Oldal 108 [108]
OCR
10.6 RESULTS REGARDING THE MOTIVATIONAL PERSPECTIVE 107 Comparing (with paired sample t-test) the means of H-students’ scores with respect to statements q2—4/1 (“hearing and seeing phases”: 5.63 points, 77.17%), with the means referring to statements q5—7/1 (“doing phases”: 6.55 points, 92.5%), we detected a significant increase (p = .0000) in their appreciation level. This increase significantly diminished the size of the differences between groups. Interestingly, this increase took place in spite of the fact that students made quite a lot of errors during the “reconstruction task” (Figure 10.1). Regarding other global impression statements such as “I liked this e-learning session because of its interestingness/challenge/interactivity” (g9/2—4), S-students’ appreciations were superior to those of H-students’, but no significant differences were detected. Additionally, both groups set up the following relations between the motivational contributions of the studied factors: “interestingness” < “challenge” (group-Ha, p = 0.0133; group-Sa, p = 0.03) and “challenge” < “interactivity” (group-Ha, p = 0.2313; group-Sa, p = 0.003) (we applied paired sample t-tests). Since the dance choreography illustration was the most distinctive part of the generated learning experience, we compared the two groups’ appreciation scores regarding this component before (q2/2: “I consider that combining arts with sciences is an interesting idea.”) and after (q9/5: “T liked this e-learning session because of the dances.”) the learning session. While H-students reported approximately the same appreciation level at the end as at the beginning of the experiment (83% vs. 77%), S-students’ appreciation increased significantly (87% vs. 97%; paired sample t-test, p = 0.04). In other words, while both groups indicated equally high scores in anticipation (groupHa: 82%, group-Sa: 87%), the appreciation score reported after the learning session by group-Sa was significantly higher than group-Ha’s score (group-Ha: 77%, group-Sa: 97%; two sample t-test, p = 0.0002). Comparing (MANOVA) groups’ scores referring to the statements “I grasped the logic of the sorting strategy” (q3/5, q4/5) and “I reached this performance because I understood the strategy the algorithm applies” (q5/6, q6/5, q7/5), we found significant differences (p = 0.0014) in the favour of S-students (Figure 10.5). Examining the graphics separately, we noticed the following: — Group-Sa reported sharp increases in their understanding after they had watched the dance performance and the animation. Performance results more or less confirmed these estimates (Figure 10.1). During the “doing phases”, they adjusted their estimates to correspond better with their real level of understanding. — In the case of group-Ha, a gradual increase can be observed in students’ self-estimated levels of understanding. However, performance results did not confirm these scores (Figure 10.1). During the reconstruction task, H-students realized that they had not understood the algorithm adequately, and after this phase they did not report further increases in their level of understanding. Group-Ha’s estimates were (relatively) consistent with
