250 likes | 376 Views
KURIES KAI KURIOI! Kalhmera !. Media-Assisted Learning Pedagogical Evaluation of CONNECT Runs Franz X. Bogner University of Bayreuth Centre of Math & Science Education. Digital Media in Science Education. Our evaluation is designed to address the following research questions:
E N D
KURIES KAI KURIOI! Kalhmera!
Media-Assisted Learning Pedagogical Evaluation of CONNECT Runs Franz X. Bogner University of Bayreuth Centre of Math & Science Education
Our evaluation is designed to address the following research questions: * Does the CONNECT technology - platform and augmented reality (AR) - add value to the field trip experience? [Is an augmented field trip experience that is supported by a specific internet platform superior to a similar field trip experience that does not make use of advanced technology to support the link between classrooms and science centres?] * Do the educational scenarios provide added value for teachers and students, and if so, in what ways? [Is CONNECT superior to traditional classroom teaching and if, under what circumstances?]
No Connect Scenarios Connect Scenarios Museum Visit w/ Pre & Post Activities (No Platform/AR) Museum Visit w/ Pre & Post Activities (with Platform/AR) Classroomalone – Similar Curriculum, No Museum Visit A quasi-experimental design, including 3 main treatment groups 1 2 3 1) This group serves as a control group, consisting of classes that study the content material without the museum visit. 2) This group consists of classes who visit the museum and complete pre- and post-visit activities, but all events are completed without the use of the CONNECT technology (the platform & AR) 3) This group consists of classes who visit the museum and complete pre- and post-visit activities making use of the CONNECT technology (the platform & AR)
No Connect Scenarios Connect Scenarios Museum Visit w/ Pre & Post Activities (No Platform/AR) Museum Visit w/ Pre & Post Activities (with Platform/AR) Classroomalone – Similar Curriculum, No Museum Visit 1 2 3 How these treatment groups test the hypothesis: * The comparison of groups 2 & 3 will test the first hypothesis- added value of the technology. * The comparison of group 1 to group 2 will test the 2nd hypothesis- added value of the educational scenarios.
Audiences There are 2 primary audiences: teachers and students be monitored. Methodology & Instruments Quantitative methodologies: * Pre & Post Questionnaires Qualitative methodologies: * Selected Testing Run Observations * Focus Groups * Open-ended questionnaire questions * Possible video analysis
Achievement Gain Wilcoxon: Z = -9.0 p< 0.001
Achievement Gain (Biology) Wilcoxon: Z = -7.5 p< 0.001
Achievement Gain (Subject Integrated) Wilcoxon: Z = -7.9 p< 0.001
homogeneous vs. heterogeneous dyads homogeneous: difference of teacher assessment < 1 Md = 6 heterogeneous: difference of teacher assessment > 1 Md = 7
There is … • … no relationship between the cognitive ability (within a dyad) and the individual learning gain. • … no relationship between the dyad consistence and the individual learning gain. • … a relationship between the individual learning gain within a dyad.
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) (Deci & Ryan 2001) Interest/Enjoyment Perceived Competence Effort/Importance Pressure/Tension Perceived Choice Value/Usefulness
Interest/Enjoyment I enjoyed doing this activity very much This activity was fun to do. I thought this was a boring activity. (R) This activity did not hold my attention at all. (R) I would describe this activity as very interesting. I thought this activity was quite enjoyable. While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it. Perceived Competence I think I am pretty good at this activity. I think I did pretty well at this activity, compared to other students. After working at this activity for awhile, I felt pretty competent. I am satisfied with my performance at this task. I was pretty skilled at this activity. This was an activity that I couldn’t do very well. (R) Effort/Importance I put a lot of effort into this. I didn’t try very hard to do well at this activity. (R) I tried very hard on this activity. It was important to me to do well at this task. I didn’t put much energy into this. (R)
Pressure/Tension I did not feel nervous at all while doing this. (R) I felt very tense while doing this activity. I was very relaxed in doing these. (R) I was anxious while working on this task. I felt pressured while doing these. Perceived Choice I believe I had some choice about doing this activity. I felt like it was not my own choice to do this task. (R) I didn’t really have a choice about doing this task. (R) I felt like I had to do this. (R) I did this activity because I had no choice. (R) I did this activity because I wanted to. I did this activity because I had to. (R) Value/Usefulness I believe this activity could be of some value to me. I think that doing this activity is useful for _____________________ I think this is important to do because it can ____________________ I would be willing to do this again because it has some value to me. I think doing this activity could help me to _____________________ I believe doing this activity could be beneficial to me. I think this is an important activity.
Results Motivation ***p< 0,001; **p< 0,01