Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersExperimental GroupMean(Q1)Std. Dev(Q1)Mean (Q2)Std. Dev(Q2)ZSignificance1.Honza helped me a lot 2.71 .914 3.43 1.284 not sig.2.Software does what I want 2.43 .756 3.29 .994 -2.070 .038 (+)3.Software does nothing I want 4.00 .784 3.14 1.167 -2.235 .025 (-)4.Honza looks great 2.71 1.383 3.00 1.414 not sig.5.Honza really friendly 2.14 1.027 3.14 1.351 -2.038 .042 (+)6.Honza very helpful 2.50 1.019 3.36 1.151 -2.165 .030 (+)7.Honza very annoying 3.64 .929 2.50 1.225 -2.073 .038 (-)8.I think Honza likes me a lot 3.07 .997 3.64 1.008 not sig.9.Immediate response 3.07 1.141 3.93 .997 -1.996 .046 (+)10.Understand what SW tells me 2.36 .929 3.14 1.292 not sig.11.I like the look of the software 1.79 .699 2.86 1.406 -2.223 .026 (+)12.I know what doing with SW 2.07 .475 2.86 1.292 not sig.13.I feel in control of thesoftware2.71 .914 2.86 1.231not sig.14.Screen instructions helpful 2.57 .938 3.43 .852 -1.997 .046 (+)15.Understoodinstruct’steacher’s1.57 .756 1.86 .949not sig.16.OK to ask teacher a question 1.43 .646 1.64 1.151 not sig.17.Teacher knew all about SW 2.36 .929 2.71 .726 not sig.18.I really enjoyed the lesson 2.14 1.512 3.07 1.492 -2.214 .027 (+)19.Time learning AGS vs using 2.50 .650 2.14 .535 not sig.20 Divided the work equally 1.79 .802 2.36 1.336 not sig.21.Shared typing equally 2.00 1.359 1.86 1.099 not sig.22.Shared deciding/type equally 1.86 1.231 2.07 1.141 not sig.Table 12 - Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Test comparing first and second questionnaires for theExperimental groupAs the results show, there was virtually no change in the Control group between the twoquestionnaires. The only significant change was an improvement in the students’ view ofthe agent’s appearance (“Honza looks great”).Del 4.4: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 49