Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersStudents had to assimilate a new working environment in addition to becomingproductive within that environment. With each lesson only 45 minutes in length, and onlyaround six lessons, that significantly reduced the time actually working on their learningtask.Conclusion: Consider the “overheads” – familiarisation with the software and the newworking environment and practices, and collection of experimental data – and allow timefor these in addition to the actual pilot.4.2.2 Results from PilotFirstly, we note that two possible confounding variables were identified. The first isAbility; the Experimental and Control groups were deliberately balanced for Ability(“Low”, ”Medium” or “Smart”) so this would not be expected to influence the main effects.The second is Gender: there were more girls in the Experimental group, and more boysin the control group (see Table 1). Both these variables are checked throughout theanalysis and where necessary their effects are described and discussed.Control n Experimental nMale 17 Male 11Female 9 Female 14Mixed 1 Mixed 3Table 1 - Distribution by gender for treatment groups (pairs)4.2.2.1. Assessment of students’ workEach student’s work was originally assessed by their individual teacher. While eachteacher was consistent in their marking, discussions with the teachers revealed thatthere was no overarching marking scheme within the school. It was therefore notpossible to compare students’ marks across classes. In order to allow this comparison,all the students were remarked by the AtGentive team (Barbora Parrakova and IngeMolenaar) at a meeting in Prague on 28-Jun-07 using an agreed marking scheme. Theremarking was “blind”, in that papers were taken at random, without reference to anystudent or teacher information. It was not considered useful to compare this remarkingwith the teachers’ original marks, since all the marking schemes involved are different.The items marked by the AtGentive team and considered reliable are listed in Table 2.Other items have been excluded due to large numbers of missing data points. Theresults are shown in Figure 14.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 36
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersNameQns2XpStatusDescriptionNumber of questions the student pair asked of the expert4=Did not do questionnaire / 5=Did questionnaireIntr.10 Quality of their introduction (Number of topics mentioned, 0-10)GdGoalCMapPParaPQualHow good their stated goal is (0=not good 1=good)Concept map (Number of topics mentioned)Number of paragraphs in their paper (students divide text into blocks so it’spossible some will place more text per block but examination of the data showsreasonable consistency)Paper quality – 1=low / 2=medium / 3=goodTable 2 - List of marked data considered reliable9.008.007.006.005.004.003.002.001.000.00ControlExperimentalQ2ExpertStatusIntro.QualGdGoalC.MapPaper.ParasPaper.QualFigure 14 - Students' marks - mean values by treatmentT-tests were the basis for examining the Interval data (such as Qns2Expert) and Mann-Whitney tests for categorical data (such as Status). A significant difference (at the 0.05level) was found for:• number of questions asked to the expert (Qns2Expert) (F = 4.659, Significance =0.035) 3• quality of the paper (Paper.Qual) (Z = -1.963, Significance = 0.050) 43 ANOVA; equality of Variances not assumed (Levene's Test result: F = 11.027, Significance =0.002)4 Kruskal-Wallis test, looking for significance at the 0.05 levelDel <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 37
Page 1 and 2: ATGENTIVEIST-4-027529-STPDELIVERABL
Page 3 and 4: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 13: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 22 and 23: May 2007AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP
Page 60 and 61: CollaborationAtGentive IST-4-027529
Page 88 and 89: DescriptionAtGentive IST-4-027529-S
Page 90 and 91: Integratability:AtGentive IST-4-027
Page 92 and 93:
DescriptionAtGentive IST-4-027529-S
Page 94 and 95:
DescriptionAtGentive IST-4-027529-S
Page 96 and 97:
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
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:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
The effects of a computer agent’s
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
4. ResultsAtGentive IST-4-027529-ST
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Additional pedagogical investigatio
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208:
show all

Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

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

Delete template?

Save as template?