Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnerspaper. As shown by the tables 2 below (tables 8-10) no correlations were found, neither inthe Experimental, nor in the Control group, nor in the overall sample, between thesevariables.Independent VariableQuestions_asked (recoded:0->0, 1,…7->1) 0.4495Intro (recoded:0,..,9->0,10->1) 0.7036Good_goal 1.0000Cc (recoded:0,..,5->0,6,..10->1) 0.2519Fisher’s Exact Test (P-value)Table 8 - Tasks in the learning sequence vs the Number of Paragraphs (recoded:0,..,3->0;4,..7->1) for the Experimental sampleIndependent VariableFisher’s Exact Test (P-value)Questions_asked (recoded:0->0, 1,…7->1) 0.1201Intro (recoded: 0,..,9->0,10->1) 0.7064Good_goal 0.2087Cc (recoded:0,..,5->0,6,..10->1) 0.4495Table 9 - Tasks in the learning sequence vs the Number of Paragraphs (recoded:0,..,3->0;4,..7->1) for the Control sampleIndependent VariableFisher’s Exact Test (P-value)Questions_asked (recoded:0->0, 1,…7->1) 0.7891Intro (recoded:0,…,9->0, 10->1) 0.4218Good_goal 0.3290Cc (recoded:0,…,5->0;6,…10->1) 0.7875Table 10 – Tasks in the learning sequence vs the Number of Paragraphs (recoded:0,..,3->0; 4,..7->1) for the whole sample3.3. How performance in the learning tasks correlates to a good score inthe questionnaireA good score in the questionnaire is the final indicator of the strength of the work produced.As such we asked whether some relations existed on the quality of tasks that children wereasked to perform and the questionnaire score. As shown by the tables below there was asignificant correlation, in the whole sample (table 11), between the number of concepts in theconcept map (P=0.0143) and a good score in the questionnaire. Such correlation is still2 Tables 6-11 present the results of Chi-square test (with contingency tables) to test thesignificance of each of the independent variables versus the choice justified by many reasons(questions).Since the sample size was small ( n=55), a Fisher’s Exact Test was used.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix C page 11
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnerssignificant (P=0.0235) in the sample including only the Experimental groups (table 12), butnot in the sample including only the Control groups (table 13).Independent VariableFisher’s Exact Test (P-value)Questions_asked (recoded:0->0, 1,…7->1) 1.0000Intro (recoded: 0.0598Good_goal 0.7458Cc :( recoded:0,..,5->0,6,..10->1) 0.0143Table 11 - Tasks in the learning sequence vs the questionnaire score (questions)(recoded: 0,1,2,..,5->0, 6,7,..17->1) for the Whole SampleIndependent VariableFisher’s Exact Test (P-value)Questions_asked (recoded:0->0, 1,…7->1) 0.4454Intro: (recoded:0,…,9->0, 10->1) 0.1358Good_goal 0.6132Cc: (recoded:0,..,5->0,6,..10->1) 0.0235Table 12 - Tasks in the learning sequence vs the questionnaire score (questions)(recoded: 0,1,2,..,5->0, 6,7,..17->1) for the Experimental groupIndependent VariableFisher’s Exact Test (P-value)Questions_asked: (recoded:0->0, 1,…7->1) 0.4244Intro: (recoded:0,…,9->0, 10->1) 0.2519Good_goal 1.0000Cc: (recoded:0,..,5->0,6,..10->1) 0.2576Table 13 - Tasks in the learning sequence vs the questionnaire score (questions)(recoded: 0,1,2,..,5->0, 6,7,..17->1) for the Control groupOnce again, the correlation holds for the children in the Experimental group but not for thechildren in the Control group, indicating that the system may have contributed to the creationof these effects between the different parts of the learning process.3.4. Overall interactions between different parts of the learning processIn order to gain a better understanding of how the main variables describing the learningprocess interacted, we performed a bivariate correlation analysis over the completesample (table 14) as well as over the Experimental and Control samples (tables 15, and16).Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix C page 12
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:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145: 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?