Williamson, K C (2018) The effect of course time compression on academic performance in construction surveying. International Journal of Construction Education and Research, 14(4), pp. 277-294. ISSN 1557-8771
Abstract
The goal of this study was to explore the differences in academic performance between students who took the full 16-week fall-spring semester courses and students that took the compressed 10-day mini-mester course in construction surveying. There were no instructional design differences between semester courses with respect to instructor, contact hours, instructional design, delivery method, materials, activities, applications, quizzes, exams or grading. This study found that students taking the compressed mini-mester course had significantly better achievement on the laboratory activities and the reading quizzes than that of the students taking the full-semester courses. However, the students taking the full-semester courses significantly exhibit better achievement on the two course exams than did the students taking the compressed mini-mester course. No significant difference was found on total course points. Student undergraduate Grade Point Average (GPA), Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and Test of Logical Thinking (TOLT) scores were also found to be good predictors of course achievement.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | ability; achievement; construction; education; GPA; reasoning; research; sat; semester compression; surveying; tolt |
| Index terms: | reasoning, compression, laboratory, surveying, instructor, academic performance, undergraduate, delivery method, grade point average |
| Subjects: | delivery method, assessment methods, cognitive psychology, health monitoring assessment and metrics, research management, practitioner, curriculum development, material properties and characteristics |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Roles and Professions, Construction Materials, Procurement, Health and Safety, Education |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here