SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Comparative and Non - Comparative Evaluation Studies Done by: Atiya Al-Saadi 68717
Outline: I will summarize the two study according to the following criteria:   Type of the study  the study problem, question and purpose  The study participants   and evaluation instruments  The study results The study Advantages and disadvantages
Non – comparative  cost-benefit analysis studies  Type Web-based learning:  relationship  among  student motivation , attitude, learning  styles, and achievement   Done by: Ching-Chun Shih, Research Associate  Julia Gamon, Professor Emeritus  Iowa State University  “ Comparing Technology Skill Development in Computer Lab versus Classroom Settings of Two Sixth Grade Classes” Done by: Audrey C. Rule  State University of New York at  Oswego  Manuel T. Barrera, III University of Minnesota – Duluth  C. Jolene Dockstader and John A. Derr  Jerome School District, Jerome, ID What study (Name) Non-comparative study   Comparative study   Criteria
Non-comparative study   Comparative study   Criteria The purpose: to determine how student motivation, attitude, and learning styles influenced achievement in web-based courses.  The objectives of the study were to identify: (a) the demographic characteristics of the students in relation to learning styles (b) differences in student motivation, attitude, and achievement in relation to learning styles (c) relationships among student achievement, motivation, attitude, learning styles, and selected variables in web-based learning.  Question: “ Where can available computers be put to  best  use—in individual classrooms or computer lab?” the problem, question and purpose of evaluation.
Non-comparative study   Comparative study   Criteria Population: 99 students taking two non-major biology introductory courses, (Zoology and Biology) offered by the College of Agriculture at a land grant university.  most course materials and resources were accessed and delivered by the Internet.  More than 60% (60) of the population were on-campus students, and almost 40% (39) were off campus students.  Thirty-two of the 39 off-campus students were high school students.  two teachers in this study were chosen for their similarities in training and experienc Students (N = 53) came from two existing sixth grade classrooms from a small semi-rural school in south central Idaho .  Both sets of students were of mixed ability in academic achievement and computer proficiency. Participants:
Non-comparative study   Comparative study   Criteria The study depend on the learning style scores, questionnaire responses, and students’ grades  The learning style test was the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT)  The on-line questionnaire consisted of two scales (motivation and attitude)  student assigned to computer skill instruction under two conditions:  computer lab setting an integrated instruction approach in a classroom with four computers Both settings included Pentium class computers with Internet access through a school district local area network.  Pre and posttest (A performance-based assessment) data were collected by using : 24-item criterion-referenced performance-based test derived from district curriculum guides 37-item student attitude survey based on previously validated student attitude instruments evaluation instruments
the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), which classified students as either field-dependent or field-independent.  Over two-thirds of the students taking the web-based courses were field-independent learners  there were no significant differences (.05 level) in achievement between field-dependent and field-independent students  The students enjoyed the convenience and self-controlled learning pace and were motivated by competition and high expectations in web-based learning .  Motivation was the only significant factor that explained more than one-fourth of student achievement measured by class grade.  Results showed: the group using the computer lab had higher overall scores in computer skills when compared to the classroom integration group.  Higher scores for the lab were interpreted as the result of efficient and enhanced academic-engaged time inherent to the lab setting Report the results Non-comparative study   Comparative study   Criteria
Advantages: Comparative study:   Studies examining the impact of computer technology on learning need to account for such variables as competency-building requirements in the use of technology and how such variables may affect outcomes. Such a study would provide information for schools where smaller numbers of computers may be available and the decision as to how to allocate computer equipment is consequently more acute.
con, advantages:  Non-comparative study: Such a study would provide information a bout the relationships between student achievement and the following variables: attitude, motivation, learning styles, and selected demographics.  Such a study will lead  the educators to a better understand about the  student motivational factors and attitudes toward web-based learning so that they can stimulate student motivation and get students actively involved in the learning process.  students and instructors will  understand the importance of motivation in web-based learning and will  enhance the  student achievement  because motivation is  the only significant factor in web-based learning that accounted for more than one fourth of student achievement.
we can not implement the study result in every learning context  because the student have different learning style (The Arab students and European  students)  there are many factor that affect the study population and how done the study can not control all of them and that will effect  the result of the study  A better examination of the two conditions would have been to equalize computer time per student in the CI setting to match the time per student in the LAB setting. Because of the limited number of classroom computers, for each student to have an additional hour of computer practice time, teachers would have to allocate four more hours of class time to computer free-use time per week. we can not implement the study result in every learning environment because there are different between them  (different factor and condition )  disadvantages Non-comparative study   Comparative study   Criteria
References:  C. Rule ,  Audrey   and Other/ Comparing Technology Skill Development in Computer Lab versus Classroom Settings of Two Sixth Grade Classes   from:   http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.1.5.pdf   Chun Shih ,  Ching and   Gamon ,  Julia/ Web-based learning: relationship among  student motivation , attitude, learning  styles, and achievement  from:  http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb =true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ638591&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0= no&accno =EJ638591

More Related Content

PPT
Comparative and non-comparative evaluation in educational technology
PPT
Comparative and non-comparative evaluation in Educational technology
PPTX
Feedback as Dialogue
PDF
7. Research in Web
PPTX
Feedback as dialogue and learning technologies: can e-assessment be formative?
PPT
Compartive And Non
PPTX
RIDE 2010 presentation - Formative assessment practices in distance learning:...
PPT
Julia Parra Research for VSS 2009
Comparative and non-comparative evaluation in educational technology
Comparative and non-comparative evaluation in Educational technology
Feedback as Dialogue
7. Research in Web
Feedback as dialogue and learning technologies: can e-assessment be formative?
Compartive And Non
RIDE 2010 presentation - Formative assessment practices in distance learning:...
Julia Parra Research for VSS 2009

What's hot (18)

PDF
2014 e learning innovations conference musabila assessing the virtual learnin...
PDF
TRA 2010: Identifying Effective Formative Assessment Practices and Feedback P...
PPTX
Models of evaluation in educational technology
DOCX
Power point journal
PPT
Evaluation of the Passit project
PPTX
No significant deffirent
PPT
Article Review(Serious Researchers)
PPT
Paper 3: Chinese University's Evaluation (Qiu & Wang)
PPT
Evaluation of the TOIA project
PPTX
Student Response Systems Presentation Final
PPT
Mobile Learning Framework & Evaluation
PPT
UOW presentation ALTC project 4.05.2011
PPTX
60, Li, comparing quality assurance mechanisms for student learning outcomes ...
PPT
Designing feedback processes for large classes
PDF
Sara Amin
PPT
Case Media Fellowship on AI and Robotics
DOC
Evaluation study[1]
KEY
Digital Literacy Practices in the University
2014 e learning innovations conference musabila assessing the virtual learnin...
TRA 2010: Identifying Effective Formative Assessment Practices and Feedback P...
Models of evaluation in educational technology
Power point journal
Evaluation of the Passit project
No significant deffirent
Article Review(Serious Researchers)
Paper 3: Chinese University's Evaluation (Qiu & Wang)
Evaluation of the TOIA project
Student Response Systems Presentation Final
Mobile Learning Framework & Evaluation
UOW presentation ALTC project 4.05.2011
60, Li, comparing quality assurance mechanisms for student learning outcomes ...
Designing feedback processes for large classes
Sara Amin
Case Media Fellowship on AI and Robotics
Evaluation study[1]
Digital Literacy Practices in the University
Ad

Viewers also liked (20)

PPT
comparative and non-comparative evaluation
PDF
NCHOVY ISC@CCK 2nd Hope Day
PPT
Comparative and Non-Comparative
PPTX
Compritive and non
PPT
Comparartive and non-Comparative study
PPT
Comparative and Non-Comparative
PDF
Local and Global Gating of Synaptic Plasticity
DOC
διδακτικο σεναριο στα μαθηματικα με το Sketchpad
KEY
TVT:n käyttö opetuksessa
PPT
Hydropolitics TWM Global 2010 (I+II)
PDF
CRF-Filters: Discriminative Particle Filters for Sequential State Estimation
PPTX
Notetaking
DOC
Iui protocol -draft
PDF
How to craft consolidated math notes
PDF
Predicador De Rectitud Bruce R
PPTX
Using web technologies for pain education & paincommunitycentre.org
PPT
06 Bilera Deia
PPTX
How to Negotiate, Part 2
PPT
PDF
Smartphones apps for productivity
comparative and non-comparative evaluation
NCHOVY ISC@CCK 2nd Hope Day
Comparative and Non-Comparative
Compritive and non
Comparartive and non-Comparative study
Comparative and Non-Comparative
Local and Global Gating of Synaptic Plasticity
διδακτικο σεναριο στα μαθηματικα με το Sketchpad
TVT:n käyttö opetuksessa
Hydropolitics TWM Global 2010 (I+II)
CRF-Filters: Discriminative Particle Filters for Sequential State Estimation
Notetaking
Iui protocol -draft
How to craft consolidated math notes
Predicador De Rectitud Bruce R
Using web technologies for pain education & paincommunitycentre.org
06 Bilera Deia
How to Negotiate, Part 2
Smartphones apps for productivity
Ad

Similar to Comparative and Non-Comparative Evaluation Studies (20)

PPT
Ppt Comparitive1
PPT
Post 7. comparative and non comparative evaluation in educational technology
PPT
Compartive and non- compartive studies
PDF
Article Review
PPT
Comparative And Non Comparative Study
PPT
Comparative And Non Comparative Study
PDF
An Empirical Investigation of Student Satisfaction with Web-based Courses.pdf
PPTX
Comparative and non comparative study
PPTX
Comparative study
PPT
Comparative and non comparative study g
PDF
Clustering Students of Computer in Terms of Level of Programming
PPT
Summary of two evaluation studies in edu.technology
PDF
Research proposal example.pdf
PPT
Comparative and non-comparative evaluation in educational technology
DOCX
Journal review
PPT
Assignment1
 
PPTX
Comparative and non comparative study
PDF
Synopsis Example.pdf
PPTX
FACTORS-AFFECTING-THE-CAPABILITIES-OF-MIDWIFERY-STUDENTS-OF-FSST (1).pptx
PDF
Teachers Competency in the Utilization of the Learners’ Information System: ...
Ppt Comparitive1
Post 7. comparative and non comparative evaluation in educational technology
Compartive and non- compartive studies
Article Review
Comparative And Non Comparative Study
Comparative And Non Comparative Study
An Empirical Investigation of Student Satisfaction with Web-based Courses.pdf
Comparative and non comparative study
Comparative study
Comparative and non comparative study g
Clustering Students of Computer in Terms of Level of Programming
Summary of two evaluation studies in edu.technology
Research proposal example.pdf
Comparative and non-comparative evaluation in educational technology
Journal review
Assignment1
 
Comparative and non comparative study
Synopsis Example.pdf
FACTORS-AFFECTING-THE-CAPABILITIES-OF-MIDWIFERY-STUDENTS-OF-FSST (1).pptx
Teachers Competency in the Utilization of the Learners’ Information System: ...

Recently uploaded (20)

PPTX
CHAPTER IV. MAN AND BIOSPHERE AND ITS TOTALITY.pptx
PDF
Paper A Mock Exam 9_ Attempt review.pdf.
PDF
RMMM.pdf make it easy to upload and study
PPTX
A powerpoint presentation on the Revised K-10 Science Shaping Paper
PDF
احياء السادس العلمي - الفصل الثالث (التكاثر) منهج متميزين/كلية بغداد/موهوبين
PDF
ChatGPT for Dummies - Pam Baker Ccesa007.pdf
PDF
Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment .pdf
PDF
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
PPTX
Digestion and Absorption of Carbohydrates, Proteina and Fats
PDF
Trump Administration's workforce development strategy
PPTX
Introduction-to-Literarature-and-Literary-Studies-week-Prelim-coverage.pptx
PDF
A GUIDE TO GENETICS FOR UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS
PPTX
History, Philosophy and sociology of education (1).pptx
PDF
advance database management system book.pdf
PPTX
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
PPTX
UV-Visible spectroscopy..pptx UV-Visible Spectroscopy – Electronic Transition...
PPTX
Orientation - ARALprogram of Deped to the Parents.pptx
PDF
What if we spent less time fighting change, and more time building what’s rig...
PDF
LDMMIA Reiki Yoga Finals Review Spring Summer
PDF
Computing-Curriculum for Schools in Ghana
CHAPTER IV. MAN AND BIOSPHERE AND ITS TOTALITY.pptx
Paper A Mock Exam 9_ Attempt review.pdf.
RMMM.pdf make it easy to upload and study
A powerpoint presentation on the Revised K-10 Science Shaping Paper
احياء السادس العلمي - الفصل الثالث (التكاثر) منهج متميزين/كلية بغداد/موهوبين
ChatGPT for Dummies - Pam Baker Ccesa007.pdf
Hazard Identification & Risk Assessment .pdf
Black Hat USA 2025 - Micro ICS Summit - ICS/OT Threat Landscape
Digestion and Absorption of Carbohydrates, Proteina and Fats
Trump Administration's workforce development strategy
Introduction-to-Literarature-and-Literary-Studies-week-Prelim-coverage.pptx
A GUIDE TO GENETICS FOR UNDERGRADUATE MEDICAL STUDENTS
History, Philosophy and sociology of education (1).pptx
advance database management system book.pdf
Final Presentation General Medicine 03-08-2024.pptx
UV-Visible spectroscopy..pptx UV-Visible Spectroscopy – Electronic Transition...
Orientation - ARALprogram of Deped to the Parents.pptx
What if we spent less time fighting change, and more time building what’s rig...
LDMMIA Reiki Yoga Finals Review Spring Summer
Computing-Curriculum for Schools in Ghana

Comparative and Non-Comparative Evaluation Studies

  • 1. Comparative and Non - Comparative Evaluation Studies Done by: Atiya Al-Saadi 68717
  • 2. Outline: I will summarize the two study according to the following criteria: Type of the study the study problem, question and purpose The study participants and evaluation instruments The study results The study Advantages and disadvantages
  • 3. Non – comparative cost-benefit analysis studies Type Web-based learning: relationship among student motivation , attitude, learning styles, and achievement Done by: Ching-Chun Shih, Research Associate Julia Gamon, Professor Emeritus Iowa State University “ Comparing Technology Skill Development in Computer Lab versus Classroom Settings of Two Sixth Grade Classes” Done by: Audrey C. Rule State University of New York at Oswego Manuel T. Barrera, III University of Minnesota – Duluth C. Jolene Dockstader and John A. Derr Jerome School District, Jerome, ID What study (Name) Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria
  • 4. Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria The purpose: to determine how student motivation, attitude, and learning styles influenced achievement in web-based courses. The objectives of the study were to identify: (a) the demographic characteristics of the students in relation to learning styles (b) differences in student motivation, attitude, and achievement in relation to learning styles (c) relationships among student achievement, motivation, attitude, learning styles, and selected variables in web-based learning. Question: “ Where can available computers be put to best use—in individual classrooms or computer lab?” the problem, question and purpose of evaluation.
  • 5. Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria Population: 99 students taking two non-major biology introductory courses, (Zoology and Biology) offered by the College of Agriculture at a land grant university. most course materials and resources were accessed and delivered by the Internet. More than 60% (60) of the population were on-campus students, and almost 40% (39) were off campus students. Thirty-two of the 39 off-campus students were high school students. two teachers in this study were chosen for their similarities in training and experienc Students (N = 53) came from two existing sixth grade classrooms from a small semi-rural school in south central Idaho . Both sets of students were of mixed ability in academic achievement and computer proficiency. Participants:
  • 6. Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria The study depend on the learning style scores, questionnaire responses, and students’ grades The learning style test was the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT) The on-line questionnaire consisted of two scales (motivation and attitude) student assigned to computer skill instruction under two conditions: computer lab setting an integrated instruction approach in a classroom with four computers Both settings included Pentium class computers with Internet access through a school district local area network. Pre and posttest (A performance-based assessment) data were collected by using : 24-item criterion-referenced performance-based test derived from district curriculum guides 37-item student attitude survey based on previously validated student attitude instruments evaluation instruments
  • 7. the Group Embedded Figures Test (GEFT), which classified students as either field-dependent or field-independent. Over two-thirds of the students taking the web-based courses were field-independent learners there were no significant differences (.05 level) in achievement between field-dependent and field-independent students The students enjoyed the convenience and self-controlled learning pace and were motivated by competition and high expectations in web-based learning . Motivation was the only significant factor that explained more than one-fourth of student achievement measured by class grade. Results showed: the group using the computer lab had higher overall scores in computer skills when compared to the classroom integration group. Higher scores for the lab were interpreted as the result of efficient and enhanced academic-engaged time inherent to the lab setting Report the results Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria
  • 8. Advantages: Comparative study: Studies examining the impact of computer technology on learning need to account for such variables as competency-building requirements in the use of technology and how such variables may affect outcomes. Such a study would provide information for schools where smaller numbers of computers may be available and the decision as to how to allocate computer equipment is consequently more acute.
  • 9. con, advantages: Non-comparative study: Such a study would provide information a bout the relationships between student achievement and the following variables: attitude, motivation, learning styles, and selected demographics. Such a study will lead the educators to a better understand about the student motivational factors and attitudes toward web-based learning so that they can stimulate student motivation and get students actively involved in the learning process. students and instructors will understand the importance of motivation in web-based learning and will enhance the student achievement because motivation is the only significant factor in web-based learning that accounted for more than one fourth of student achievement.
  • 10. we can not implement the study result in every learning context because the student have different learning style (The Arab students and European students) there are many factor that affect the study population and how done the study can not control all of them and that will effect the result of the study A better examination of the two conditions would have been to equalize computer time per student in the CI setting to match the time per student in the LAB setting. Because of the limited number of classroom computers, for each student to have an additional hour of computer practice time, teachers would have to allocate four more hours of class time to computer free-use time per week. we can not implement the study result in every learning environment because there are different between them (different factor and condition ) disadvantages Non-comparative study Comparative study Criteria
  • 11. References: C. Rule , Audrey and Other/ Comparing Technology Skill Development in Computer Lab versus Classroom Settings of Two Sixth Grade Classes from: http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/PDF/1.1.5.pdf Chun Shih , Ching and Gamon , Julia/ Web-based learning: relationship among student motivation , attitude, learning styles, and achievement from: http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb =true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ638591&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0= no&accno =EJ638591