Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learners2. Effect of the AtgentSchool system interventionsIn order to confirm that the better results obtained by the children in the Experimentalgroup were due to the interventions of the AtgentSchool system we have looked at theinteraction between the interventions produced by the system and the quality of thepaper produced by children in the Experimental group.Please note that in this appendix we mostly concentrate on analysing the effects of theinterventions received during a task on the task itself. This is different from the analysisproposed in the main body of this deliverable where the interventions received by thechildren during the whole pilot study period are considered.Although we observed a negative correlation (P=0.01) between the number of Cognitiveinterventions sent during the writing of the paper, and the quality of the paper itself (table3), we analyzed the relations between the average number of interventions receivedduring the paper writing task and the quality of the paper. Figure 1 shows that childrenwho produced a better paper received, in average, more meta-cognitive (MC)interventions during that taskGamma, ( ase), (p-value)N_MC_paper recoded(0-12->0,13-56->1) 0.26, (0.36), (0.49)N_C_paper recoded(0->0,1-7->1)-0.80, (0.17), (0.01)Qualityof_paper recoded(1->0, 2,3->1)N_M_paper recoded(0->0, 16->1)0.10, (0.41), (0.81)Qualityof_paper recoded(1->0, 2,3->1)Table 3 – Chi square Association between the quality of paper and the number ofinterventions sent during the paper writing taskSimilar results were found in an analysis without recoding using Spearman’s correlation(table 3'):N_MC_paper 0.20 (0.31)Correlation coef (p-value)N_C_paper -0.50 (0.007)N_M_paper -0.32 (0.10)Table 3' – Spearman’s correlation between the quality of paper and the number ofinterventions sent during the paper writing taskDel <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix C page 5
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersAvg # of MC-Intervention Vs Paper quality1412Avg # of MC-Intervention1086420bad medium goodPaper qualityFigure 1 – MC-Interventions received by children who produced papers that were graded asbad, medium, and good.A detailed analysis of the children's behaviour on the logs has lead us to the conclusionthat no significant correlation between the quality of paper and Meta-Cognitiveinterventions is shown because some of the students who finally produced a bad paperkept swapping between activity windows, which has generated many meta-cognitiveinterventions. It appears therefore that the system was unable to help appropriately acertain number of students who kept moving around the application windows receivingmeta-cognitive interventions that didn't really help them improving their performance.Figure 2 shows that the same trend cannot be found in the case of Cognitive andMotivational interventions, in fact many children didn't receive any interventions of thesetypes, and others, who have received the most cognitive and motivational interventions,have produced papers of worse quality.Avg # of M-Intervention Vs Paper QualityAvg # of C-Interventions Vs Paper Quality43Avg # of M-Intervention3.532.521.510.5Avg # of C-Interventions2.521.510.500bad medium goodPaper QualitybadPaper QualitymediumgoodFigure 2 – Motivational (left) and Cognitive (right) Interventions received by children whoproduced papers that were graded as bad, medium, and good.The large number of Cognitive and Motivational interventions received by some of thechildren who produced poor papers (and the negative correlation between the number ofCognitive interventions and the quality of paper) could be explained by the fact that suchinterventions were addressed to students who were clicking on the question mark buttonand on the unhappy button. We hypothesized that children who had been previouslyDel <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix C page 6
Page 1 and 2:
ATGENTIVEIST-4-027529-STPDELIVERABL
Page 3 and 4:
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13:
Page 16 and 17:
Page 18 and 19:
Page 20 and 21:
Page 22 and 23:
May 2007AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP
Page 24 and 25:
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 58 and 59:
Page 60 and 61:
CollaborationAtGentive IST-4-027529
Page 62 and 63:
Page 64 and 65:
Page 66 and 67:
Page 68 and 69:
Page 70 and 71:
Page 72 and 73:
Page 74 and 75:
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
DescriptionAtGentive IST-4-027529-S
Page 90 and 91:
Integratability:AtGentive IST-4-027
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 172 and 173: The effects of a computer agent’s
Page 180 and 181: 4. ResultsAtGentive IST-4-027529-ST
Page 184 and 185: Additional pedagogical investigatio
Page 208: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
show all

Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

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

Delete template?

Save as template?