Google science fair

267 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
267
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Google science fair

  1. 1. Effective Information Communication to Teens<br />The relationship between electronic reading devices and teenagers’ effectiveness in reading in an academic setting<br />
  2. 2. Purpose<br />Electronic reading devices are found frequently in use in the academic setting for academic purposes. <br />At Student’s High School<br /><ul><li>9 new iPads for a social studies class
  3. 3. No printed textbooks for non-honors math classes
  4. 4. Notes and tests online
  5. 5. Electronic journal research in Authentic Science Research Program</li></li></ul><li>Background<br />Among Teenagers<br /><ul><li>Reading has declined
  6. 6. Much of society shifting to electronic media
  7. 7. 33% of kids ages 9-17 ”access to eBooks would increase leisure reading”
  8. 8. 57% wanted to read on electronic devices (Scholastic)
  9. 9. People likely have preference for one or the other </li></li></ul><li>Problem: <br />How does print vs. electronic reading affect teenagers’ effectiveness in academic reading?<br />Hypothesis: <br />If teenagers read electronic material rather than printed material, then they will read more effectively in an academic setting. <br />H0: µ1-µ2 = 0<br />Ha: µ1-µ2 ≠ 0<br />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. <br />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.<br />Where µ1 is the mean score of tests taken on electronic screens.<br />Where µ2 is the mean score of tests taken on paper. <br />
  10. 10. Procedures<br />
  11. 11. Results<br />p<α, 1.39E-21<.05<br />
  12. 12. Results<br />
  13. 13. Results<br />
  14. 14. Results<br />
  15. 15. Discussions<br />Since p<α, 6.94E-22<.05, we reject H0 in favor of Ha.<br />Hypothesis disproven<br /><ul><li>Students read more efficiently on paper
  16. 16. Time taken
  17. 17. Almost twice as long to read on electronic devices
  18. 18. Reading Comprehension
  19. 19. Significantly lower scores on electronic devices
  20. 20. Backlight affects students’ effectiveness in reading
  21. 21. Of electronic reading devices, student performed best on the Kindle, iPad and PC in that order
  22. 22. Students prefer reading on paper in an academic setting</li></ul>Students read more effectively through printed reading material than through electronic reading devices.<br />
  23. 23. Limitations and Bias<br /><ul><li>Measures taken to avoid bias
  24. 24. Randomization of comprehension tests on reading mediums
  25. 25. Randomization of testing order
  26. 26. All AP Psychology students
  27. 27. Must have certain level of reading ability
  28. 28. Standardized reading comprehension tests
  29. 29. Equal levels of difficulty
  30. 30. Both on subjects of history
  31. 31. Remaining bias
  32. 32. Convenience sample
  33. 33. May not be able to generalize conclusions to all populations
  34. 34. Lack of prior exposure to electronic reading devices
  35. 35. Reading text font sizes</li></li></ul><li>Conclusions<br /><ul><li>Students are not yet ready to change from printed to electronic reading.
  36. 36. Though previous studies show that students read more and prefer reading on electronic devices for leisure reading, academic reading is not the same.
  37. 37. The switch may result in poorer student performance.
  38. 38. Consideration must be given to the impact on students’ reading efficiencies when determining school text material.
  39. 39. Future Study
  40. 40. Run similar study design with subjects who have learned to read through electronic reading devices.
  41. 41. Longer exposure to electronic reading devices may impact results.</li>

×