Action Research for Technology - Brighteyes



Running head: IMPACT OF SCREEN-CAPTURE BASED INSTRUCTION

Impact of Screen-Capture Based Instruction Development and Implementation

Using Computer Aided Design Software

Jeffrey G. Smith

Chapman University

Abstract

In today’s educational climate, it is necessary for K-12 public schools to utilize the most effective teaching methods possible while being cost effective for both local and state budgets. Screen-captured based instructional audiovisual technology shows tremendous promise as a new tool for teachers and students. Results of past screen-capture based instruction studies complain of tedious lesson development and the difficulty for students to follow. In addition, there are few available studies that combine screen-captured based technology embedded with corresponding audio instruction. Using today’s faster school computers and networks, this study determined that screen-capture based audiovisual instructions increases student learning compared to a traditional textbook curriculum.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT 2

INTRODUCTION 4

Background 4

Significance 6

REVIEW OF LITERATURE 8

Instructional Technology Development 8

Theoretical Framework 9

Conceptual Framework 10

METHODOLOGY 12

Sample 12

Materials and Procedures 12

Data Analysis 13

Data and Results 15

Implications for teaching and research 17

Discussion of Results 17

Limitations 17

Implications for Teaching 18

Implications for Further Research 19

REFERENCES 21

APPENDIX A – Pretest-Posttest 23

APPENDIX B – Lesson 7 24

APPENDIX C – Lesson 14 28

APPENDIX D – CAD Lesson Survey 32

APPENDIX E – Rubric 33

APPENDIX F – Control Group Pretest Results 34

APPENDIX G – Control Group Posttest Results 35

APPENDIX H – Control Group Lesson Survey 36

APPENDIX I – Variable Group Pretest Results 37

APPENDIX J – Variable Group Posttest Results 37

APPENDIX K – Variable Group Lesson Survey 38

Introduction

In order to determine the significance of student learning using screen-based instruction, it is necessary to compare student data from screen-based instruction to traditional instructional methods. Textbooks have been the traditional method of presenting software application instructional materials. Unlike traditional instructional textbooks in the Math, Science, or Social Science, software textbooks must be replaced frequently if students and teachers are to be properly trained. Due to these perpetual changes in software applications, software instructional textbooks have a short shelf life and must be constantly updated. Some of these changes may be relatively minor and random while others can be radical. In many cases, as soon as a software application textbook is published, it has become outdated and irrelevant. This study sought to determine if today’s screen-capture based instruction could increase student learning compared to a traditional textbook curriculum.

Background

For schools to stay up to date with software programs, replacing textbooks can be a very expensive proposition. Each educational software instructional textbook can easily exceed $50.00. Additionally, instructors needing to teach new software applications find it difficult to procure instructional materials that relate directly to the specific version of a software application. For example, the latest versions of Autodesk’s computer aided design (CAD) textbooks are extremely hard to locate. Each lesson created by a publisher for a CAD application must be designed specifically for the software application and latest release version. To get around this problem, many CAD textbooks include few instructional lessons, but rather fill their content describing the fundamentals of drafting and analyzing potential careers.

In order not to become outdated, traditional CAD textbooks direct students to general project lessons without offering any step-by-step instruction. It is not surprising that these instructional textbooks are grossly inadequate for both teachers and students. To address this problem, a few publishers have resorted to offering their textbooks in a downloadable digital form or as a link to their web site. Online digital instructional content enables publishers to constantly update content and lessons.

In response to the limitations of traditional textbook materials, screen-captured based instruction is at the forefront of today’s educational system in the United States. Screen-captured based technology allows for the recording and sharing of actions taken on a computer screen. For example, if an instructor creates and edits documents on a computer screen, the screen-capture software records all the movements. These movements can be simultaneously shared to online viewers over a network or saved for later viewing. Many screen-capture based software applications also have the ability to add audio commentary and can be saved as a standard media file.

Until recently, many school districts have been unable to implement screen-captured based technology due to the high startup costs. Yet the expenses required for faster school networks, adequate computer processors, and graphic cards are now significantly lower then even a few years ago. The increased bandwidth of school networks allow for an increased amount of data that can be carried from one point to another in a given time period. Today’s standard desktop computers in conjunction with media applications and high-speed networks make the implementation of screen-capture based instruction more feasible for K-12 education.

Significance

Surprisingly, little has been adequately studied on the implementation of screen-captured based instruction on teachers and students. The few studies available generally attempt to compare screen-capture based instruction to a textbook approach. These past studies fail to take into account the instructors’ need to create and implement their own lessons. Additionally, audio commentary included in the screen-captured based lesson was not included due to the large file sizes generated. Inadequate classroom computers and networks also hampered past studies of screen-capture based instructional lessons.

Using standard computers in today’s classroom, many past results can be mitigated. Today’s available high speed Internet connection, faster school networks, and computer processors create a formidable environment for screen-captured based classroom instruction. Like many new classroom technologies, screen-captured based instruction could have broad and unintentional consequences. Could this technology replace traditional instructional methods or even teachers all together? As far-fetched as it may appear, many corporate studies show that comprehension exceeds that of traditional methods and at a significantly lower cost to administer (Allen, 1997).

A recent study was conducted at a high school in Northern California to determine if screen-captured based instruction could be a viable instructional method. Near metropolitan San Francisco, this high school’s neighborhood has managed to maintain a small town working class environment due in large part to the concentration of unionized oil refinery and trade workers. Of the nearly 50 students tested, they adequately represented the demographics of their 1500 high school classmates. The study’s student majority ethnicity consisted of 34 White (non-Hispanic) students. Of the remaining minorities, there were nine Hispanic students, two African Americans, one Chinese, one American Indian, one Pacific Islander, and one Indian student.

Jeffrey G. Smith, a California high school teacher with an Instructional Technology credential, conducted the study. As a second year computer aided design instructor, Mr. Smith has over 15 years of CAD experience in the private sector. His students met weekly for three 50 minute classes and one 95 minute class in a computer lab consisting of standard desktop computers, each with two gigabytes of RAM and two 17” monitors. Two monitors and the required graphics card had been recently added to enable learners to watch screen-captured based instruction on one monitor while they followed along on the other monitor using the software application. Each computer had access to the school’s server and possessed high speed Internet access.

Review of Literature

Instructional Technology Development

Using screen-capture based instruction is a powerful and relatively new tool for teachers in today’s classroom. A screen-capture based curriculum allows an instructor to create and record a computer demonstration to be viewed in multitude and at a later date. The use of this instructional method can easily be applied to many basic classroom curriculums; however most teachers utilizing this technology tend to be instructing advanced computer software applications. Surprisingly, screen based instructional technology was pioneered over forty years ago by IBM for the U.S. military training during the Vietnam War (Jansen & Mackenzie, 1998).

There are essentially two types of methods that screen based instruction can incorporate (Jansen & Mackenzie, 1998). The first method is for an instructor to create an “in-house” lesson or by purchasing one from a third party developer. The instructor loads the lesson onto an individual computer or networked system for students to use on a “one-to-one” basis. The second method uses the screen-based instruction as an interactive instructional device to enhance the presentation of instructional material to large or small groups of students within a typical classroom setting. Under the second method, the instructor has complete control of pacing and sequencing and has the ability to verbally explain concepts in as much detail as necessary. Both have the distinct advantage for lessons to be repeated and even played at a slower speed to better illustrate new techniques.

Theoretical Framework

The method of acquisition by students using a screen-based instruction is referred to as the didactic method (Akin, 2002). Under this process, students are taught a fundamental principle as demonstrated by the screen-based instruction. Once learners understand this new theory, they are able to apply their knowledge to problem-solve as related to the fundamentals of the screen-based demonstration. The process is generally viewed and practiced immediately by the individual at his or her own pacing, until mastery has been achieved.

The challenge for teachers using screen-based instruction is the potential lengthy construction time requirements. The average time for the development of classroom instruction to on-line delivery is a ratio of 34 hours of creation to one hour of classroom instruction (Chapman, 1998). This significant construction time might at first seem unreasonable, but one should consider five minutes of video from screen-capture instruction for a typical CAD class, equates to an hour of a student’s lesson.

One key element from the creation of a screen-based instruction that cannot be understated is the ability to reuse the material. A fundamental principle of a screen-capture based lesson is its ability to be shown at a later date or for the future instruction of other classes. Once a lesson has been made, it inherently can be utilized over and over again without any video or audio degradation.

Most CAD lessons are created in short five-minute clips. This is done for a number of technical and instructional reasons. When a lesson is made using screen-captured based software, large video files are created. An instructor might also choose to speak on certain techniques and include audio with the video demonstration; this five-minute screen-based lesson can easily exceed 100 megabytes. One negative implication to a large lesson file is the present insufficient capacity of most school servers. In addition, multiple users attempting to view a single video file often loose network connection and subsequent audio/video feed. If a file is too large and cumbersome, learners loose instructional time and are frustrated with the entire screen-based instruction process (Folkestad & DeMiranda, 2002). In addition, if a student attempts to follow along with an instructional video containing new technical information that lasts more than five minutes, learners can easily be overwhelmed. The most productive instructional method is to break-up a screen-based lesson into short video clips well within the learner’s level of capability and network viewing capabilities.

Conceptual Framework

An unforeseen benefit for a screen-captured based instruction travels far beyond the classroom walls. The entire curriculum can be uploaded onto a server and accessed via the World Wide Web. The implications of instructional material being accessed from remote locations are two-fold. One implication is that students who cannot come to class due to an illness or other public emergencies will be able to stay in sequence with instruction (Kuang & Hu, 2004). Another significant outcome of screen-capture based instruction is its capability to be used for on-line instruction classes by distance learning institutions. Distance learning is referred to as the acquisition of knowledge and skills through mediated information and instruction, encompassing all technologies and other forms of learning at a distance (Ndahi & Ritz, 2002). Generally, higher learning intuitions and private sector corporations utilize distant learning.

It is not surprising that corporations use screen capture based instruction not only for its educational benefits when training employees, but also for its huge cost savings. Corporations such as United Airlines, Federal Express, and Holiday Inn reported savings of nearly 60% over that of traditional instructor led training (Allen, 1997). Most of these expenses can be attributed to travel, hotel, and instructor fees.

With the corporate sector embracing the use of screen-captured based instruction, the implication for its implementation into public education is enormous. Unlike the budget constraints on public education, major financial corporate resources exploring the benefits of screen-based technology can be anticipated. If the private sector continues to utilize and explore these advances, one can easily anticipate this technology trickling down into public education. As with the private sector, one outcome of screen-based technology could be the elimination of many traditional teaching positions.

It is therefore paramount that screen-capture based instruction and student comprehension are fully understood for public education. Screen captured-based instructional methods are by no means a panacea, but rather a specific tool for a specific purpose. More data and studies are necessary to determine where best to incorporate this technology. If implemented incorrectly, schools may race to apply screen-capture based technology and waste finite financial resources, similar to the disillusionment of many public school districts purchasing laptop computers for students. Most instructors and educators are ill-equipped and uninformed as how to incorporate technology, even as basic as laptop computers, into a traditional curriculum (Hu, 2007).

Methodology

Sample

The target population for this study was students selected from a high school’s Regional Occupational Program (ROP) program. Approximately 50 high school students were studied. Unlike other high school classes, this course was offered as an elective. Students signed-up four months in advance to participate in the computer aided design (CAD) class. Of the two types of CAD classes offered, two were Level I beginners and one was Level II advanced. The two Level I classes had been adhering to a highly restrictive teacher guided curriculum. Many of the Level II advanced students had been given an opportunity to independently explore many different features of AutoCAD’s software during the previous year and could potentially skew research data. To ensure minimal student background knowledge of the pretest-posttest lessons, the introductory Level I classes were chosen for this study. Both the control and treatment groups were selected from the Level I CAD group.

Materials and Procedures

The following study was conducted using “Net-Op” video screen-capture based software. “Net-Op” is primarily marketed for its capability to monitor selected network computers and enable teacher demonstrations on networked student computer screens. The instructor using “Net-Op” essentially takes over the student’s networked computer to show a live demonstration allowing multiple students to follow simultaneously on their own computer screen. A separate screen-capture audio video component of “Net-Op” allows instructors to make recordings of their computer screen and add audio comments to be shown at a later date.

The pretest-posttest CAD questions and lesson were taken from the book “Exercise Workbook for Beginning AutoCAD 2006” by Cheryl R. Shrock. This textbook was chosen because of its step-by-step instruction pacing. There are few images of AutoCAD’s application window. Textbook instructions that demonstrate color photographic images and step-by-step photo instructions of the software are in the spirit of screen-captured based technology, and therefore were not chosen. In addition, “Exercise Workbook for Beginning AutoCAD 2006” was recommended by AutoCAD’s manufacturer, Autodesk.

The textbook’s lesson objectives were incorporated in the pretest and posttest. The pretest was developed to assess student knowledge of the CAD that was to be taught in an upcoming lesson. The same test was then used for the posttest. The traditional textbook students (control group) were each given photocopies of the new CAD lesson (Lesson 7 & Lesson 14). The screen-captured based audio/video instruction (treatment) used the same lesson as the control group’s but without any textbook. The instructor followed the lesson as written in the control group’s textbook using AutoCAD software. When the instructor moved his mouse and selected an icon, he added an additional audio step-by-step commentary that was later saved as a single Window’s media .avi file. The entire screen-based lesson consisted of ten minutes of video recording separated into five two-minute clips.

Data Analysis

The lab session one (day 1) started with the instructor presenting identical lesson expectations. The days CAD lesson objective was presented to each group in the same manner. Instruction included stretching, scaling, and rotating objects. Once the lesson objectives were given, each group was instructed to use the lesson as provided. The control group was given a photocopy handout (Lesson 7) while the treatment group was instructed where to locate their screen-captured based audiovisual lesson within the school’s server. Both groups were able to access the instructor for general one-on-one instructions, but were not provided with any specific CAD answers. The instructor answered student questions by directing them to a specific location on the photocopy handout or a time section within the audiovisual media lesson.

The lab session two (day 2) began with students practicing the previous day’s lesson. In addition, students were given a new lesson (Lesson 14) that started where the first lesson ended. The second day’s lesson dove into the heart of the lesson objective. CAD construction techniques that were introduced the previous days were used to construct mirrored and fillet objects. Students were only allowed to use the lesson format they were provided on day one. In addition, students were asked not to share information or techniques between themselves.

The lab session three (day 3) included a posttest. The posttest lesson incorporated the two previous day‘s CAD lessons activities to modify a provided CAD two-dimensional object. Learners were provided access to their previous instructional lessons. In addition, students were asked to anonymously evaluate the content of the three days lesson activities based on their textbook method or screen-captured based lesson.

Data and Results

Table 1: Pretest and Posttest Means scores for each treatment group

Average based on a 16 point scale

Experimental Group Control Group

Measure (Screen-capture) (Textbook tutorial)

Test

Pretest Mean 3.9 2.4

Posttest Mean 14.6 8.6

The results from the pretest (Table 1) indicate the experimental group and control group scores to be reasonably the same. However, the posttests mean indicate a significant difference in performance between the two groups. The results indicate that the screen-capture based demonstration (treatment) had a significant positive effect on student learning.

The student survey’s indicated both styles of CAD instruction were equal in difficulty. When asked to rate if the instructions from their two days of lessons were hard to follow on a scale of 1 to 5, the control group’s average rating difficulty for their written instruction was 2.75. These statistics were almost identical to the variable group audiovisual lesson average difficulty rating of 2.76. However, when both groups were asked which instructional method they preferred, students overwhelmingly chose the audiovisual screen-captured based instruction 5:1. Paradoxically, both groups’ favorable comments to the audiovisual screen-capture based method referred to its ease when learning new materials.

Whereas students in the control group favored screen-captured based instruction by a factor of 3:1, 100% of the students in the variable group preferred the audiovisual method of instruction. This extreme preference by the variable group to the audiovisual screen-capture based instruction was one of the most significant result of the survey. Students noted the comfort of watching and following along to the screen-captured based instruction to that of past traditional methods. Many students also commented to the ease of which the lesson could be completed without the typical trial and error associated with locating the multitude of menu options and type commands from textbook lessons. Learners also indicated familiarity of watching the screen-capture based demonstration with playing video games on the Internet or watching movies on their home computers.

Implications for teaching and research

Discussion of Results

The findings sought in this research study attempted to determine if posttest results indicated whether the screen-captured based instructional method out performed traditional textbook instruction. In addition, it was also important to gage the level of student satisfaction when using each instructional method. For example, if a particular method proved to be significantly superior for student learning but was overwhelmingly disliked, students might sufficiently learn, yet choose to study a different elective or even career path.

Just five years ago similar studies were conducted. The limitations of classroom computer’s graphic capabilities, slow network speeds, and difficulty from moving back and forth from video instruction to software application on a single monitor limited its overall effectiveness. Today, using standard desktop computers and network routers have mitigated many of these past difficulties. The only significant modification from previous studies was the use of dual monitors and adding audio instruction.

Limitations

One limitation to this study was the large screen-capture file size. Only two or three screen-captured based lessons were able to be uploaded to the school’s server at one time. The file size was sufficient for this study, but could potentially impede a lengthy demonstration. In the past, compressing screen-capture based audiovisual files have worked to a degree; however occasional replay glitches such as video’s playing upside down or even mirrored have occurred. It was therefore decided compression would not be incorporated in this study.

Instructors not sufficiently trained in software applications could also be at a disadvantage. Screen-captured based lesson instruction requires competency of the software application. Similarly, inaccurate audio commentary but could also be a distraction for students of an inadequately trained instructor. Yet, an instructor has the ability to pause the screen-capture recording. This provides a buffer for an instructor’s trail and error as a screen-capture based lesson is being created. A feature that could benefit both novice and experienced instructors would be the ability to re-record and splice segments of the screen-captured based instruction. Currently, off-the-shelf screen-captured based applications only permit the pausing of the screen-capture recording, providing no editing capabilities.

Implications for Teaching

The results of this study are enormous and cannot be understated. These conclusions effect textbook publishers, overall student learning, and even the entire teaching profession. If valid, textbooks for software applications are completely unnecessary, screen-based software instruction nearly doubles student comprehension, and teacher’s roles could be reduced or in theory eliminated.

Even today, many book publishers and software manufacturers offer brief versions of screen-captured based instruction. However, the overall quantity is limited to a few minutes of software highlights and new software features. What few clips that are available can be accessed online, but are offered at a limited screen size and posses minimal over-all quality. As of date, no publisher or software manufacturer’s curriculum is offered as an audiovisual instruction for CAD. Even if the curriculum was available on-line, school’s computers and routers over few years old could not handle the streaming data. When compared to the ongoing price of purchasing new textbooks, the capital expenditure requirements for new computers can be justified.

Another important conclusion of this study is the benefits to student learning. Rarely can a new instructional method nearly double student comprehension and provide complete satisfaction. One might look back to the introduction of film projectors or VCR’s for similar audiovisual methods; however these past technologies differ in one significant manner. Using screen-capture based recordings, students can simultaneously learn at their own pace using one audiovisual recording.

In the current climate of educational reforms, many question the role of instructors and place high demands and expectations on teachers. With the recent politicization of educational reforms under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and the public school teacher’s union complete endorsement and financial support of the Democratic political party, Republican and other opposing political forces may use similar studies to justify eliminating many teaching positions. As farfetched as this might sound, the recent advent and ubiquitous acceptance of remote learning and university online classes could provide a pathway for restructuring public education.

Implications for Further Research

With the broad implications of this study, further research is required. A more comprehensive study is needed using less technically advanced instructional materials. Could this study be replicated in a math, science or social science setting? With the lack of research and current data, there are seemingly endless venues for the study of screen-capture based instruction within the corporate, university, and K-12 settings.

References

Akin, O. (2002). Case-based Instruction Strategies in Architecture. Design Studies, 23

431. Retrieved April 27, 2008 from

Papers/CaseBased.pdf

Allen, R. J. (1997) Technology Training. What Works: Training and Development

Practices. American Society for Training and Development. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from

Chapman, C.L. (1998). Blurring the Lines between Design and Authoring: The Synergy

Project. Journal of Interactive Instruction Development, 11 (2) 3-13.

Folkestad, J. E. & DeMiranda M A. (2002). Impact of Screen-Capture Based Instruction

on Student Comprehension of Computer Aided Design (CAD) Software

Principles. Journal of Industrial Technology, 18, (1). Retrieved April 28, 2008, from

Hu, W. (2007, May 4). Seeing No Progress, Some Schools Drop Laptops. New York

Times. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from education/04laptop.html

Jansen, D.G. & Mackenzie, S.D. (1998) Impact of Multimedia Computer-based

Instruction on Student Comprehension of Drafting Principles. Journal of

Industrial Teacher Education, 35 (4). Retrieved April 28, 2008, from

Kuang, J. S. & Hu T. W. C. (2004). A multimedia-based approach to teaching

engineering drawing. Department of Civil Engineering, The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from



civl_paper.pdf

Ndahi, H.B. & Ritz, J. M. (2002). Distance Learning in Industrial Teacher Education

Programs. Journal of Technology Studies, 28 (1), 64-69. Retrieved April 28, 2008, from ndahi.pdf

Appendix A

Pretest-Posttest

Using AutoCAD, open the provided file “pretest-posttest.dwg.” Stretch, mirror, and fillet “Object A” so as to create “Object B”. Save your completed work as “yourname_pretest-posttest.dwg.”

Appendix B

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Appendix C

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Appendix D

[pic]

Appendix E

Appendix F

|STUDENT NUMBER |GRADE |MIRROR |STRETCH |FILLET |DIMENSION |TOTAL |

|8644 |10 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|6083 |12 |1 |0 |0 |0 |1 |

|8693 |10 |4 |0 |0 |0 |4 |

|6651 |11 | | | | | |

|8700 |10 |4 |4 |0 |0 |8 |

|6681 |11 | | | | | |

|6151 |12 | | | | | |

|7322 |11 | | | | | |

|8755 |10 |2 |0 |0 |1 |3 |

|6548 |12 |0 |1 |0 |0 |1 |

|6740 |11 |2 |1 |0 |0 |3 |

|6765 |9 |0 |1 |0 |0 |1 |

|6247 |12 |0 |1 |2 |1 |4 |

|9468 |11 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|8814 |10 | | | | | |

|6258 |12 | | | | | |

|6268 |12 | | | | | |

|6270 |12 | | | | | |

|8608 |11 | | | | | |

|8857 |10 |2 |0 |0 |0 |2 |

|6823 |11 |4 |0 |0 |0 |4 |

|6317 |12 | | | | | |

|6534 |12 |2 |0 |0 |0 | |

|6326 |12 |4 |4 |0 |0 |8 |

|8568 |11 | | | | | |

|6883 |11 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|6356 |12 | | | | | |

|6365 |12 | | | | | |

|8952 |10 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|6941 |11 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

| | | | | | |0.133333 |

|CONTROL GROUP | | | | | |MEAN |

|PRETEST RESULTS | | | | | |

Appendix G

|STUDENT NUMBER |GRADE |MIRROR |STRETCH |FILLET |DIMENSION |TOTAL |

|8644 |10 |4 |3 |0 |3 |10 |

|6083 |12 |4 |3 |4 |0 |11 |

|8693 |10 |3 |1 |0 |0 |4 |

|6651 |11 |4 |3 |0 |0 |7 |

|8700 |10 |2 |0 |0 |0 |2 |

|6681 |11 |4 |3 |0 |0 |7 |

|6151 |12 |4 |4 |0 |0 |8 |

|7322 |11 | | | | | |

|8755 |10 |4 |3 |4 |0 |11 |

|6548 |12 | | | | | |

|6740 |11 |3 |3 |0 | |12 |

|6765 |9 |4 |4 |4 |0 |12 |

|6247 |12 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|9468 |11 |0 |1 |0 |0 |1 |

|8814 |10 |1 |1 |0 |0 |2 |

|6258 |12 |4 |3 |1 |0 |8 |

|6268 |12 |4 |3 |1 |0 |8 |

|6270 |12 |3 |3 |4 |0 |10 |

|8608 |11 |3 |2 |0 |0 |5 |

|8857 |10 |4 |3 |4 |0 |11 |

|6823 |11 |4 |4 |0 |0 |8 |

|6317 |12 |4 |4 |0 |3 |11 |

|6534 |12 | | | | | |

|6326 |12 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|8568 |11 | | | | | |

|6883 |11 |3 |0 |0 |1 |4 |

|6356 |12 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|6365 |12 |4 |4 |4 |1 |13 |

|8952 |10 |4 |0 |0 |0 |4 |

|6941 |11 |3 |4 |0 |0 |7 |

| | | | | | |8.615385 |

| | | | | | |MEAN |

|CONTROL GROUP | | | | | | |

|POSTTEST RESULTS | | | | | |

Appendix H

|ANONYMOUS |DIFFICULTY |ENOUGH INFO |PROBLEMS |TOTAL |PREFERENCE |

| |4 |5 |5 |14 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |5 |5 |13 |Audiovisual |

| |1 |1 |1 |3 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Textbook |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |4 |1 |5 |10 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |1 |1 |5 |Audiovisual |

| |1 |1 |1 |3 |Textbook |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |5 |5 |13 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |5 |5 |13 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |4 |5 |5 |14 |Textbook |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Textbook |

| |2 |1 |5 |8 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |5 |1 |9 |Textbook |

| |3 |5 |1 |9 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |1 |1 |5 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |5 |1 |1 |7 |Audiovisual |

| |4 |5 |5 |14 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |5 |1 |9 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |1 |1 |5 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |1 |1 |5 |Textbook |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Textbook |

| |4 |1 |1 |6 |Audiovisual |

|MEAN |2.75 |2.285714286 |2.14285714 |7.17857143 | |

| | | | | | |

|CONTROL GROUP | | | | |

|LESSON SURVEY | | | | | |

Appendix I

|STUDENT NUMBER |MIRROR |STRETCH |FILLET |DIMENSION |TOTAL |

|9471 | | | | |0 |

|8751 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|6729 |3 |0 |0 |0 |3 |

|8798 |4 |4 |0 |0 |8 |

|6246 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|6776 |4 |0 |0 |0 |4 |

|9434 |0 |0 |0 |0 |12 |

|6312 |4 |4 |4 |0 |12 |

|6828 |2 |0 |0 |1 |3 |

|6320 |1 |1 |0 |0 |2 |

|6951 |0 |1 |0 |1 |2 |

|6952 |2 |2 |0 |0 |4 |

|6546 | | | | | |

|9448 | | | | | |

|6880 |0 |0 |0 |0 |0 |

|6878 |0 |1 |0 |0 |1 |

|6445 | | | | | |

| | | | | |3.923077 |

| | | | | |MEAN |

|VIARIABLE GROUP | | | | | |

|PRETEST RESULTS | | | | |

Appendix J

|STUDENT NUMBER |MIRROR |STRETCH |FILLET |DIMENSION |TOTAL |

|9471 |4 |4 |4 |3 |15 |

|8751 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|6729 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|8798 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|6246 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|6776 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|9434 |4 |3 |3 |4 |14 |

|6312 |4 |3 |4 |2 |13 |

|6828 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|6320 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|6951 |4 |4 |4 |4 |16 |

|6952 |4 |4 |4 |0 |12 |

|6546 |4 |4 |4 |0 |12 |

|9448 |4 |3 |4 |0 |11 |

| | | | | |14.61538 |

| | | | | |MEAN |

|VARIALBE GROUP | | | | | |

|POSTTEST RESULTS | | | | |

Appendix K

|ANONYMOUS |DIFFICULTY |ENOUGH INFO |PROBLEMS |TOTAL |PREFERENCE |

| |2 |1 |5 |8 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |1 |5 |9 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |5 |5 |5 |15 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |1 |5 |9 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |1 |1 |5 |Audiovisual |

| |5 |5 |1 |11 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |4 |1 |1 |6 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |1 |1 |5 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |2 |1 |1 |4 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |1 |1 |5 |Audiovisual |

| |3 |5 |5 |13 |Audiovisual |

| |1 |1 |1 |3 |Audiovisual |

|MEAN |2.76470588 |1.705882353 |2.17647059 |6.64705882 | |

| | | | | | |

|VARIABLE GROUP | | | | |

|LESSON SURVEY | | | | | |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download