Comparative & non comparative studies
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like577 views
1) A comparative study examined the instructional effectiveness of video-based versus print-based instructional materials for teaching practical skills. It found that students using video-based materials exhibited superior skills acquisition and craftsmanship, though both were equally effective for teaching theory. 2) A non-comparative study evaluated the use of interactive whiteboards in classrooms. Teachers reported improvements in student motivation with the whiteboards, and most teachers found them effective for student learning gains. However, setting up the whiteboards was problematic when teachers had to do it alone.
Comparative & non comparative studies
- 1. Comparative & non-Comparative Studies In Educational TechnologyDone by:- Malik Al-Nou’mani (68718)- Ahmed Al-Jahwari (68693)
- 2. Comparative studyThe Comparative Instructional Effectiveness of Print-Based and Video-Based Instructional Materials for Teaching Practical Skills at a Distance.By: Francis Donkor, (University of Education, Winneba, Ghana), March – 2010Type of comparative study:(Developmental studies)From:http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/792/1506
- 3. Comparative studyThe Problem:The study sought to examine the instructional effectiveness of video-based instructional Materials Vs traditional print-based instructional materials for teaching distance learners.
- 4. Comparative studyQuestions:1- How do learners using video-based practical lessons and those using print-based practical lessons compare in practical skills acquisition?2- How do learners using video-based practical lessons and those using print-based practical lessons compare in theoretical knowledge?3- How do learners using video-based practical lessons and those using print-based practical lessons compare in their craftsmanship?
- 5. Comparative studyPurpose of evaluation:The study was designed to compare the level of learning (in terms of theoretical knowledge and practical skills acquisition) between learners using video-based instructional materials and those using print-based instructional materials in relation to the instructional objectives of the lessons on mortar and wall finish.
- 6. Comparative studyParticipants:Two treatment groups:Users of video-based instructional materials or users of print based instructional materials34 participants who used print-based instructional materials.
- 7. 35 participants who used video-based instructional materials to learn practical skills.Comparative studyMethodology:1. Research DesignThe study used experimental design. As the study sought to compare the level of learning (in terms of knowledge and practical skills acquisition and craftsmanship) between learners using video-based instructional materials and those using print-based instructional materials
- 8. Comparative studyMethodology: 2. Population and SampleThe population comprised all 151 learners who registered for Block-Laying and Concreting during the 2007/2008 academic year at the five learning centers (institutions) offering the subject via distance learning
- 9. Comparative studyEvaluation instruments applied:An achievement test that sought to measure the level of theoretical knowledge acquired after learners had been exposed to theoretical lessons from print-based instructional materials (manuals) and the practical lessons from either the video-based or print-based materials.
- 10. Comparative studyEvaluation instruments applied:2. Performance test that sought to measure the level of practical skills acquired by learners after exposure to the practical lessons from either the video-based or print-based materials.
- 11. Comparative studyThe findings:The study suggest that the video-based instructional materials are pedagogically superior to the print-based instructional materials as users of the former exhibited superior skills acquisition and craftsmanship.The two instructional materials were however found to be pedagogically equivalent in terms of the teaching and learning of theory. The comparative instructional effectiveness of different approaches used in teaching practical skills appears to be an unexplored area of ODL and has been investigated to a limited extent in this exploratory study.
- 12. Non-comparative study:Interactive Whiteboard Evaluation (2000)By: Anna Smith with MirandaNet Fellows, Boston Spa Comprehensive Schoolfrom :http://www.mirandanet.ac.uk/pubs/smartboard.htm
- 13. Non-comparative study:The problem:This paper examines the ways in which the Whiteboard technology was integrated into a numbers of areas in the curriculum.Questions:1. Are learning gains affected by familiarity with the Whiteboard?2. Is motivation affected by familiarity with the Whiteboard?
- 14. Non-comparative study:Questions:3. Learning outcomes for students could be looked at in much more detail.4. Are there any subject differences in how teachers use the Whiteboard?5. Are there subject or gender differences in the ways in which teachers utilise the interactive nature of the board?6. Are some teachers more willing to allow students to get up and touch such an expensive piece of equipment? And if this is the case why should this be so?
- 15. Non-comparative study:Purpose of evaluation:Teachers who volunteered to pilot the technology received minimal training. The technology was applied to existing lesson plans, used with existing software and the Internet and evaluated in terms of the learning and motivational gains of the students.
- 16. Non-comparative study:Methodology:All staff who used the board had minimal input into the practicalities of its use, arriving in the room with a fully functioning board ready for use.The Whiteboard was used in a variety of rooms, all of which were equipped with PCs. The board was not used in an ordinary classroom. All rooms were very light and had no curtains to black out the room so the use of the LCD OHP tablet was problematic. The LCD projector was used subject to availability.
- 17. Non-comparative study:Evaluation instruments applied:QuestionnaireInitial useFirst Impressions.Time taken to familiarise with use of the board.ProblemsPotential annoyances.PreparationSoftware UsedPreparation TimeEase of set up before lesson.
- 18. Non-comparative study:Evaluation instruments applied:QuestionnaireLessonDid it work?Difficulties?Comments.How valuable a resource was the Whiteboard within this lesson?Would you use the Whiteboard on a regular basis?How effective was the Whiteboard in terms of student learning?How effective was it at motivating the students?
- 19. Non-comparative study:Advantages:Staff liked the idea that they appeared to be at the cutting edge of technology, students were impressed by the use of the whiteboard. The Whiteboard was quick to learn to use; points could be highlighted using the pens. Windows could be used the same as with an ordinary computer. The clarity and interest as a demonstration tool impressed most staff. The Whiteboard enabled staff to keep the class together, direct tasks and provided a focal point for students who weren't quite as computer literate as others……
- 20. Non-comparative study:Disadvantages:Setting up was a bit of a worry if staff had to do this on their own. The fact that the class had to be moved was a concern and some staff would love to have their own Whiteboard in their room as a permanent fixture. Poor definition when used with the LCD tablet was a problem.
- 21. Non-comparative study:The findings:Staff and 78% of students reported improvements in motivation. All staff thought the Whiteboard was effective in terms of learning gains and 11% thought it was essential for their learning outcome to be achieved.