经济学科目笔试和口试学生学习成果的差异

Y. Puspita, Syarwani Ahmad, N. Nurlina
{"title":"经济学科目笔试和口试学生学习成果的差异","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

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。
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
Differences in Learning Outcomes Between Students Tested in Written Tests and Oral Tests in Economics Subjects
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 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