推 kristylog2:see 11/13 07:07
→ kristylog2:資料分析 ANOVA,t-test 11/13 07:07
推 luxlive:啥意思?是要加Title? 11/13 08:33
→ luxlive:喔~明白~我可以在板上直接修改嗎? 11/13 08:36
IV.Results
A.Data Analysis Method: T-test
B.Analysis Results:
1.State Motivation
(1) Student in the HI/HR condition felt significantly more
motivated to study the content presented by the guest speaker than students in the LI/LR condition, and the students in the LI/HR condition.
(2) There was no significant difference between the HI/HR and
the HI/LR conditions.
2. Affective Learning
(1) Student in the HI/HR condition displayed a more positive
attitude toward the content presented by the guest speaker than did students in the LI/LR condition and students in the LI/HR condition.
(2) There was no significant difference between the HI/HR and
the HI/LR conditions.
3. Cognitive Learning
(1) Student in the HI/HR condition learned more than students in the LI/HR condition.
(2) There was no significant difference between the HI/HR and
the HI/LR conditions.
V.Conclusions:
The hypothesis was partially supported in that the HI/HR condition resulted in greater motivation and learning than the LI/HR condition, but the HI/HR condition didn’t produce greater motivation and learning than the HI/LR condition. This result, which suggests that relevance has little importance, is not consistent with Frymier and Shulman’s (1995) research that found relevance to have a significant relationship with motivation and learning nor is it consistent with Keller’s (1983;1987b) ARCS model
of motivation.
VI.Evaluation
A.優點:
有執行Manipulation Checks（操作檢驗）。
去除影響研究的樣本（那2個學生），避免極端影響研究結果。
用同樣的情境進行實驗。
為避免極端，所以選用普遍性例子。
內在效度高。
同一位演講者經過再三練習。
B.缺點︰
抽樣過程始終忽視了沒有ANOVA T-test。
選用的例子過度普遍，很有問題。
抽樣樣本屬方便抽樣。
不同課堂、，實驗有可能導致不同結果。
事後無任務報告(debriefing)。
無問卷附於文末。
列舉的例子太普遍，且不同課程將造成不同結果。
操作變項失敗(relevance)。
樣本數有一定程度之問題。
外在效度低(無法推估到現實面)。
研究完成後，基於研究倫理，仍應告知受測者。
C.總評：
1.無前測(隨機指派環境)是其難以權衡對錯的關鍵。
2.本研究進一步地支持了立即性方式，在教室內是較為可行的。
3.研究者發展出一個更容易被辨異的立即性架構。
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 218.161.49.91