Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learners(before the beginning of the pilot) defined by their teachers as low performers might hadused the question mark and unhappy buttons more that children who had been definedas high performers. The results shown in figure 3 indicate that this was actuallyhappening. Therefore, the students who were asking for help indeed needed the extrahelp.Average # of Motivational Interv inPaper task by Team LevelAverage # of Cognitive Interv inPaper task by Team LevelAvg. # of M interv.54.543.532.521.510.50low medium highTeam levelAvg. # of C-Interv.2.521.510.50low medium highTeam levelFigure 3 – Average number of interventions in the Paper task by team (children) level. Itappears that the majority of Cognitive and Motivational interventions were given tochildren defined as low or medium performers by their teachers.The students understood the manner of asking for help and were able to indicate to thesystem that they needed more help. However the system was unable to bring theirperformance up to the standards of the successful students. This observation opened thefurther question of how much help the system was able to supply to children of differentlevels of ability, we discuss this aspect in section 4.It is interesting to note that interventions seem to have been particularly effective instimulating the children to be more active in the forum by asking more questions to theexpert. We found a positive correlation between all types of interventions provided duringthe forum task and the number of questions asked to the expert (see table 4).Gamma, ( ase), (p-value)N_MC_Forum recoded(0-12->0,13-218->1) 0.89, (0.12), (0.004)N_C_Forum recoded(0->0,1-11->1) 0.83, (0.18), (0.02)N_M_Forum recoded(0->0, 1-5->1) 0.86, (0.12), (0.003)Table 4 – Chi square Association between the number of questions asked to the expertand the number of interventions sent during the forum activityThe results obtained, without recoding, using a Spearman’s correlation (table 4') stillreports the positive correlation between the forum activity and the Meta-Cognitiveinterventions, they don't however report the correlation with Cognitive and Motivationalinterventions. This confirms the observation made in the analysis of figure 2: there is aclear boundary between teams that didn't use the feedback/help buttons (which elicitedthose type of interventions) and children who did.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix C page 7
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersCorrelation coef (p-value)N_MC_forum 0.67 (0.0001)N_C_forum 0.20 (0.31)N_M_forum -0.004 (0.98)Table 4' – Spearman’s correlation between the number of questions asked to the expertand the number of interventions sent during the forum activityThe system is therefore successful in encouraging the collaboration between the childrenand the experts.3. Control of the learning processIn order to gain an understanding of how children in the experimental and control groupsmight have gained a different level of control over their learning processes we haveanalysed the interactions between variables indicating the overall quality of the work(QualityOf_paper, # of paragraphs, status, and Questions) and variables indicating thequality of other parts of the learning process (intro, Questions_asked, Good_goal, cc).These interactions, if significant, may indicate how well the children understood thelearning process itself (meta-cognitive regulation). In exploring these interactions wewanted to assess whether the system augmented with the attention module providedbetter support to the children in their meta-cognitive regulation (i.e. if more significantinteractions would be found in the Experimental group than in the Control group). Itshould be noted that, given the relatively small size of the sample, in certain cases wehad to recode the variables (i.e. group them in small sets) in order to find significantresults, in fact, often we had too many categories and it was difficult to assess the testsperformed (e.g. in chi square test, having too many categories increases the number ofdegrees of freedom). In the tables below we always explicitly indicate recoding specifyinghow variables were grouped.3.1. How performance in the learning tasks correlates to the quality ofthe paper producedAs reported in table 5, when we looked, within the whole sample, at how the quality ofthe final paper interacted with variables indicating the quality of other parts of the learningprocess, we found no significant interaction.Independent VariableQuestions_asked_recod(0->0; 1,2,..,7->1) 0.6700Intro_recod(0,..9->0,10->1) 0.8500Good_goal 0.7200Cc_recod(0,..5->0,6,..10->1) 0.9600Chi Square Test (P-value)Table 5 - Each independent variable vs Quality of Paper for the Whole Sample. Chi-squaretest.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix C page 8
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:
Page 140 and 141: 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?