Comparative and Non - Comparative Evaluation Studies Done by: Atiya Al-Saadi 68717
Outline: <ul><li>I will summarize the two study according to the following criteria:   </li></ul><ul><li>Type of the study...
Non – comparative  cost-benefit analysis studies  Type <ul><li>Web-based learning:  </li></ul><ul><li>relationship  among ...
Non-comparative study   Comparative study   Criteria The purpose: to determine how student motivation, attitude, and learn...
Non-comparative study   Comparative study   Criteria <ul><li>Population: </li></ul><ul><li>99 students taking two non-majo...
Non-comparative study   Comparative study   Criteria <ul><li>The study depend on the learning style scores, questionnaire ...
<ul><li>the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), which classified students as either field-dependent or field-independent. ...
Advantages: <ul><li>Comparative study:   </li></ul><ul><li>Studies examining the impact of computer technology on learning...
con, advantages:  <ul><li>Non-comparative study: </li></ul><ul><li>Such a study would provide information a bout the relat...
<ul><li>we can not implement the study result in every learning context  because the student have different learning style...
References:  <ul><li>C. Rule ,  Audrey   and Other/ Comparing Technology Skill Development in Computer Lab versus Classroo...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Comparative and Non-Comparative Evaluation Studies

1,150

Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,150
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Comparative and Non-Comparative Evaluation Studies

  1. 1. Comparative and Non - Comparative Evaluation Studies Done by: Atiya Al-Saadi 68717
  2. 2. Outline: <ul><li>I will summarize the two study according to the following criteria: </li></ul><ul><li>Type of the study </li></ul><ul><li>the study problem, question and purpose </li></ul><ul><li>The study participants and evaluation instruments </li></ul><ul><li>The study results </li></ul><ul><li>The study Advantages and disadvantages </li></ul>
  3. 3. Non – comparative cost-benefit analysis studies Type <ul><li>Web-based learning: </li></ul><ul><li>relationship among student motivation , attitude, learning styles, and achievement </li></ul><ul><li>Done by: </li></ul><ul><li>Ching-Chun Shih, Research Associate </li></ul><ul><li>Julia Gamon, Professor Emeritus </li></ul><ul><li>Iowa State University </li></ul><ul><li>“ Comparing Technology Skill Development in Computer Lab versus Classroom Settings of Two Sixth Grade Classes” </li></ul><ul><li>Done by: </li></ul><ul><li>Audrey C. Rule </li></ul><ul><li>State University of New York at Oswego </li></ul><ul><li>Manuel T. Barrera, III </li></ul><ul><li>University of Minnesota – Duluth </li></ul><ul><li>C. Jolene Dockstader and John A. Derr </li></ul><ul><li>Jerome School District, Jerome, ID </li></ul>What study (Name) Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria
  4. 4. Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria The purpose: to determine how student motivation, attitude, and learning styles influenced achievement in web-based courses. The objectives of the study were to identify: (a) the demographic characteristics of the students in relation to learning styles (b) differences in student motivation, attitude, and achievement in relation to learning styles (c) relationships among student achievement, motivation, attitude, learning styles, and selected variables in web-based learning. Question: “ Where can available computers be put to best use—in individual classrooms or computer lab?” the problem, question and purpose of evaluation.
  5. 5. Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria <ul><li>Population: </li></ul><ul><li>99 students taking two non-major biology introductory courses, (Zoology and Biology) offered by the College of Agriculture at a land grant university. </li></ul><ul><li>most course materials and resources were accessed and delivered by the Internet. </li></ul><ul><li>More than 60% (60) of the population were on-campus students, and almost 40% (39) were off campus students. </li></ul><ul><li>Thirty-two of the 39 off-campus students were high school students. </li></ul><ul><li>two teachers in this study were chosen for their similarities in training and experienc </li></ul><ul><li>Students (N = 53) came from two existing sixth grade classrooms from a small semi-rural school in south central Idaho . </li></ul><ul><li>Both sets of students were of mixed ability in academic achievement and computer proficiency. </li></ul>Participants:
  6. 6. Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria <ul><li>The study depend on the learning style scores, questionnaire responses, and students’ grades </li></ul><ul><li>The learning style test was the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) </li></ul><ul><li>The on-line questionnaire consisted of two scales (motivation and attitude) </li></ul><ul><li>student assigned to computer skill instruction under two conditions: </li></ul><ul><li>computer lab setting </li></ul><ul><li>an integrated instruction approach in a classroom with four computers </li></ul><ul><li>Both settings included Pentium class computers with Internet access through a school district local area network. </li></ul><ul><li>Pre and posttest (A performance-based assessment) data were collected by using : </li></ul><ul><li>24-item criterion-referenced performance-based test derived from district curriculum guides </li></ul><ul><li>37-item student attitude survey based on previously validated student attitude instruments </li></ul>evaluation instruments
  7. 7. <ul><li>the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), which classified students as either field-dependent or field-independent. </li></ul><ul><li>Over two-thirds of the students taking the web-based courses were field-independent learners </li></ul><ul><li>there were no significant differences (.05 level) in achievement between field-dependent and field-independent students </li></ul><ul><li>The students enjoyed the convenience and self-controlled learning pace and were motivated by competition and high expectations in web-based learning . </li></ul><ul><li>Motivation was the only significant factor that explained more than one-fourth of student achievement measured by class grade. </li></ul><ul><li>Results showed: </li></ul><ul><li>the group using the computer lab had higher overall scores in computer skills when compared to the classroom integration group. </li></ul><ul><li>Higher scores for the lab were interpreted as the result of efficient and enhanced academic-engaged time inherent to the lab setting </li></ul>Report the results Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria
  8. 8. Advantages: <ul><li>Comparative study: </li></ul><ul><li>Studies examining the impact of computer technology on learning need to account for such variables as competency-building requirements in the use of technology and how such variables may affect outcomes. </li></ul><ul><li>Such a study would provide information for schools where smaller numbers of computers may be available and the decision as to how to allocate computer equipment is consequently more acute. </li></ul>
  9. 9. con, advantages: <ul><li>Non-comparative study: </li></ul><ul><li>Such a study would provide information a bout the relationships between student achievement and the following variables: attitude, motivation, learning styles, and selected demographics. </li></ul><ul><li>Such a study will lead the educators to a better understand about the student motivational factors and attitudes toward web-based learning so that they can stimulate student motivation and get students actively involved in the learning process. </li></ul><ul><li>students and instructors will understand the importance of motivation in web-based learning and will enhance the student achievement because motivation is the only significant factor in web-based learning that accounted for more than one fourth of student achievement. </li></ul>
  10. 10. <ul><li>we can not implement the study result in every learning context because the student have different learning style (The Arab students and European students) </li></ul><ul><li>there are many factor that affect the study population and how done the study can not control all of them and that will effect the result of the study </li></ul><ul><li>A better examination of the two conditions would have been to equalize computer time per student in the CI setting to match the time per student in the LAB setting. </li></ul><ul><li>Because of the limited number of classroom computers, for each student to have an additional hour of computer practice time, teachers would have to allocate four more hours of class time to computer free-use time per week. </li></ul><ul><li>we can not implement the study result in every learning environment because there are different between them (different factor and condition ) </li></ul>disadvantages Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria
  11. 11. References: <ul><li>C. Rule , Audrey and Other/ Comparing Technology Skill Development in Computer Lab versus Classroom Settings of Two Sixth Grade Classes from: http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.1.5.pdf </li></ul><ul><li>Chun Shih , Ching and Gamon , Julia/ Web-based learning: relationship among student motivation , attitude, learning styles, and achievement from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb =true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ638591&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0= no&accno =EJ638591 </li></ul>
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×