Award Date


Degree Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Education (EdD)


Secondary Education

Number of Pages



The purpose of this study was to compare two types of instruction to determine whether one approach or method is superior in promoting student achievement in the basic speech communication course in a community college setting. The study was planned to find answers to the following question: To what extent do students, who are exposed to two different teaching/learning approaches, differ in terms of their cognitive achievement in oral communications?;The statistical design that was used is the Nonequivalent Control Group Design which is as follows:;O X O; - - - - - - - - - - - - -; O O; The population for this study consisted of 32 students enrolled in two oral communications classes at Clark County Community College in the Spring Semester, 1979. Within these classes individuals were matched to create pairs using the following criteria: (1) Pretest scores on the Abridged Patton Speech Content Examination; (2) Speech anxiety; (3) Proficiency of speech desired; (4) Previous speech experience. From the two treatment groups, six matching pairs were selected. Only the matched subjects were used in the calculation of the statistics; Treatment I was assigned to the 1:40 p.m. class meeting on Tuesday and Thursday. There were eleven participants in this Treatment, five male and six female. The average age of this group was 26.7. This was the Control Group and the traditional lecture approach was the method of instruction used; Treatment II was assigned to the 9:25 a.m. class meeting on Monday and Wednesday. There were 29 participants in this group, nine male and twelve female. The average age of this group was 27.3. This was the Experimental Group and the self-instruction/criterion-referenced approach to teaching was the method of instruction used. The students were instructed to use two class periods to listen to audio-tapes in the Speech Laboratory. The tapes contained the information for the particular unit of study; At the conclusion of the unit all students were given a posttest which was identical to the present (Abridged Patton Speech Content Examination); The matched pair subjects from Treatment I averaged 8.83 on the pretest and 11.66 on the posttest. Treatment II matched pair subjects averaged 8.83 on the pretest and 14.8 on the posttest; The null hypothesis was tested at the .05 level of significance of differences between the posttest means of the two groups. Students receiving the individualized/laboratory instruction method scored higher on the posttest than did the group that received the classroom/lecture method of instruction but the differences were no more than might be attributed to chance. Therefore, it was concluded that the use of individualized instruction as described in this study, although not inhibiting the students' cognitive achievement, cannot be expected to be more effective than the traditional/classroom instructional approach when student achievement is used as the measure of effectiveness in a beginning public speaking course; The following are recommendations for further study: (1) Student attitudes toward alternative methods of instruction. (2) Which method of instruction influences greater success in public speaking performance? (3) Should students in a beginning public speaking course be provided a choice of laboratory (individualized) instruction regardless of the costs if and when no significant differences occur between the two different teaching methods? (4) Would there be any change in results if Treatment Group II (Experimental Group) is given the posttest immediately after each member finishes the study material rather than waiting for the entire group to take it at one time? (5) The use of analysis of covariance to compute the data. (6) A longer study (up to five years) to determine students' attitudes toward alternative teaching methods.


Approaches; College; Community; Comparison; Level; Public; Speaking; Teaching; Two

Controlled Subject

Curriculum planning

File Format


File Size

4085.76 KB

Degree Grantor

University of Nevada, Las Vegas




If you are the rightful copyright holder of this dissertation or thesis and wish to have the full text removed from Digital Scholarship@UNLV, please submit a request to and include clear identification of the work, preferably with URL.


IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit