Craig observing - Revision history

Scraig@pitt.edu: /* Hypothesis */

2008-10-07T16:35:15Z

Hypothesis

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:35, 7 October 2008
Line 45:		Line 45:
	There are two contrasting hypotheses being tested in this design. The hypothesis that we have spent the most time with in the current paper is the active observing hypothesis. The active observing hypothesis would predict that the learners in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition would outperform other conditions because of the highly dynamic tutoring session So, the tutoring videos would contain dialogue features (e.g. turn taking, pauses, and affect) and expert tutoring elements (e.g. corrections and scaffolding) that would promote more active engagement with the video material than the passive information display from the worked example. <br>		There are two contrasting hypotheses being tested in this design. The hypothesis that we have spent the most time with in the current paper is the active observing hypothesis. The active observing hypothesis would predict that the learners in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition would outperform other conditions because of the highly dynamic tutoring session So, the tutoring videos would contain dialogue features (e.g. turn taking, pauses, and affect) and expert tutoring elements (e.g. corrections and scaffolding) that would promote more active engagement with the video material than the passive information display from the worked example. <br>
	Collaboratively observing tutoring > Collaboratively observing examples = Individually observing tutoring (1)		Collaboratively observing tutoring > Collaboratively observing examples = Individually observing tutoring (1)
	However, a potential alternative hypothesis (content equivalency hypothesis) is that the content what really matters. Since we have given learners equal content, then the method in which the material is presented should not matter (Klahr & Nigam, 2004). <br>		<br>However, a potential alternative hypothesis (content equivalency hypothesis) is that the content what really matters. Since we have given learners equal content, then the method in which the material is presented should not matter (Klahr & Nigam, 2004). <br>
	Collaboratively observing tutoring = Collaboratively observing examples = Individually observing tutoring (2)		Collaboratively observing tutoring = Collaboratively observing examples = Individually observing tutoring (2)

Scraig@pitt.edu: /* '''Far transfer data''' (robust learning). */

2008-10-07T16:34:34Z

'''Far transfer data''' (robust learning).

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:34, 7 October 2008
Line 71:		Line 71:
	An ANOVA was run on the participants far transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.89, p < .05, Eta sqared = 0.142. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).		An ANOVA was run on the participants far transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.89, p < .05, Eta sqared = 0.142. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).

	[[Image:~~Craigetaltable1~~.JPG]]		[[Image:Craigetaltable2.JPG]]

	<br>		<br>

Scraig@pitt.edu: /* '''Immediate Learning measures''' */

2008-10-07T16:30:40Z

'''Immediate Learning measures'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:30, 7 October 2008
Line 59:		Line 59:
	=== Results ===		=== Results ===
	===='''Immediate Learning measures'''====		===='''Immediate Learning measures'''====
	Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.57 and ''M'' = .67 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning. However, data from Andes problem solving while completing homework (long-term retention measure, medium transfer) have showed significant differences among groups, ''F'' (1, 60) = 3.47, ''p'' <.05 in which the collaboratively observing tutoring (''M'' = .88) pairs performed significantly better than the collaboratively observing worked examples condition (''M'' = .75) and the individually observing worked examples condition(''M'' = .73).<br>		Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.57 and ''M'' = .67 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning.<br>
	[[Image:Craigetaltable1.JPG]]		[[Image:Craigetaltable1.JPG]]

Scraig@pitt.edu: /* '''Immediate Learning measures''' */

2008-10-07T16:28:56Z

'''Immediate Learning measures'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:28, 7 October 2008
Line 59:		Line 59:
	=== Results ===		=== Results ===
	===='''Immediate Learning measures'''====		===='''Immediate Learning measures'''====
	Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.56 and ''M'' = .66 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning. However, data from Andes problem solving while completing homework (long-term retention measure, medium transfer) have showed significant differences among groups, ''F'' (1, 60) = 3.47, ''p'' <.05 in which the collaboratively observing tutoring (''M'' = .88) pairs performed significantly better than the collaboratively observing worked examples condition (''M'' = .75) and the individually observing worked examples condition(''M'' = .73).<br>		Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.57 and ''M'' = .67 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning. However, data from Andes problem solving while completing homework (long-term retention measure, medium transfer) have showed significant differences among groups, ''F'' (1, 60) = 3.47, ''p'' <.05 in which the collaboratively observing tutoring (''M'' = .88) pairs performed significantly better than the collaboratively observing worked examples condition (''M'' = .75) and the individually observing worked examples condition(''M'' = .73).<br>
	[[Image:Craigetaltable1.JPG]]		[[Image:Craigetaltable1.JPG]]

Scraig@pitt.edu: /* Hypothesis */

2008-10-07T16:21:23Z

Hypothesis

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:21, 7 October 2008
Line 43:		Line 43:

	=== Hypothesis ===		=== Hypothesis ===
	~~A dialogue~~ hypothesis ~~for~~ collaboratively observing ~~while problem solving from worked examples is that viewing~~ the expert tutoring ~~session should produce more learning~~ (~~normal or robust~~) than ~~viewing a content equivalent condition of expert problem solving~~. However, an alternative (~~Content equivalence~~ hypothesis) is that ~~since~~ the ~~expert tutoring session and~~ the ~~expert worked example both provide good learning conditions with~~ the ~~same content they~~ should ~~both produce mastery of the material~~ (Klahr & Nigam, 2004). ~~Process data collected in this study will help to tease out these hypotheses.~~		There are two contrasting hypotheses being tested in this design. The hypothesis that we have spent the most time with in the current paper is the active observing hypothesis. The active observing hypothesis would predict that the learners in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition would outperform other conditions because of the highly dynamic tutoring session So, the tutoring videos would contain dialogue features (e.g. turn taking, pauses, and affect) and expert tutoring elements (e.g. corrections and scaffolding) that would promote more active engagement with the video material than the passive information display from the worked example. <br>
			Collaboratively observing tutoring > Collaboratively observing examples = Individually observing tutoring (1)
			However, a potential alternative hypothesis (content equivalency hypothesis) is that the content what really matters. Since we have given learners equal content, then the method in which the material is presented should not matter (Klahr & Nigam, 2004). <br>
			Collaboratively observing tutoring = Collaboratively observing examples = Individually observing tutoring (2)

	=== Dependent variables ===		=== Dependent variables ===

Scraig@pitt.edu: /* '''Immediate Learning measures''' */

2008-10-07T16:19:16Z

'''Immediate Learning measures'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:19, 7 October 2008
Line 56:		Line 56:
	=== Results ===		=== Results ===
	===='''Immediate Learning measures'''====		===='''Immediate Learning measures'''====
	Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.56 and ''M'' = .66 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning. However, data from Andes problem solving while completing homework (long-term retention measure, medium transfer) have showed significant differences among groups, ''F'' (1, 60) = 3.47, ''p'' <.05 in which the collaboratively observing tutoring (''M'' = .88) pairs performed significantly better than the collaboratively observing worked examples condition (''M'' = .75) and the individually observing worked examples condition(''M'' = .73).		Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.56 and ''M'' = .66 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning. However, data from Andes problem solving while completing homework (long-term retention measure, medium transfer) have showed significant differences among groups, ''F'' (1, 60) = 3.47, ''p'' <.05 in which the collaboratively observing tutoring (''M'' = .88) pairs performed significantly better than the collaboratively observing worked examples condition (''M'' = .75) and the individually observing worked examples condition(''M'' = .73).<br>
	[[Image:Craigetaltable1.JPG]]		[[Image:Craigetaltable1.JPG]]

Scraig@pitt.edu at 16:18, 7 October 2008

2008-10-07T16:18:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 7 October 2008
Line 57:		Line 57:
	===='''Immediate Learning measures'''====		===='''Immediate Learning measures'''====
	Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.56 and ''M'' = .66 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning. However, data from Andes problem solving while completing homework (long-term retention measure, medium transfer) have showed significant differences among groups, ''F'' (1, 60) = 3.47, ''p'' <.05 in which the collaboratively observing tutoring (''M'' = .88) pairs performed significantly better than the collaboratively observing worked examples condition (''M'' = .75) and the individually observing worked examples condition(''M'' = .73).		Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.56 and ''M'' = .66 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning. However, data from Andes problem solving while completing homework (long-term retention measure, medium transfer) have showed significant differences among groups, ''F'' (1, 60) = 3.47, ''p'' <.05 in which the collaboratively observing tutoring (''M'' = .88) pairs performed significantly better than the collaboratively observing worked examples condition (''M'' = .75) and the individually observing worked examples condition(''M'' = .73).
			[[Image:Craigetaltable1.JPG]]

	===='''Long term learning measures''' (robust learning)====		===='''Long term learning measures''' (robust learning)====
Line 67:		Line 68:
	An ANOVA was run on the participants far transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.89, p < .05, Eta sqared = 0.142. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).		An ANOVA was run on the participants far transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.89, p < .05, Eta sqared = 0.142. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).

	~~'''Table'''. “Means and standard deviations for long term retention measure of Andes problem solving”.~~		[[Image:Craigetaltable1.JPG]]
	~~{\| border="1" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" style="text-align~~: ~~left;"~~
	~~\| '''Condition''' \|\| ''' M''' \|\| '''SD'''~~
	\|-
	~~\| '''Collaboratively Observing Tutoring''' \|\| .88 \|\| .136~~
	\|-
	~~\| '''Collaboratively Observing worked example''' \|\| .75 \|\| .258~~
	\|-
	~~\| ''' Individually Observing worked example ''' \|\| .73 \|\|~~ .~~175~~
	\|}
	<br>		<br>

Scraig@pitt.edu: /* Results */

2008-10-07T16:16:26Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:16, 7 October 2008
Line 55:		Line 55:

	=== Results ===		=== Results ===
			===='''Immediate Learning measures'''====
	Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.56 and ''M'' = .66 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning. However, data from Andes problem solving while completing homework (long-term retention measure, medium transfer) have showed significant differences among groups, ''F'' (1, 60) = 3.47, ''p'' <.05 in which the collaboratively observing tutoring (''M'' = .88) pairs performed significantly better than the collaboratively observing worked examples condition (''M'' = .75) and the individually observing worked examples condition(''M'' = .73).		Preliminary analyses have been conducted on immediate learning (MC pretest/posttest, Andes problem solving) and long-term retention measures. An analysis of the data has yielded significant learning gains between pretest to posttest, ''F'' (1, 65) = 14.99, ''p'' <.001 with a proportional ''M'' =.56 and ''M'' = .66 respectively. No differences between groups were found for immediate learning. However, data from Andes problem solving while completing homework (long-term retention measure, medium transfer) have showed significant differences among groups, ''F'' (1, 60) = 3.47, ''p'' <.05 in which the collaboratively observing tutoring (''M'' = .88) pairs performed significantly better than the collaboratively observing worked examples condition (''M'' = .75) and the individually observing worked examples condition(''M'' = .73).

Scraig@pitt.edu: /* Results */

2008-10-07T16:07:55Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 7 October 2008
Line 58:		Line 58:

	===='''Long term learning measures''' (robust learning)====		===='''Long term learning measures''' (robust learning)====
	Long term retention data. An ANOVA was performed on the participants’ long term retention data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 3.44, p < .05, 2 = 0.104; pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring conditions significantly outperformed learners in the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .05) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).		Long term retention data. An ANOVA was performed on the participants’ long term retention data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 3.44, p < .05, Eta sqared = 0.104; pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring conditions significantly outperformed learners in the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .05) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).

	===='''Near transfer data.''' (robust learning)====		===='''Near transfer data.''' (robust learning)====
	An ANOVA was conducted on the participants’ near transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.39, p < .05, 2 = 0.129. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).		An ANOVA was conducted on the participants’ near transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.39, p < .05, Eta sqared = 0.129. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).

	===='''Far transfer data''' (robust learning).====		===='''Far transfer data''' (robust learning).====
	An ANOVA was run on the participants far transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.89, p < .05, 2 = 0.142. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).		An ANOVA was run on the participants far transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.89, p < .05, Eta sqared = 0.142. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).

	'''Table'''. “Means and standard deviations for long term retention measure of Andes problem solving”.		'''Table'''. “Means and standard deviations for long term retention measure of Andes problem solving”.

Scraig@pitt.edu: /* Results */

2008-10-07T16:07:00Z

Results

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:07, 7 October 2008
Line 60:		Line 60:
	Long term retention data. An ANOVA was performed on the participants’ long term retention data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 3.44, p < .05, 2 = 0.104; pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring conditions significantly outperformed learners in the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .05) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).		Long term retention data. An ANOVA was performed on the participants’ long term retention data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 3.44, p < .05, 2 = 0.104; pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring conditions significantly outperformed learners in the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .05) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).

	===='''Near transfer data.''' (robust learning)==== An ANOVA was conducted on the participants’ near transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.39, p < .05, 2 = 0.129. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).		===='''Near transfer data.''' (robust learning)====
			An ANOVA was conducted on the participants’ near transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.39, p < .05, 2 = 0.129. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).

	===='''Far transfer data''' (robust learning)====. An ANOVA was run on the participants far transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.89, p < .05, 2 = 0.142. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).		===='''Far transfer data''' (robust learning).====
			An ANOVA was run on the participants far transfer data to determine differences among groups. This analysis revealed a significant effect of among conditions, F(2, 59) = 4.89, p < .05, 2 = 0.142. Pairwise comparisons using LSD tests for main effects revealed that participants in the collaboratively observing tutoring condition significantly outperformed participants in both the collaboratively observing examples condition (p < .01) and the individually observing examples condition (p < .05).

	'''Table'''. “Means and standard deviations for long term retention measure of Andes problem solving”.		'''Table'''. “Means and standard deviations for long term retention measure of Andes problem solving”.