EdMedia 2011 Lisbon
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

EdMedia 2011 Lisbon






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 63

http://www.scoop.it 61
url_unknown 2


Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

EdMedia 2011 Lisbon EdMedia 2011 Lisbon Presentation Transcript

  • David Geelan, The University of Queensland Michelle Mukherjee, Queensland University of Technology
  • Overview
    • 12 Chemistry classes and 10 physics classes
    • Comparison of student conceptual knowledge gains when taught with and without visualisations
    • Sex, learning style and academic ability as further variables
  • Background
    • Lots of good evidence that students enjoy learning with visualisations
    • Lots of teachers adopting them, lots of money being spent developing, hosting and sharing them
    • Not much good quality quantitative evidence of their educational effectiveness, particularly at the high school level
  • Design
    • The students completed a pre-test and post-test of conceptual understanding, based on the Force Concept Inventory and the Chemistry Concept Inventory
    • Multiple-choice items with common student misconceptions as distracters
    • Cross-over experimental design: students completed one topic with visualisations and one without
  • Teaching Comparison
    • Teachers taught the physics and chemistry topics either with or without using scientific visualisations
    • Non-visualisation cases were not necessarily just lectures, and included demonstrations and other activities
    • After post-test, most classes did use the visualisations
  • Examples
  • Results - Overall
    • 79 physics, 78 chemistry
    • 34 male, 123 female
    • No significant difference
    • t(512) = -1.48, p = .14
    Treatment Gain Mean SD No visualisation (N=157) 1.19 2.26 Visualisation (N=157) 1.58 2.39
  • Results - Physics
    • 80 physics
    • No significant difference
    • t(158)=-1.58, p=.116
    Treatment Gain Mean SD No visualisation (N=157) .95 2.22 Visualisation (N=157) 1.53 2.38
  • Results - Chemistry
    • 129 chemistry
    • No significant difference
    • t(256)=-.538, p=.59
    Treatment Gain Mean SD No visualisation (N=157) 1.74 2.67 Visualisation (N=157) 1.92 2.65
  • Results - Sex
    • Chemistry: no significant difference
    • Physics:
      • significant difference at p<.05 level: (t(78)=2.37, p=.02)
      • moderate effect size (Cohen’s d=0.54)
  • Results – Academic Achievement
    • Chemistry: no significant difference
    • Physics: no significant difference
  • Results – Learning Styles
    • Very small differences noted for physics with a slight advantage for kinesthetic learners (not visual learners)
    • Construct is very shaky and so was the measurement
    • Can’t get published with this measure included
    • Therefore this facet discarded
  • Conclusion
    • ‘ First, do no harm’: While there were no large benefits for conceptual learning observed, there was also no decrease in conceptual learning
    • Given the other benefits of student enjoyment and engagement, use of visualisations is probably justified
    • Excessive effectiveness claims should be avoided
  • The Next Study
    • Applying for ARC Discovery grant: If successful study will start in 2012
    • Many detail variables in relation to types of visualisations and ways they were used
    • Still focused on classroom-based research
    • More qualitative approach to students’ learning/thinking while learning with visualisations
  • Contact
    • Please do get in touch if you have questions, suggestions, solutions or are doing related work: [email_address]
    • Michelle Mukherjee will be reporting some results from a related study here on Friday