Advertisement

ECTJ

, Volume 27, Issue 3, pp 179–184 | Cite as

Stimulus as a random factor in analysis of variance: Increasing the generalizability of findings

  • Daniel W. King
  • Lynda A. King
Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

All too often inadequate experimental designs and/or faulty statistical analyses preclude generalization of findings. The authors of this paper discuss the need, in designing studies having educational variables, to give more attention to recognizing the universe of generalization and to incorporating into the design a variable that represents this universe. They further recommend that data analytic techniques, in turn, treat the levels of this variable as randomly selected from the universe.

Keywords

Educational Technology Random Factor Internal Combustion Engine American Educational Research Journal Instructional Unit 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bracht, G. H., & Glass, G. V. The external validity of comparative experiments in educational and the social sciences.American Educational Research Journal, 1968,5, 437–474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Clark, H. H. The language-as-a-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1973,12, 335–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coleman, E. B. Generalizing to a language population.Psychological Reports, 1964,14, 219–226.Google Scholar
  4. Dwyer, F. M. The effect of IQ level on the instructional effectiveness of black-and-white and color illustrations.AV Communication Review, 1976,24, 49–61.Google Scholar
  5. Frederiksen, N. Toward a taxonomy of situations.American Psychologist, 1972,27, 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hughes, D. C., & Reid, N. A. Programmed learning and conventional teaching.Educational Research, 1975,18, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sells, S. B. (Ed.).Stimulus determinants of behavior. New York: Ronald Press, 1963.Google Scholar
  8. Snow, R. E. Representative and quasirepresentative designs for research on teaching.Review of Educational Research, 1974,44, 265–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Winer, B.J. Statistical principles in experimental design. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1971.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 1979

Authors and Affiliations

  • Daniel W. King
    • 1
  • Lynda A. King
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCentral Michigan UniversityMt. Pleasant
  2. 2.Central Michigan UniversityMount Pleasant

Personalised recommendations