advertising
-
1.
Rothstein, MG, SV Paunonen, JC Rush, et al. :Personality and cognitive ability predictors of performance in graduate business school. .J Educ Psychol 86::516. ,1994. .
-
2.
Chamorro-Premuzic, T and A Furnham. :Personality predicts academic performance: evidence from two longitudinal university samples. .J Res Pers 37::319. ,2003. .
-
3.
Conard, MA . :Aptitude is not enough: how personality and behavior predict academic performance. .J Res Pers 40::339. ,2006. .
-
4.
Dollinger, SJ, AM Matyja, and JL Huber. :Which factors best account for academic success: those which college students can control or those they cannot? J Res Pers 42::872. ,2008. .
-
5.
Marburger, D . :Absenteeism and undergraduate performance. .J Econ Educ 32::99. ,2008. .
-
6.
Gump, SE . :Guess who’s (not) coming to class: student attitudes as indicators of attendance. .Educ Stud 32::39. ,2006. .
-
7.
Golding, JM . :The role of attendance in lecture classes: you can lead a horse to water. . . .Teach Psychol 38::40. ,2011. .
-
8.
Turner, FH . :A study in the relation of class attendance to scholastic attainment. .School Soc 26::22. ,1927. .
-
9.
Jones, L . :Class attendance and college marks. .Coll Soc 33::444. ,1931. .
-
10.
Schmidt, RM . :Who maximizes what? a study in student time allocation. .Am Econ Rev 73::23. ,1983. .
-
11.
Jones, CH . :Interaction of absences and grades in a college course. .J Psychol 116::133. ,1984. .
-
12.
Peverly, ST, V Ramaswamy, C Brown, et al. :What predicts skill in lecture note taking. .J Educ Psychol 99::167. ,2007. .
-
13.
Clarke III, I, TB Flaherty, and S Mottner. :Student perceptions of educational technology tools. .J Marketing Educ 23::169. ,2001. .
-
14.
Young, MR, BR Klemz, and JW Murphy. :Enhancing learning outcomes: the effects of instructional technology, learning styles, instructional methods, and student behavior. .J Marketing Educ 25::130. ,2003. .
-
15.
Dillon, A and R Gabbard. :Hypermedia as an educational technology: a review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. .Rev Educ Res 68::322. ,1998. .
-
16.
Sweeney, JC and D Ingram. :A comparison of traditional and web-based tutorials in marketing education: an exploratory study. .J Marketing Educ 23::55. ,2001. .
-
17.
Ueltschy, LC . :An exploratory study of integrating interactive technology into the marketing curriculum. .J Marketing Educ 23::63. ,2001. .
-
18.
Hiltz, SR . . “Collaborative Learning in Asynchronous Learning Networks: Building Learning Communities. ,” in Web-Net 98 World Conference of the WWW, Internet, and Intranet Proceedings, WebNet 98,Orlando, FL,November 1998.
-
19.
Oliver, R . :Measuring users’ performance with interactive information systems. .J Comp Assist Lear 12::89. ,1996. .
-
20.
Cavanaugh, C . :Development and Management of Virtual Schools: Issues and Trends. ,Information Science. ,Hershey, PA. ,2004. .
-
21.
McCabe, DB and ML Meuter. :A student view of technology in the classroom: does it enhance the seven principles of good practice in undergraduate education. .J Marketing Educ 33::149. ,2011. .
Effect of Technology on Student Class Performance and Class Absence
Search for other papers by Sanjay Sesodia in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Search for other papers by David Molnar in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Background:
This study examined the effect of instructional technology availability on the performance of students enrolled in a medical physiology course at a podiatric medical school.
Methods:
Multiple linear regression analysis was used to predict student overall test performance based on instructional technology, Medical College Admission Test score, undergraduate grade point average, and class absence.
Results:
The availability of instructional technology was associated with a small decline in mean test performance and a small increase in class absence. Class absence had a negative effect on test performance only when the technology was available. Total Medical College Admission Test score and grade point average were positively correlated with performance.
Conclusions:
Instructional technology did not enhance absentee student course performance and, indeed, hurt it. Its use as a means of providing access to additional lecture material needs to be reevaluated. (J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 102(6): 471–476, 2012)
advertising
