Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersHowever, we found one significant difference on the ability of setting a good goal(P=0.04) between the Experimental and Control groups for teams of high level (see table22).Independent VariableWilcoxon 2-sided Exact Te P-valueStatistic, SQuestions_asked 143.5 0.47Status 167.0 0.64intro 146.0 0.59Good_goal 130.0 0.04cc 141.0 0.41# of paragraphs 138.5 0.34Qualityof_paper 125.5 0.12Questions 161.0 0.80Table 22 - Experimental and Control differences for the “H" group in the Team_Level(n=25)These results allow us to conclude that whilst the enhanced system does seem tosupport better good students in the setting of the goal, in the case of the other tasks,and in particular in the case of the overall quality of work (as described in section 2)the enhanced system supports equally students of different levels. Figure 6 below, forexample, compares the quality of paper of students in the Experimental and control group forchildren in team levels Low, Medium, and High. First of all, it is possible to observe thefinding of table 1 (children in the Experimental group do significantly better than children inthe Control group). Also it can be observed that this improvement is distributed across theteam levels (L, M, and H). For team levels Low and High children in the Experimental groupdo significantly better, with some of the children in the Low group obtaining the highestpossible grade in the paper (3).Quality of Paper in Control/Experiment organised by Team Level35302520159961832110503 3cL6X66cM83X105cHControl/Experiment in Team Level (Low, Medium, High)102XFigure 6 – Comparison between the quality of papers of students in the Experimental andControl groups for children in the teams levels Low, Medium, and High.Del 4.4: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report – Appendix C page 19