the effects of online learning compared to face to face learning within a middle school Algebra setting (O’Dwyer, Carey, & Kleiman, 2007). The students participated in online courses with a highly qualified teacher available through chats, and online discussions and a math teacher no considered highly qualified. The results indicated that the students scored higher with the online learning teacher and the support of the teacher within their classroom.

Kingsley and Boone (2008) examined the effect of blended learning in a 7th grade Social Studies History course using early American history software that coordinated with the school’s textbook. The study examined pretest and post-tests for the results of the two groups – experimental and the control group. The experimental group used the computer lab one day a week where students accessed multimedia activities. The experimental group could only access the multimedia activities on their assigned computer lab day. The control group did not utilize the computer lab for instruction. The results according to Kingsley and Boone (2008) indicated that both groups had an increase in their posttest scores compared to the pretest scores but the blended experimental group increased by 12% compared to 6% by the control group. Dikmenli & Unaldi (2012) recommend that blended learning approaches be in place to ensure that learning remains permanent for all students in geography.

Simonson et al., 2006 (as cited in Yukselturk and Bulut, 2009) says students learn as effectively using online learning strategies and activities as they do using traditional methods of instruction. Yet Chyung (2007) stated that younger males’ and younger females’ exam scores indicated significant differences in their results (Yukselturk and Bulut, p. 13). Results from the 2010 NAEP Geography test (Geography 2010) indicate that males scored at 30 percent at or above proficient with females at 24 percent at 4 percent of the males were at the advanced stage while females were at 2 percent on the 2010 exam.

While blended learning, hybrid learning and online learning are all popular topics and terms in education, very few studies have examined the effects on student achievement as most student perceptions of the change in instructional strategies. While studies exist for high school and higher education very few have been completed for the middle school environment with even less studies have been completed on the impact of blended learning on student achievement and gender differences in social studies. The examination of dissertations and theses shows the needs for K-12 studies to be performed in the areas of blended learning and how it effects student achievement. Many of the current studies focus on the perception of blended learning through surveys of participants attitudes. While a student’s attitude toward blended is important, as educators we are in the business of providing results in the form of data.

Methodology Design

Overview of Research Design

Two seventh grade Social Studies classes participated in this study using a pretest/ posttest method. The students were provided instruction on the same units of study; Unit 9 - Africa – Impact of Environment and Economy on Africa and Unit 10 - Connecting Africa’s past with Africa’s Present. (See Appendix A and B) It was estimated that the length of the time for the instruction for this study would be four and a half weeks based on the district’s Scope and Sequence for Social Studies. The control group was provided instruction using traditional methods of instruction: lecture, worksheet, textbook work, quizzes, and exams. The experimental group was some instruction by traditional methods but was provided instruction using a blended learning method in the computer lab for at least two days a week during the course of the units. During class time in the computer lab, students engaged in lessons designed with videos, discussion boards, interactive games, etc.

The gathering of data and information for this study began in Spring Semester 2014. Students participating in the control and experimental groups were provided consent and assent letters to be sent home for parent signature and approval which were sent home at least two weeks prior to the start of the study and were for follow up with phone calls to parents made by teacher and researcher to remind parents to return forms to the school.

Students were administered the pretest for Unit 9 – Impact of Environment and Economy on Africa. The results of the pretest were recorded for comparison with posttest scores after the unit of study. Students were instructed using the methods for their assigned group. At the end of Unit 9, students completed their posttest for the unit and their results were recorded and compared to the pretest results. The comparison of pretest and posttest data completed after each lesson of instruction in all core classes at the focus school.

Students were given the pretest for Unit 10 – Connecting Africa’s Past with Africa’s Present. The students were provided instruction and when the unit was completed they were administered the posttest for the unit. Their test results were compared with the pretest and analyzed.

Participants

The participants in this study were African-American seventh graders from a south side neighborhood of Atlanta and attended a Title I public middle school. The school population for seventh grade includes one male and one female student that are of Hispanic descent that will not be participating in this study due to the selection process for this study. The free and reduced lunch rate for the school is over 95% and 41.2% of the residents in the school’s zip code live below the poverty line (Zipskinny, 2013). The two classes were closely matched with the number of males and females being approximately equal in number. The control group had 13 males and 10 females with the experimental group having 12 males and 10 females. The total number of males participating in the study were planned to be 25 and 20 females. The participating males were 42% of the 7th grade males, and the participating females were 46.5% of the 7th grade female population. No students that were designated as Gifted and Talented or were part of the Program for Exceptional Children (Special Education) program participated in this study. The forty five students represented 44% of the seventh grade students in the school.

Data Sources/ Instrumentation/Procedures

The data sources for this study were created by the researcher with assistance from the instructor and were in the form of researcher/teacher created assessments. The students were given a pretest to complete. The results of the pretest were recorded and compared to the posttest results after the units of study had been completed using the traditional method of teaching or blended learning methods. Both the control group and the experimental group completed the same paper and pencil test using an Apperson Datalink form as an answer sheet. The tests were graded using the school’s Datalink machine and after the grading of each class’s test an item analysis form which documents the average percent correct for each question were completed and compared. The Datalink scoring machine provided test analysis data on individuals, classes and the school. The results from this grading were available electronically in an Excel spreadsheet or PDF and from this information the students’ scores were used for analysis by the researcher.

Procedure

Kingsley and Boone (2009) completed their study using multimedia software in an American History course. The design of this study was used as a guide to design this current study. Two seventh grade Social Studies classes will participate in this study. The following procedures will be implemented:

Students in the participating classes took home consent and assent letters to be signed by parents granting permission to participate in the study.

The classes were assigned to control group or experimental group.

All students completed a pretest for the unit created by the teacher and researcher.

A presentation (lesson) was completed with the blended learning experimental group to familiarize the participants with the types of activities that were completed in the study. Students needed to be familiar with the organization and workings of the system prior to using it for instruction.

Students in the control group were provided instruction by the classroom teacher. The unit was collaboratively planned between the teacher and the researcher using traditional methods of instruction. The instruction used state approved standards from the department of education.

Students in the experimental group were provided instruction by the classroom teacher. The unit were collaboratively planned between the teacher and the researcher that incorporate blended learning activities in the computer lab at least twice a week.

At the end of the unit of study, all students were given the same posttest created by the teacher and researcher.

The process of pretest, instruction and posttest were repeated for a second unit of instruction.

The results of the pretests and posttests were examined to determine which of the two methods resulted in higher student achievement results. Results were analyzed to determine differences between genders.

Proposed Analysis

The data results of the pre and post tests were analyzed in different ways. The first way the test data was to determine the Net or Difference Scores for each student. Data that represents an increase in the score on the posttest indicated an increase in student achievement. After the individual net differences were examined, the results from the pretest and posttest were examined using the Summed Score or Scale to determine which group had the highest post test scores which will indicate the higher student achievement level. The third way the test results will be examined is to determine the results based on gender by Summed Score or Scale and Net or Difference Scores.

The students completed their tests using a standard Apperson Datalink 3000 form used by the school. Students used a number two pencil to complete the assessment and the Datalink machine scores the answers as correct or incorrect. Since the Datalink 3000 was connected to a computer, the results for each student were easily saved and exported for data analysis.

Results

This research investigation examined the achievement scores of seventh grade students in a social studies course from two different classes. The control group and experimental group each took the same pretest for two different units of study about Africa. The control group participants received instruction from their current teacher in the classroom which did not differ from how they have been instructed all school year. The experimental group participants received instruction from the same teacher, but twice a week during the two units the students went to the computer lab to engage in blended learning instruction using the computer. At the end of each unit of instruction, the students completed the same posttest. The length of Unit 9 was two and a half weeks with Unit 10 lasting one and a half weeks.

The results of each group’s test results were examined to determine the statistical differences between the scores and to determine the impact the use of blended learning activities had on student achievement. The pretest and posttest scores for each student in Unit 9 and in Unit 10 were compared to determine the Net Difference Score and Summed Scores. The test scores underwent examination using descriptive statistical examination to include mean, median, range, and standard deviation for each group and the four tests each student completed. The results from each test were compared to determine any statistical differences. Finally, the test results were examined to determine the statistical differences between male and female students using the Net Difference Score, Summed Scores, and t-Test: Two Sample assuming Equal Variances and were compared using descriptive statistics.

Group Demographics

The control group for this research experiment consisted of five females and one male who were twelve or thirteen years of age, were in the seventh grade, and attended a middle school in the urban city of Atlanta. The school population is ninety-eight percent African – American with one percent Hispanic and other groups. The participants were all African – American in this study. The participants of the control group were all members of the first period class which did not contain special education or gifted and talented students. Due to the transient population of the school where the study took place only these students returned their consent/assent forms, and completed the pre and posttest for both units. Additional students completed one set of scores during the study time, partly due to suspension, or transferring to another school. Since the students did not complete both sets of tests their results were eliminated from examination.

The experimental group for this research study consisted of three females and seven males which were twelve or thirteen years of age, were in the seventh grade, and attended a middle school in the urban city of Atlanta. The school population is ninety-eight percent African – American with one percent Hispanic and other groups. The participants were all African – American in this study. The participants of the experimental group were all members of the same fourth period class which did not contain special education or gifted and talented students Due to the transient population of the school where the study took place only these ten students returned their consent/assent forms, and completed the pre and posttests for both units.

Unit 9 Results

The examination of the control group Unit 9 pretest scores indicated the mean was 57.3 points with the standard error being 8.7, the median score was 64 with a standard deviation of 21.3 and the range was 56 points (See Table 1). After the instruction of Unit 9 which consisted of the same instructional techniques as used all year, the posttest achievement scores indicated a mean of 64 indicated an increase of 6.7 points for the group. The standard error decreased from 8.7 to 6.8 on the posttest and the median was 68 for the posttest indicated an increase of 4 points from the mean of the pretest. The standard deviation results decreased from 21.3 to 16.6 indicating the scores were clustered around the average of 64. The Net Difference Scores (Table 2) for the control group on Unit 9 reflect a positive gain in the test scores which is expected after instruction. The overall net difference scores for the control group Unit 9 test showed a positive gain of achievement for each of the students except for CF2 where the test scores remained the same. The Net Difference scores range from no difference in scores to an increase of 20 points.

Table 1 - Control and Experimental Group Descriptive Statistics Results

Control Group Descriptive Statistics Results

Pretest

Unit 9

Posttest

Unit 9

Pretest

Unit 10

Posttest

Unit 10

Mean

57.3

64

33.3

66.7

Standard Error

8.7

6.8

3.7

6.0

Median

64

68

33

67

Standard Deviation

21.3

16.6

9.1

14.8

Range

56

36

25

33

Experimental Group Descriptive Statistics

Pretest

Unit 9

Posttest

Unit 9

Pretest

Unit 10

Posttest

Unit 10

Mean

56

69.2

28.4

64.3

Standard Error

4.7

4.3

2.8

6.0

Median

58

68

25

67

Standard Deviation

14.8

13.7

8.9

18.9

Range

52

36

25

67

The experimental group completed the same pretest as the control group. The average score for Unit 9 pretest as 56 with a standard error of 4.7 and a standard deviation of 13.7 (See Table 1). The group’s median score was 58 and the scores range was 52. The students received instruction from their regular teacher using the same instructional strategies in the classroom as the control group but utilized the computer lab twice a week to engage in blended learning activities as part of their instruction. The experimental group completed blended learning activities based upon the same standards as the control group. The same tests were given to the experimental group to compare results. The unit 9 Posttest experimental group had a mean of 69.2 points, a standard error of 4.3, the media score was 68, the range was 36 and the standard deviation was 13.7. Through the examination of the experimental group’s test after participating in blended learning, the group posted a positive net differences ranging from 4 to 24 points. The Unit 9 Net Differences (Table 2) ranged from a four to twenty four point positive gain.

Table 2 – Net Difference Scores for Each Unit

Control Group Test Results

Code

Unit 9 Pretest score

Unit 9 Posttest Score

Unit 9 Net Difference Score

Unit 10 Pretest Score



CF5

68

72

4

17

67

50

CF4

72

80

8

42

83

41

CF3

60

64

4

33

50

17

CF2

80

80

0

42

67

25

CF1

24

44

20

33

83

50

CM1

40

44

4

33

50

17

Experimental Group Test Results

Code







EF3

60

84

24

17

67

50

EM7

64

84

20

25

58

33

EM6

64

80

16

42

75

33

EM5

28

48

20

33

42

9

EF2

36

52

16

25

67

42

EM4

80

84

4

17

67

50

EF1

56

68

12

25

92

67

EM3

56

68

12

25

75

50

EM2

64

68

4

33

75

42

EM1

52

56

4

42

25

-17

Table 3 - Control and Experimental Group Summed Scores

Control Group Summed Scores

Student Code





Summed Score

Mean of all scores

CF5

68

72

17

67

159

39.75

CF4

72

80

42

83

277

69.25

CF3

60

64

33

50

207

51.75

CF2

80

80

42

67

269

67.25

CF1

24

44

33

83

184

46

CM1

40

44

33

50

167

41.75

Summed Score

344

384

200

400

1023

315.75

Mean of Summed Scores

57.3

64

33.3

66.7

170.5

52.63

Experimental Group Summed Scores

Student Code





Summed Score

Mean of all scores

EF3

60

84

17

67

228

57

EM7

64

84

25

68

241

60.25

EM6

64

80

42

75

261

65.25

EM5

28

48

33

42

151

37.75

EF2

36

52

25

67

180

45

EM4

80

84

17

67

248

62

EF1

56

68

25

92

241

60.25

EM3

56

68

33

75

232

58

EM2

64

68

33

75

240

60

EM1

52

56

42

25

175

43.75

Summed Scores

560

692

292

653

2197

549.25


56

69.2

29.2

65.3

219.7

54.9

One of the purposes of this study was to determine the impact of blended learning activities on student achievement and was determined by two groups of seventh graders taking the same pretest and posttest. The Net Difference scores for Unit 9 for the control group ranged from 0 to 20 point increase, while the experimental group Net Difference scores ranged from 4 to 24 points. The scores increased by the same range, twenty points, however by looking at the descriptive statistics in Table 3 we see an interesting trend. In examining the results of the two groups using descriptive statistics, we saw there was an increase in both groups’ scores after instruction which is to be expected. The control group’s median increased from 57.3 to 64 points indicating a 6.7 increase for the group. The experimental group posted an increase from 56 to 69.2 points which demonstrated a 13.2 percent increase which is almost twice the increase of the control group’s scores. The use of Summed Scores allows a researcher to add the scores of an individual over a series of questions or in this case the type of learning the student engaged in, traditional or blended learning activities. The mean of summed scores results of Unit 9 Posttest for the Control Group was 64 while the experimental group had a mean of summed scores of 69.2 (See Table 3). Showing the students had increased scores in the experimental group. The mean of the summed scores for the control group ranged from 39.75 to 69.25, while the experimental group scores ranged from 43.75 to 65.25. This showed a 2.27 point higher average over the control group. The test data for the two groups was analyzed using the t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances which can be found in Table 4. The t(14) = 2.14, p=.51>.05 for Unit 9 indicated a non-significant result.

Table 4 – t-Test Results

Unit 9 Control and Experimental Comparison

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal Variances

Variable 1

Variable 2

Mean

64

69.2

Variance

275.2

188.6222222

Observations

6

10

Pooled Variance

219.5428571

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

df

14

t Stat

-0.67960931

P(T<=t) one-tail

0.25391688

t Critical one-tail

1.76131013

P(T<=t) two-tail

0.50783377

t Critical two-tail

2.14478668

Unit 10 Control an Experimental Group Comparison


Variable 1

Variable 2

Mean

66.66666667

64.3

Variance

217.8666667

357.1222222

Observations

6

10

Pooled Variance

307.3880952


0

df

14

t Stat

0.261402181

P(T<=t) one-tail

0.398794351

t Critical one-tail

1.761310136

P(T<=t) two-tail

0.797588703

t Critical two-tail

2.144786688

Unit 10 Results

The six students in the control group posted scores ranging from 17 and 42 on the Unit 10 Pretest. The average pretest Unit 10 score was 33.3 for the group with a standard error of 3.7 and a standard deviation of 9.1. (See Table 1) The Posttest Unit 10 control group scores express a mean of 66.7 up from 33.3 for the group and the standard error rose from 3.7 to 6.0 and the median was 67 points. The standard deviation was 14.8 and the range for the group was 33 up from 25 reported on the pretest. The control group Net Difference scores showed all students increased on the posttest with increases ranging from 17 to 50 points. (See Table 2) The scores posted were between 50 and 83 points expressing an increase after instruction.

The Unit 10 experimental group pretest’s median was 28.4 with a standard error of 2.8 and a standard deviation of 8.9. The median score was 25 and the range was 25. The experimental group visited the computer lab four times during this unit completed blended learning activities. The posttest Unit 10 scores express a mean score of 64.3 up from 28.4 on the pretest indicating a 35.9 point increase. The standard error increased from 2.8 to 6.0 and the media increased from 25 to 67 points which also represented the range of scores. The Net Difference scores found in Table 2 for Unit 10 experimental group revealed an increase in nine out of the ten students with one student showing a decline in test scores of 17 points. The remaining nine scores demonstrated an increase of between nine and sixty-seven points. The summed score average for Unit 10 was 65.3.

The comparison of Unit 10 scores by group show the Net Difference scores for the control group range from 17 to 50 points while the experimental groups range from -17 to 67 points. When examining the average of posttest scores we see an increase of 33.4 points for the control group and 35.9 for the experimental indicated the experimental group had higher achievement score gains. The Summed Scores results for Unit 10 posttest indicated a mean of 66.7 for the control group and 65.3 for the experimental group which differed by 2.27 points. When examining the Unit 10 data using a t-Test, we found the t(14) = 2.14, p=.8 >.05 which indicated a non-significant result because the p value was higher than .05 so there is not sufficient evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Results by Gender

Males.

One male was part of the control group for this study. The number of males in the class was originally eleven males, but only one male’s scores have been included due to not receiving consent/assent from the students, absenteeism, and transferring of students out of the school or class. The score of this one male indicates a four point net difference score for the Unit 9 assessments. Due to only one student being included in this study, the sampling size was not conducive to applying descriptive statistics to the data. The experimental group contained seven males who posted net gains on Unit 9 ranging from four to twenty points. The Net Difference Mean for these seven males was increased by 13.6 points which is more than the one student’s four point gain in the control group. Due to the small sampling of only one male in the control group, to compare the results of the control and experimental achievement scores would not provide valid test results.

Table 5 - Net Difference Scores Males

Control Group Males

Code







CM1

40

44

4

33

50

17

Experimental Group Males

Code







EM7

64

84

20

25

58

33

EM6

64

80

16

42

75

33

EM5

28

48

20

33

42

9

EM4

80

84

4

17

67

50

EM3

56

68

12

25

75

50

EM2

64

68

4

33

75

42

EM1

52

56

4

42

25

-17

The one male student in the control group demonstrated a four point net difference for his group, had a mean of all scores as indicated in Table 6 – Male Summed Scores of 41.75 points. The experimental male students had summed score mean of 69.7 points for Unit 9 and the group averaged 55.3 which was 13.55 points above the control group student. The t-Test results were t(6)=2.45, .15>.05 which indicated a non-significant statistical difference between the two groups.

Table 6 – Male Summed Scores

Male Control Group Summed Scores

Student Code





Summed Score

Mean of all scores

CM1

40

44

33

50

167

41.75

Summed Score

40

44

33

50

167

41.75


40

44

33

50

167

41.75

Male Experimental Group Summed Scores

Student Code





Summed Score

Mean of all scores

EM7

64

84

25

68

241

60.25

EM6

64

80

42

75

261

65.25

EM5

28

48

33

42

151

37.75

EM4

80

84

17

67

248

62

EM3

56

68

33

75

232

58

EM2

64

68

33

75

240

60

EM1

52

56

42

25

175

43.75

Summed Scores

408

488

225

427

154.8

387


58.36

69.7

32.1

61

221.1

55.3

The Unit 10 Net Difference for the single male student was seventeen points. The six males in the experimental group posted net differences ranging from -17 to 50 points. Because the students were designated by codes, the identity of the specific student presenting a negative increase was not known to the researcher during the analysis process and therefore the reasoning behind the negative change is unknown. The average net difference for the male experimental group was 28.5 points. The average net increase from the experimental group was 28.5 which would appear to indicate a high statistical difference in the blended learning group, but when compared to only one student in the control group it does not provide a valid sampling for comparison. The summed score for the male control group member for Unit 10 was 50 while the mean of the Experimental Group Males was posted as 61 points representing a difference of 11 point. The results of the t-Test comparison showed the t(6)= 2.45, .66>.05 indicating a non-significant difference in the test results of the two groups of male student.

Table 7 – t-Test Results Males

Unit 9 Males


Variable 1

Variable 2

Mean

44

67.42857143

Variance

#DIV/0!

178.2857143

Observations

1

7

Pooled Variance

178.2857143


0

df

6

t Stat

-1.641313577

P(T<=t) one-tail

0.075920541

t Critical one-tail

1.943180281

P(T<=t) two-tail

0.151841083

t Critical two-tail

2.446911851

Unit 10 Males


Variable 1

Variable 2

Mean

50

59.57142857

Variance

#DIV/0!

379.2857143

Observations

1

7

Pooled Variance

379.2857143


0

df

6

t Stat

-0.459724391

P(T<=t) one-tail

0.330950507

t Critical one-tail

1.943180281

P(T<=t) two-tail

0.661901014

t Critical two-tail

2.446911851

Females.

Five females from the control group completed all requirements for this study, and their net difference scores range from zero to twenty points with scores from 44 to 80 (See Table 8). This net difference posted a range of twenty points. The average mean of summed scores for Unit 9 posttest was 68 points.

Three females enrolled in the experimental group completed all requirements for this study, and their net differences ranged from twelve to twenty four points. The average Net Difference after the blended learning activities was 17.3 points. The two female subgroups were roughly equal in number with five in the control group and three in the experimental. The average net difference for the control group was 7.1 and the experimental group was 17.3 indicating the experimental group had higher achievement on the test. The results of the posttest Unit 9 scores for the control group indicated a mean Summed Score of 68 (See Table 9).

The two female subgroups were roughly equal in number of participants. The average net score difference for Unit 9 was twenty points for the control group and twelve points for the experimental group and the mean for both groups was 68. The scores were analyzed using a t-Test and the results were t(5)= 2.45 and p(1)>.05 indicating no statistical differences between the two groups.

Table 8 - Net Difference Scores Females

Control Group

Code







CF5

68

72

4

17

67

50

CF4

72

80

8

42

83

41

CF3

60

64

4

33

50

17

CF2

80

80

0

42

67

25

CF1

24

44

20

33

83

50

Experimental Group

Code







EF3

60

84

24

17

67

50

EF2

36

52

16

25

67

42

EF1

56

68

12

25

92

67

Table 9 – Female Summed Scores

Female Control Group Summed Scores

Student Code





Summed Score

Mean of all scores

CF5

68

72

17

67

159

39.75

CF4

72

80

42

83

277

69.25

CF3

60

64

33

50

207

51.75

CF2

80

80

42

67

269

67.25

CF1

24

44

33

83

184

46

Summed Score

304

340

167

350

1096

247


60.8

68

33.4

70

219.2

54.8

Female Experimental Group Summed Scores

Student Code





Summed Score

Mean of all scores

EF3

60

84

17

67

228

57

EF2

36

52

25

67

180

45

EF1

56

68

25

92

241

60.25

Summed Scores

152

204

67

226

649

162.25


50.1

68

223

75.3

216.3

54

The results of Unit 10 reveal increases of 17 to 50 points by the females in the control group with an average increase of 36.6 points, while the experimental group increases ranged from 42 to 67 points and the average net difference increase for the group was 53.3. When the results of female students’ results receiving regular instruction and blended learning were compared they point to a greater increase in scores from pretest to posttest for the experimental blended learning female participants. The scores from Unit 10 were analyzed for both groups using the t-Test and the results were t(5) = 2.45, p(.62) >.05 indicating no significant difference in the two groups.

Table 10 – t-Test Results Female

Unit 9 Females


Variable 1

Variable 2

Mean

68

68

Variance

224

256

Observations

5

3

Pooled Variance

234.6666667


0

df

6

t Stat

0

P(T<=t) one-tail

0.5

t Critical one-tail

1.943180281

P(T<=t) two-tail

1

t Critical two-tail

2.446911851

Unit 10 Females


Variable 1

Variable 2

Mean

70

75.33333333

Variance

189

208.3333333

Observations

5

3

Pooled Variance

195.4444444


0

df

6

t Stat

-0.522381393

P(T<=t) one-tail

0.310061363

t Critical one-tail

1.943180281

P(T<=t) two-tail

0.620122726

t Critical two-tail

2.446911851

Male vs. Female Comparison

One research question for this study was: Is there a statistically significant difference in the social studies achievement of seventh grade students receiving instruction in a blended learning form and seventh grade students receiving instruction in a traditional format? To determine any differences, the results of the students were examined by Unit 9 and Unit 10, by gender for each unit and again by gender comparing male vs. female. The Table 11 listed below indicates the results of the t-Test for the results of male vs. female for Unit 9 and Unit 10. The Unit 9 results showed a mean for the males of 64.5 and the females of 68. The t-Test value for Unit 9 was t(14) = 2.14, p(.64) > .05 indicating a non-significant difference in scores. The Unit 10 results were a mean of 58.4 for the males and a 72 for the females with a t-Test result of t(14) = 2.15, p(2.15) > .05 indicating a non-significant difference in scores.

Table 11 - Male vs. Female t-Test results

Discussion

The integration of technology has been an issue for many schools and teachers. The state of Georgia’s TKES evaluation instrument assesses the use of technology within the classroom and is an important part of instruction in classroom in Georgia. The purpose behind this study was to determine if any statistical differences between students learning from traditional methods of instruction or from blended learning occurred during two seventh grade units about Africa and if differences occurred due to gender. As an educator if you looked at the test results from each group, you would be pleased with the progress the students made on the posttest compared to the pretest. The amount of increase in some cases was over 30 points on the posttest, however one must also look at data beyond comparing information from a table and determine the statistical differences between the two methods of instruction. Several analysis techniques were used to determine any differences between the two types of instruction. Net Difference analysis indicated all students increased their scores on the posttest after instruction except for one male student participant in the experimental group on Unit 10. Since the student participants were coded to ensure anonymity during the analysis process, it cannot be determined why this student posted a negative score on Unit 10.

The mean test score for the Experimental group receiving blended learning activities was 5.2 points higher than the control for Unit 9 but was 2.4 points lower on Unit 10. However the mean of all scores for the control group were 52.63 while the experimental group’s mean for all scores was 54.9 indicating the experimental group’s average was higher and had more correct answers on the two tests. The analysis of the male participants showed the average of all scores was 41.75 for the control and 55.3 for the experimental, but only one male student participated in the control group. The analysis of the female participants showed the average for all scores was 54.8 for the control and 54 for the experimental indicating no statistical difference. The t-Test analysis for each group as seen in Tables 4, 7, 10, and 11 showed results that were not sufficient to reject the null hypothesis because the p value was greater than the alpha value of .05, thus stating there was no statistical difference between the two methods of instruction.

Validity

The questions in this study matched the purpose of the test to determine the statistical differences between traditional methods of instruction and blended learning. The instructional activities covered the same standards for both groups and ensured the students in both groups received the same information in different formats. The examination and comparison of the pretest and posttest scores were an acceptable approach to analyzing the data and are therefore valid.

Reliability

The same instructor provided the instruction to both the control and experimental groups to increase the reliability. Each student completed the same pretest and posttest. This type of assessments is termed Test – Retest Reliability. The students completed the same assessment instrument twice thus ensuring reliability. The time interval between first administration and second was between two and three weeks, depending on the length of the unit of study. Unit 9 was estimated to be two and a half weeks, with Unit 10 at two weeks in length.

Limitations of the Study

The two classes chosen to participate in this study consisted of twenty students with roughly the same number of males and females each when the study was approved by the school district. During the assent/consent process, students moved away from the school zone, were suspended, and many chose not to participate in the study which caused the number of participants both male and female to be very small. This small sample size did not provide statistically sufficient data for analysis to be considered reliable or valid. All students attended the same school and were provided the same instruction by the same instructor which provided stability to the study, but it is recommended that additional groups of students participate in the next study to provide a greater sample size leading to a significant analysis of the data. It is also recommended that data collection time be extended beyond two units of study that comprise four weeks of a school year to perhaps a semester of instruction to gain a truer picture of the impact of blended learning on student achievement. The addition of a student survey providing an opportunity for students to respond to Likert type questions would bring additional important information and data to this study topic.

Implications

The results from this study differ from those of Kingsley, K. V. and Boone, R. (2008) as they found a strong link between the uses of technology and blended learning activities in a middle school classroom. The meta- analysis study completed by Means, et.al (2009) stated few studies for the K-12 learning environment have been completed and the findings of the seven K-12 studies indicated a favorable effect from blended learning, one had a significant negative effect and three did not attain statistical significance, rationalizing the need for more blended learning studies to be completed in different environments, with different participants and methods. The very limited number of studies examining the results of blended learning activities on student achievement in an urban school setting with minority students makes this study even more important.

References

2010-2011 State of Georgia K-12 report card. (n.d.). The Governor's Office of Student Achievement. Retrieved September 15, 2013, from http://reportcard2011.gaosa.org/(S(0tuktczlbiwyxcjn0odrmvdj))/k12/reports.aspX?ID=761:288&TestKey=C*8&TestType=qc

Blake, L. (2013). Price Middle School Comprehensive Instructional Review.

CCGPS. (n.d.). CCGPS. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from https://www.georgiastandards.org/common-core/Pages/default.aspx

CRCT Statewide Scores. (n.d.). CRCT Statewide Scores. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from http://www.gadoe.org/Curriculum-Instruction-and-Assessment/Assessment/Pages/CRCT-Statewide-Scores.aspx

Cramer, S., Cramer, S., Fisher, D., & Fink, L. (2008). Online or face-to-face? Which class to take. Voices From the Middle, 16.2(December 2008), 25 - 36.

Dikmenli, Y., & Unaldi, U. E. (2013). Effect of the blended learning environment and the application of virtual class upon the achievement and the attitude against the geography class. Mevlana International Journal of Education, 3(2), 43 - 56.

Drysdale, J. S., Graham, C. R., Spring, K. J., & Halverson, L. R. (2013). An analysis of research trends in dissertations and theses studying blended learning. Internet And Higher Education, 1790-100.

GADOE CCRPI 6. (n.d.). GADOE CCRPI 6. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from http://ccrpi.gadoe.org/2012/

Geography 2010: Grades 4, 8 and 12 Report Viewer. (n.d.). Geography 2010: Grades 4, 8 and 12 Report Viewer. Retrieved December 8, 2013, from http://nationsreportcard.gov/geography_2010/geography_2010_report/

Georgia Department of Education. (n.d.). Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved November 17, 2013, from http://archives.gadoe.org/ReportingFW.aspx?PageReq=102&SchoolId=36260&T=1&FY=2011

Howard, K. (2010). Mastering the Georgia 7th grade CRCT in social studies: Africa and Asia. Woodstock, Ga.: American Book Co.

Jethro, O., Grace, A., & Thomas, A. (2012). E-learning and its effects on teaching and learning in a global age. International Journal Of Academic Research In Business & Social Sciences, 2(1), 203-210.

Kingsley, K. V., & Boone, R. (2008). Effects of multimedia software on achievement of middle school students in an American history class. Journal Of Research On Technology In Education, 41(2), 203-221.

Lim, D., Morris, M. L., & Kupritz, V. W. (2007). Online vs. blended learning: Differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. Journal Of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 27-42.

Means, B., Toyama, Y., Murphy, R., Bakia, M., & Jones K. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning [electronic resource] : a meta-analysis and review of online learning studies / prepared by Barbara Means ... [et al.]. Washington, D.C. : U.S. Dept. of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service, 2009.

"Mission Statement." Common Core State Standards Initiative. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Nov. 2013. .

O'Dwyer, L. M., Carey, R., & Kleiman, G. (2007). A study of the effectiveness of the Louisiana algebra I online course. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, (Spring 2007), online.

Olthouse, J. (2012). Teaching in blended k-12 classrooms: Problems and potential. Meridian, 14(1). Retrieved fromhttp://ced.ncsu.edu/meridian/index.php/meridian/article/view/4

Pane, J. F., Griffin, B. A., McCaffrey, D. F., & Karam, R. (2013). Effectiveness of cognitive tutor algebra I at scale.

Picciano, A. G., and J. Seaman. 2007. K-12 online learning: A survey of U.S. school district administrators. Boston: Sloan Consortium. http://www.sloan-c.org/publications/survey/K-12_06.asp

Priority, Focus, and Alert Schools. (2012, March 20). The Governor's Office of Student Achievement. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from http://gosa.georgia.gov/priority-focus-and-alert-schools

Shapley, K., Sheehan, D., Maloney, C., & Caranikas-Walker, F. (2011). Effects of technology immersion on middle school students’ learning opportunities and achievement. The Journal of Educational Research, 104(5), 299-315.

Teacher Keys Effectiveness System. (2013, July 22). Georgia Department of Education. Retrieved October 27, 2013, from http://www.gadoe.org/School-Improvement/Teacher-and-Leader-Effectiveness/Documents/TKES%20Handbook%20FINAL%207-18-2013.pdf

Trowler, P., & Trowler, V. (2010). Student engagement evidence summary.

Wolfe, T. (2012). Middle school and technology usage: A case study. Meridian, 14(1). Retrieved fromhttp://ced.ncsu.edu/meridian/index.php/meridian/article/view/5

Yukselturk, E. B., & Bulut, S. (2009, July 1). Gender differences in self-regulated online learning environment. Educational Technology & Society, 12 (3), 12-22.

ZIPskinny demographic information for 30315 - ATLANTA GEORGIA. (n.d.). ZIPskinny demographic information for 30315 - ATLANTA GEORGIA. Retrieved November 13, 2013, from http://zipskinny.com/index.php?zip=30315

Appendices

Appendix A

Unit 9 Pretest and Posttest

1. Haymonot’s family once farmed the regions south of his village. However, poor farming methods and years of famine have left eth land dry and unable to be used for agriculture. It sounds like the area has fallen victim to

A. deforestation

B. desalinization

C. desertification

D. Buddhism

2. How does drilling for oil hurt the environment?

A. The drilling releases desertification.

B. The methods of oil extraction leave the land damaged and unusable.

C. The drilling creates unsafe working environments.

D. The machines used for extraction decrease nation’s populations.

3. Which are three basic economic questions?

A. Where to produce? Why to produce? For whom to produce?

B. What to produce? How to produce? For whom to produce?

C. Where to produce? How to produce? Why produce?

D. What to produce? How to produce? Why produce?

4. What is a market economy?

A. The government regulates most of the economy.

B. The government has little regulation and allows for private ownership of business and property.

C. The king or queen has complete control.

D. Most businesses and property belong to the state, rather than private businesses or individuals.

5. In what economic system does the government own the means of production?

A. traditional economies

B. command economies

C. mixed economies

D. market economies

6. Why is the Sahara Desert considered a trade barrier?

A. because it encourages foreigners to sneak into Africa for illegal trading

B. because it makes trade more difficult in Africa

C. because it is easy to travel through

D. because it increases the chances of trading with poor countries

7. Specialization benefits both buyers and sellers because it

A. gets rid of trade barriers.

B. prevents the buyer form having to exchange currency in order to buy what is sold.

C. provides the seller with revenue while providing the buyer with a needed import.

D. prevents free trade and increase tariffs.

8. How does oil, a natural resource, affect the economic development of Africa?

A. Because it is the only natural resource in Africa, nations do not profit from oil.

B. Almost all nations in Africa depend on agriculture, not oil, for revenue.

C. Foreign investors buy all the oil so Africa does not profit.

D. African nations rich in oil will export large amounts of it, producing lots of revenue.

9. What is the MOST important factor in determining what a country produces, exports, and imports?

A. the amount of debt the country is in

B. the amount of people who live in the country

C. the government’s policies on foreign investments

D. a country’s location and available natural resources

10. If a nation invests money and time into providing training and education for its citizens, what is this an example of?

A. investment in entrepreneurship

B. investment in capital goods

C. investment in tariff

D. investment in human capital

11. Which of the following tends to increase a nation’s GDP?

A. famine

B. poverty

C. investments

D. limited natural resources

12. What are people called who start and own private businesses?

A. salesman

B. investors

C. entrepreneurs

D. government spenders

13. A less-skilled workforce and lower literacy rates are both causes of

A. market economies.

B. democracy.

C. capitalism

D. poverty.

14. Countries sometimes allow only limited trade with a certain country in order to force it to change a specific policy. What is this called?

A. tariffs

B. embargoes

C. sanctions

D. blocks

15. Who decides what to produce in a command economy?

A. consumers

B. private business owners

C. the market

D. the state

16. Jeremy’s company has asked him to analyze its new factory in Kenya. Jeremy recommends that the company buy more machines and hire more workers for the factory. What economic question is Jeremy trying to answer?

A. what to produce

B. for whom to produce

C. how to produce

D. where to sell

17. In many African and Asian communities, people make a living in the same way that their parents always have. They want to produce enough to survive but often aren’t concerned with mass economic development. These communities operate as

A. command economies

B. traditional economies

C. market economies

D. mixed economies that are mostly command economies.

Read the list below, and answer the question.

· Restrictions on pollution

· Establishing parks and preserves

· Declaring certain animals endangered

18. The BEST title for the list above is

A. Efforts to protect Children

B. Attempts to Limit Families

C. Government Actions to Deal with Environmental Issues

D. Laws Enacted to Protect Citizens’ Rights

19. The Tigris, Euphrates, and Nile rivers help farmers by providing a source of

A. desalinization

B. flooding

C. irrigation

D. pollution

20. Which of the following is a major environmental issue in Kenya?

A. desalinization

B. illegal hunting of wildlife

C. runaway capitalism

D. an oppressive oligarchy

21. Human development and poor soil can often decrease the size of African rainforests. When rainforests decrease in size, it is called

A. desertification

B. deforestation

C. desalinization

D. famine

22. What are embargoes and tariffs examples of?

A. natural trade barriers

B. natural resources

C. political trade barriers

D. capital goods

23. Which of the following affects trade the LEAST?

A. geographic location

B. natural resources

C. government policies

D. personal money-management decisions

24. More industry, more capital goods, greater production, and large amounts of foreign investment in a nation are usually signs of

A. Pan-Africanism

B. command economies

C. economic development

D. apartheid

25. How do foreign investors help a country’s economy?

A. They bring money into the economy.

B. They establish command economies.

C. They establish a power struggle within the country.

D. They produce high tariffs within the country.

Test Number, Original Test Question Number, and Correct Answer

Test number

Original test and #

Answer

1

Diagnostic # 10

C

2

Diagnostic # 22

B

3

Diagnostic # 3

B

4

Diagnostic # 21

B

5

Diagnostic # 50

B

6

Diagnostic # 19

B

7

Diagnostic # 60

C

8

Diagnostic # 25

D

9

Diagnostic # 32

D

10

Diagnostic # 35

D

11

Practice Test 1 – 1

C

12

Practice Test 1 –11

C

13


D

14


C

15


D

16


C

17


B

18


C

19


C

20

Practice Test 2 - 10

B

21

Practice Test 2 -20

B

22

Practice Test 2 -19

C

23

Practice Test 2 48

D

24

Practice Test 2 -13

C

25

Practice Test 2 -31

A

Questions taken from:


Appendix B

Unit 10 Pretest and Posttest

1. The first people to enslave Africans were

A. black Africans

B. white Europeans

C. Indian immigrants

D. Afrikaners in South Africa

2. How did African nationalists feel about the partitioning of Africa to European powers?

A. They were supportive because they valued Europeans as allies.

B. They were grateful because it increased economic development.

C. They did not care because they had no idea what was happening in Europe.

D. They were resentful and wanted to establish independent African nations.

3. Why does Africa owe its independence largely to literacy and education?

A. The nationalist movement encouraged uneducated blacks to learn to read and write.

B. Many of the nationalist movements were led by educated blacks.

C. Since much of Africa’s population is illiterate, they fought for their independence in order to improve the literacy rate of the people.

D. Only literate blacks were granted their independence.

“South Africa sits at the southernmost tip of Africa. For centuries, South Africa has served as midway point between important trade routes. These trade routes allowed many Europeans to bring capitalism and investors into the region in the late nineteenth century. It is now a highly industrialized and modern country. In fact, it is the most economically developed nation in Africa.”

4. After reading this passage, what contributed MOST to South Africa’s development as a strong nation?

A. military conquests

B. The discovery of natural resources

C. its location

D. slavery

5. Which of the following countries pursued capitalism and democracy after independence?

A. North Korea

B. Saudi Arabia

C. China

D. Kenya

6. Look at the list below and answer the following question.

The Ghanian independence movement

Kwame Nkrumah

India’s independence movement

Mohandas Gandhi

South Africa’s anti-apartheid movement

X

Chinese Revolution

Mao Zedong

What name should go where you see the X?

A. Ho Chi Minh

B. Nelson Mandela

C. Patrice Lumumba

D. Saddam Hussein

7. The ANC was MOST support of

A. apartheid

B. colonialism

C. Nelson Mandela

D. Mao Zedong

8. Someone who believed that all black Africans must see themselves as one people in order to gain independence and overcome the effects of European colonization would have been MOST supportive of

A. Capitalism

B. Pan-Africanism

C. apartheid

D. Afrikaners

9. Following World War I, many Africans were disappointed to learn that they would not be granted their independence by European colonizers. This disappointment led to

A. the Middle Passage

B. the South African War

C. the Berlin Conference

D. African nationalist movements

10. An African devoted to uniting all black Africans in an effort to improve economic and political stability across the continent would most likely want to be a member of

A. the African Union

B. Vietcong

C. OPEC

D. al Qaeda

11. Which of the following demonstrated European’s lack of concern for black Africans during the nineteenth century?

A. Pan-Africanism

B. African socialism

C. the Berlin Conference

D. apartheid

12. In which region would one find the ANC?

A. I

B. II

C. III

D. IV

Test Question

Original Test Number

Answer

1

Diagnostic 7

A

2

Diagnostic 13

D

3

Diagnostic 31

B

4

Diagnostic 64

C

5


D

6


B

7

Practice Test 1- 60

C

8


B

9


D

10


A

11


C

12


D

Questions taken from:


Unit 10 Male vs. Female Comparison


Variable 1Variable 2

Mean58.37572

Variance336.5535714175.1428571

Observations88

Pooled Variance255.8482143

Hypothesized Mean Difference0

df14

t Stat-1.703630127

P(T<=t) one-tail0.055267542

t Critical one-tail1.761310136

P(T<=t) two-tail0.110535083

t Critical two-tail2.144786688

Unit 9 Comparison Male and Female


Variable 1Variable 2

Mean64.568

Variance221.4286201.1428571

Observations88

Pooled Variance211.2857

Hypothesized Mean Difference0

df14

t Stat-0.48157

P(T<=t) one-tail0.318775

t Critical one-tail1.76131

P(T<=t) two-tail0.637549

t Critical two-tail2.144787

Date post:	18-Oct-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times