25.07.2013 Views

Download Complete Issue in PDF - Educational Technology & Society

Download Complete Issue in PDF - Educational Technology & Society

Download Complete Issue in PDF - Educational Technology & Society

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Table 5. Numbers of misconceptions <strong>in</strong> the pre- and posttests <strong>in</strong> the two groups<br />

Group N<br />

Pretest<br />

Mean SD<br />

Posttest<br />

Mean SD<br />

Adjusted<br />

mean<br />

Experimental 17 14.71 2.82 6.47 3.94 6.32<br />

Control 17 14.41 3.97 8.59 4.73 8.74<br />

Tests of the homogeneity of the regression coefficient revealed that <strong>in</strong>teraction F between the <strong>in</strong>dependent variables<br />

and the covariate was .097 (p = .758), which confirms the hypothesis of homogeneity of the regression coefficient.<br />

The pretest scores were used as the covariate to check the significance of differences <strong>in</strong> changes <strong>in</strong> the numbers of<br />

misconceptions <strong>in</strong> the pre- and posttest scores <strong>in</strong> the experimental and control groups. Table 6 <strong>in</strong>dicates that there<br />

were significant differences between the groups (F = 6.447, p = .016), with the number of corrected misconceptions<br />

be<strong>in</strong>g higher <strong>in</strong> the experimental group than <strong>in</strong> the control group.<br />

The data <strong>in</strong> Table 5 <strong>in</strong>dicate that the mean number of misconceptions reduced by 8.24 <strong>in</strong> the experimental group and<br />

by 5.82 <strong>in</strong> the control group, which demonstrates that the efficacy of misconception correction was significantly<br />

higher for the conceptual-change learn<strong>in</strong>g system than for the general web-based learn<strong>in</strong>g environment.<br />

Table 6. Summary of misconception-correction data from ANCOVA<br />

Variance Source SS df MS F p<br />

Covariate (Pretest Score) Score) 406.830 1 406.830 53.097 .000<br />

Between Groups 49.399 1 49.399 6.447* .016<br />

Error 237.523 31 7.662<br />

Note. *p < .05.<br />

Analysis of misconception correction<br />

To further characterize the efficacy of the system <strong>in</strong> correct<strong>in</strong>g any misconceptions and <strong>in</strong>vestigate the detailed<br />

reasons for the f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs, we analyzed pre- and posttest misconceptions of the experimental group. The<br />

misconceptions could be categorized <strong>in</strong>to two groups: (1) those that were difficult to correct—M20, M27, and M13,<br />

with success rates of 7%, 14%, and 29%, respectively; and (2) those that were effectively corrected—M1, M6,<br />

M12, M10, M4, M2, and M14, with success rates of 100%, 100%, 100%, 90%, 89%, 83%, and 83%, respectively.<br />

The three misconceptions that were difficult to correct were attributable to mis<strong>in</strong>terpretation of the basic def<strong>in</strong>ition of<br />

voltage (M20) and fundamental electricity concepts affect follow-up learn<strong>in</strong>g of new conceptions about diodes (M13<br />

and M27). On the other hand, the seven misconceptions that could be effectively corrected were categorized as be<strong>in</strong>g<br />

associated with (1) the diode symbol, elementary model of a diode, and function<strong>in</strong>g of applicable circuits of a diode<br />

(M1, M10, M12, and M14); and (2) abstract semiconductor characteristics (M2, M4, and M6). The reasons for the<br />

success rate differ<strong>in</strong>g with the type of misconception correction are discussed <strong>in</strong> detail <strong>in</strong> Section 6.<br />

Learn<strong>in</strong>g process<br />

The learn<strong>in</strong>g performance and process recorded <strong>in</strong> the learn<strong>in</strong>g system were analyzed to further elucidate any<br />

dist<strong>in</strong>ctions between the learn<strong>in</strong>g processes of <strong>in</strong>dividual learners. Three aspects of the learn<strong>in</strong>g performance and<br />

process were analyzed:<br />

1. Correction rate of misconceptions: The mean ratio of misconceptions corrected by each subject (the number of<br />

corrected misconceptions after learn<strong>in</strong>g divided by the number of misconceptions before learn<strong>in</strong>g) was 58% <strong>in</strong><br />

the experimental group and 43% <strong>in</strong> the control group.<br />

2. Learn<strong>in</strong>g effectiveness: A strong positive correlation existed between the mean learn<strong>in</strong>g time and the mean ratio<br />

of misconceptions corrected <strong>in</strong> the experimental group (Pearson’s correlation coefficient r=.641, p=.006), but<br />

there was no significant correlation <strong>in</strong> the control group (r = –.060, p = .819). This <strong>in</strong>dicates that the ratio of<br />

221

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!