Perrone Thesis PowerPoint

907 views
829 views

Published on

SEYS 778

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
907
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Perrone Thesis PowerPoint

  1. 1. Giovanna Perrone SEYS 778 Dr. Murfin
  2. 2. IWB implementation:  ◦ Students are motivated in lessons with an IWB because of the ―high level of interaction—students enjoy interacting physically with the board, manipulating text and images‖ (Smith et al., 2005, p. 94).  Use of interactive pen  Manipulating animations and images  Point, click and drag objects on the board Students’ perception:  ◦ IWBs are viewed favorably by the students:  Allows the advantage of interaction of various elements:  Versatility  Multimedia  Fun and games ◦ ―Students appreciate the range of resources that can be accessed through the technology‖ (Hall & Higgins, 2005, p. 106).
  3. 3. Research Question  ◦ Will animations through the IWB be a beneficial feature that can assist the learning of scientific concepts as opposed to drawing on traditional blackboards? Purpose of Study  ◦ Will animations in the IWB have a greater effect on students when compared to static images? Hypotheses:  ◦ Directional Hypothesis: The use of animations through the IWBS will help students understand scientific concepts more than hand-drawn, described images on blackboards. ◦ Null Hypothesis: No difference will exist between methods used: animations within the interactive whiteboard or drawing images on a blackboard
  4. 4. Participants  ◦ 46 ninth grade earth science students (non- random)  23 students per class (19 males and 27 females) Materials  ◦ Pre- and Post-Likert Survey, and open responses ◦ Pre- and Post-Weather Exam (20 multiple choice questions) Research Design  ◦ IWB – animations class – treatment group ◦ Hand - drawn image class – non-treatment group
  5. 5. Likes Computer Animations More Than Hand-Drawn Images (Pre-Survey Question 1) No. responses Frequency Percent Valid Strongly Disagree 2 4.3 Disagree 6 13.0 Neither Agree or Disagree 9 19.6 Agree 14 30.4 Strongly Agree 10 21.7 Total 41 89.1 Missing No Response 5 10.9 Total 46 100.0
  6. 6. The Use of Animations Helped Me Understand Scientific Concepts (Post-Survey Question 1) No. responses Frequency Percent Valid Disagree 1 2.2 Neither Agree or Disagree 10 21.7 Agree 17 37.0 Strongly Agree 15 32.6 Total 43 93.5 Missing No Response 3 6.5 Total 46 100.0
  7. 7. Male Responses Female Responses
  8. 8. The use of Hand-Drawn images Helped Me Understand Scientific Concepts (Post-Survey Question 3) No. responses Frequency Percent Strongly Disagree 2 4.3 Valid Disagree 3 6.5 Neither Agree or Disagree 11 23.9 Agree 22 47.8 Strongly Agree 5 10.9 Total 43 93.5 Missing No Response 3 6.5 Total 46 100.0
  9. 9. Male Responses Female Responses
  10. 10. Correlations Between Student Post-Survey Responses for Question 1 and 3 and Their Post Test Scores Subscale PostS-Q1 PostS-Q3 Post-test score Students (n=43) PostS-Q1 1 -.233 -.168 PostS-Q3 -.233 1 .150 Post-test score -.168 .150 1
  11. 11. Pre-survey responses Pre-survey responses   ◦ Animations make scientific ◦ Animations make it easier concepts more interesting, to understand helpful, and colorful ◦ Intriguing to see animations ◦ It helps to picture the move model as if it is alive Post-survey responses  ◦ Enjoyed the use of the Post-survey responses  interactive features, ◦ Enjoyed the hand-drawn animations images; developed step-by- ◦ No preference whether animations or hand-drawn step images helped understand ◦ Liked having notes written concepts on the drawing; it helps to ◦ Want both animations and learn the concept hand-drawn images Hand-drawn class IWB animation class
  12. 12. Pre and Post Test Averages between Hand drawn class and the IWB class 80 Hand-drawn images class 68.1 70 IWB animation class 58.9 60 49.0 48.8 50 Test Average 40 30 20 10 0 Pre-test Post-test Exams
  13. 13. ANOVA Table SS df MS F p Source Pre-test score Between .372 1 .372 .002 .967 Groups Within Groups 8425.238 39 216.032 Total 8425.610 40 Post-test score Between 1012.545 1 1012.545 2.933 .094 Groups Within Groups 14153.734 41 345.213 Total 15166.279 42
  14. 14. Post-test averages for both classes increased  ◦ When means were compared, the animations class performed better on the post-exam  ANOVA results show significance on post-exams Students have personal preferences  (according to surveys) ◦ Either for or against animations or static images, they respond better to what they prefer Data supports the null hypothesis  ◦ No difference exists between either method to learn scientific concepts  Further research is necessary; results are inconclusive
  15. 15. Limitations of study:  ◦ No reverse treatment ◦ No random sample of participants and selection of which class receives the IWB (unequal number of genders) ◦ Inconsistent data: some students took the surveys and exams, others didn’t ◦ Survey questions may have been confusing ◦ More IWB training necessary
  16. 16. Future studies:  ◦ More than one unit of topic ◦ Use the IWB for extra help sessions or other subjects ◦ Student use of IWB: Is it more beneficial? ◦ Focus on other variables of the IWB, such as manipulation, printing or saving text (and motivation levels) ◦ Does the IWB affect the students’ academic learning process?

×