EdMedia 2011 Lisbon


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

EdMedia 2011 Lisbon

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