Google science fair


Published on

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Google science fair

  1. 1. Effective Information Communication to Teens The relationship between electronic reading devices and teenagers’ effectiveness in reading in an academic setting
  2. 2. <ul><li>Electronic reading devices are found frequently in use in the academic setting for academic purposes. </li></ul><ul><li>At Student’s High School </li></ul><ul><li>9 new iPads for a social studies class </li></ul><ul><li>No printed textbooks for non-honors math classes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Notes and tests online </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Electronic journal research in Authentic Science Research Program </li></ul>Purpose
  3. 3. Background <ul><li>Among Teenagers </li></ul><ul><li>Reading has declined </li></ul><ul><li>Much of society shifting to electronic media </li></ul><ul><ul><li>33% of kids ages 9-17 ”access to eBooks would increase leisure reading” </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>57% wanted to read on electronic devices (Scholastic) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>People likely have preference for one or the other </li></ul>Electronic Reading Print Reading Effective transport No screen glare Paper conservation Better adjusted Long-term budget efficiency Tangibility
  4. 4. Where µ 1 is the mean score of tests taken on electronic screens. Where µ 2 is the mean score of tests taken on paper. The true mean difference of the mean of the electronic screen test scores and the mean of the paper test scores is equal to zero. The true mean difference of the mean of the electronic screen test scores and the mean of the paper test scores is not equal to zero.
  5. 5. Procedures
  6. 6. Results t-Test: Paired Two Sample for Means   Electronic Screen Test Scores Paper Test Scores Mean 59.97959 75.82653 Variance 631.2779 491.7531 Observations 98 98 Pearson Correlation 0.862645 Hypothesized Mean Difference 0 df 97 t Stat -12.3345 P(T<=t) one-tail 6.94E-22 t Critical one-tail 1.660715 P(T<=t) two-tail 1.39E-21 t Critical two-tail 1.984723  
  7. 7. Results
  8. 8. Results
  9. 9. Results
  10. 10. <ul><li>Since p< α , 6.94E-22<.05, we reject H 0 in favor of H a . </li></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis disproven </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Students read more efficiently on paper </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Time taken </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Almost twice as long to read on electronic devices </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Reading Comprehension </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Significantly lower scores on electronic devices </li></ul></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Backlight affects students’ effectiveness in reading </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Of electronic reading devices, student performed best on the Kindle, iPad and PC in that order </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Students prefer reading on paper in an academic setting </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Students read more effectively through printed reading material than through electronic reading devices. </li></ul>Discussions
  11. 11. Limitations and Bias <ul><li>Measures taken to avoid bias </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Randomization of comprehension tests on reading mediums </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Randomization of testing order </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All AP Psychology students </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Must have certain level of reading ability </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Standardized reading comprehension tests </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Equal levels of difficulty </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Both on subjects of history </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Remaining bias </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Convenience sample </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>May not be able to generalize conclusions to all populations </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of prior exposure to electronic reading devices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reading text font sizes </li></ul></ul>
  12. 12. <ul><li>Students are not yet ready to change from printed to electronic reading. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Though previous studies show that students read more and prefer reading on electronic devices for leisure reading, academic reading is not the same. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The switch may result in poorer student performance. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Consideration must be given to the impact on students’ reading efficiencies when determining school text material. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Future Study </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Run similar study design with subjects who have learned to read through electronic reading devices. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Longer exposure to electronic reading devices may impact results. </li></ul></ul></ul>Conclusions