Differences in Learning Outcomes Between Students Tested in Written Tests and Oral Tests in Economics Subjects

Y. Puspita, Syarwani Ahmad, N. Nurlina
{"title":"Differences in Learning Outcomes Between Students Tested in Written Tests and Oral Tests in Economics Subjects","authors":"Y. Puspita, Syarwani Ahmad, N. Nurlina","doi":"10.15294/eeaj.v11i1.54012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to determine the results of differences in learning outcomes between students who were given a written test and an oral test on economics subjects. The population in this study were all students of class X IPS, which amounted to 97 students. The sampling technique in this study used random sampling. Data collection methods used documentation and tests. The results of this research for class X IPS 1 showed that the average score of the written test results was 80-86, totaling 6 people or 18.75% of the students who took the test, and were categorized as very good. 12 students who scored 66-79 or 37.5% were categorized as good. 6 students who scored 59-65 or 18.75% were categorized as sufficient while students who got a score of 45-58 were 8 people or 24.98% were categorized as poor while in class X IPS2 students who got a score of 66-79 totaling 11 people or 34.40% were categorized as good while students who scored 59-65 totaling 11 people or 34.40% were categorized as good enough. 10 students who got a score of 40-53 or 31.20% were categorized as less good.","PeriodicalId":340929,"journal":{"name":"Economic Education Analysis Journal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economic Education Analysis Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15294/eeaj.v11i1.54012","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study aimed to determine the results of differences in learning outcomes between students who were given a written test and an oral test on economics subjects. The population in this study were all students of class X IPS, which amounted to 97 students. The sampling technique in this study used random sampling. Data collection methods used documentation and tests. The results of this research for class X IPS 1 showed that the average score of the written test results was 80-86, totaling 6 people or 18.75% of the students who took the test, and were categorized as very good. 12 students who scored 66-79 or 37.5% were categorized as good. 6 students who scored 59-65 or 18.75% were categorized as sufficient while students who got a score of 45-58 were 8 people or 24.98% were categorized as poor while in class X IPS2 students who got a score of 66-79 totaling 11 people or 34.40% were categorized as good while students who scored 59-65 totaling 11 people or 34.40% were categorized as good enough. 10 students who got a score of 40-53 or 31.20% were categorized as less good.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
经济学科目笔试和口试学生学习成果的差异
本研究旨在探讨经济学科目笔试与口试学生在学习成果上的差异。本研究人群均为X班的学生,共97人。本研究的抽样技术采用随机抽样。使用文档和测试的数据收集方法。本次调查结果显示,X班的笔试成绩平均得分为80-86分,占参加考试学生的18.75%,为“非常好”。成绩为66 ~ 79分(37.5%)的12名学生被评为优秀。6名59 ~ 65分(18.75%)的学生被评为“合格”,8名45 ~ 58分(24.98%)的学生被评为“不合格”。在IPS2 X班,66 ~ 79分(34.40%)的学生被评为“合格”,59 ~ 65分(34.40%)的学生被评为“合格”。40 ~ 53分(31.20%)的10名学生被评为“不太好”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Cashless Society and Financial Literacy in Campus Life to Support Accountable Financial Management Building Destination Competitiveness Through Memorable Tourism Experience The Influence of Financial Literacy, M-Banking Services on Saving Behavior Moderated by Gender and Self-Control Analysis of Elements Business Model in Coffee Shop Indications of Creeping Acquisition through Rights Issues in Indonesian Non Financial Companies during 2018-2021
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1