ex_CSU_logo.jpg

About this Journal

Call for Papers

Submission
Guidelines

Review Criteria for Research Articles

Calendar of Events &
Opportunities

Exchanges
Editorial Board

Contributors

Post Your Comments

View Readers' Comments

ITL Homepage

Ex_header.jpg
From the ClassroomViewpoints (Position Papers)ReviewsGallery (Creative Works)Ask the Professor
Hartlep, Karen—Self-Reference and Instructor Self-Disclosure: Is Gossip Easier to Remember? - Page 10
Exchanges: The On-line Journal of Teaching and Learning in the CSU


Results


Since preliminary results indicated that the pattern of mean scores for each lecture condition was quite similar across both exams, I combined the data from the two exams. This gave 12 exam questions for each of the four lecture conditions. The mean for each condition is shown in the following table.

With Pair-Share Without Pair-Share
With Instructor Self-Disclosure 7.59(SD = 1.86) 8.05(SD = 1.81)
Without Instructor Self-Disclosure 6.10(SD = 1.94) 6.44(SD = 2.08)

A 2 x 2 (Instructor Self-Disclosure/No Disclosure x Pair-Share/No Pair-Share) repeated-measures analysis of variance of the combined mid-term exam scores resulted in a significant main effect for the variable instructor self-disclosure/no disclosure, F(1, 186) = 69.22, p < .001. The magnitude-of-effect estimate indicated a moderate effect, h2 = .27. Exam performance was better when lectures included instructor self-disclosure.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
References

Back to Research Articles

Back to Exchanges