Download - EdMedia 2011 Lisbon
![Page 1: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
David Geelan, The University of Queensland
Michelle Mukherjee, Queensland University of Technology
![Page 2: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
OverviewOverview
12 Chemistry classes and 10 physics classes
Comparison of student conceptual knowledge gains when taught with and without visualisations
Sex, learning style and academic ability as further variables
![Page 3: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Background Lots of good evidence that students enjoy
learning with visualisations Lots of teachers adopting them, lots of
money being spent developing, hosting and sharing them
Not much good quality quantitative evidence of their educational effectiveness, particularly at the high school level
![Page 4: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Design
The students completed a pre-test and post-test of conceptual understanding, based on the Force Concept Inventory and the Chemistry Concept Inventory
Multiple-choice items with common student misconceptions as distracters
Cross-over experimental design: students completed one topic with visualisations and one without
![Page 5: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Teaching Comparison Teachers taught the physics and chemistry
topics either with or without using scientific visualisations
Non-visualisation cases were not necessarily just lectures, and included demonstrations and other activities
After post-test, most classes did use the visualisations
![Page 6: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Examples
![Page 7: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Results - Overall
79 physics, 78 chemistry 34 male, 123 female
No significant difference t(512) = -1.48, p = .14
Treatment Gain
Mean SD
No visualisation (N=157) 1.19 2.26
Visualisation (N=157) 1.58 2.39
![Page 9: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Results - Physics
80 physics
No significant difference t(158)=-1.58, p=.116
Treatment Gain
Mean SD
No visualisation (N=157) .95 2.22
Visualisation (N=157) 1.53 2.38
![Page 10: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Results - Chemistry
129 chemistry
No significant difference t(256)=-.538, p=.59
Treatment Gain
Mean SD
No visualisation (N=157) 1.74 2.67
Visualisation (N=157) 1.92 2.65
![Page 11: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Results - Sex
Chemistry: no significant difference Physics:
significant difference at p<.05 level: (t(78)=2.37, p=.02)
moderate effect size (Cohen’s d=0.54)
![Page 12: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Results – Academic Achievement
Chemistry: no significant difference Physics: no significant difference
![Page 13: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Results – Learning Styles Very small differences noted for physics
with a slight advantage for kinesthetic learners (not visual learners)
Construct is very shaky and so was the measurement
Can’t get published with this measure included
Therefore this facet discarded
![Page 14: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Conclusion
‘First, do no harm’: While there were no large benefits for conceptual learning observed, there was also no decrease in conceptual learning
Given the other benefits of student enjoyment and engagement, use of visualisations is probably justified
Excessive effectiveness claims should be avoided
![Page 15: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
The Next StudyThe Next Study Applying for ARC Discovery grant: If successful
study will start in 2012
Many detail variables in relation to types of visualisations and ways they were used
Still focused on classroom-based research
More qualitative approach to students’ learning/thinking while learning with visualisations
![Page 16: EdMedia 2011 Lisbon](https://reader036.vdocuments.site/reader036/viewer/2022070320/5587a397d8b42a24368b4713/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Contact
Please do get in touch if you have questions, suggestions, solutions or are doing related work: [email protected]
Michelle Mukherjee will be reporting some results from a related study here on Friday