School of EducationFaculty of Education, Social Sciences and Law

The effectiveness of integrating existing digital learning resources into classroom teaching – an evaluation of the learning achievement

Svava Pétursdóttir

Introduction

•The curriculum:

• make observations, such as on a string instrument, where distinctions are made between low and high tones and sounds from them viewed on a computer screen. p. 34

Introduction

Execution, recording and analysis of information involves a student with greater independence can gather information on a particular subject by a variety of ways, either through computer communication, with observations in the classroom, in the field or with research, also a student should gain practice in recording events and observations in a specific and clear manner, either with numbers and words, graphs, drawings and assistance of models, with or without the aid of a computer. p. 9

Current use of ICT in Iceland

“Often”:

• internet searches

• word processing

• presentation software

• watch videos

• take photos “Close to never”

• simulations

• data loggers

• data bases

“Seldom”:

• spread sheets

• educational software

• e-mail

• photo editing

Why ?

Why is ICT not used more ?

Could it be that teachers are not sure of its effectiveness?

Is it really effective ?

Lets check in the Icelandic context !

Are there measurable differences, linked to conceptual understanding, between an experimental group using an ICT-based science teaching intervention and a comparison group being taught in the usual way?

Intervention

• 8 teachers, volunteers

• 5 experimental - 3 comparison

• 20 classes

• 395 students

• 3 topics from the science curriculum

• 4–6 weeks with DLR’s used in 2–6 lessons

•Instructions and worksheets

Data

•Tests before and after

•Attitude questionnaires before and after

•A sample of lessons observed

•Pupil focus groups

•Teacher interviews

Basic GeneticsReading from screen erfdir.is

Virtual experiments Bug Lab

http://www.channel4.com/learning/microsites/G/genetics/activities/buglab.html

Genetics

N

Pre test Mean

Post test Mean

Difference Mean

Exp110 18 4,97 5,47 ,51

Exp 210 22 3,01 5,99 2,98

Exp 410 13 4,58 5,05 ,46

Exp 411 15 4,52 5,17 ,65

Comp 710 22 4,19 5,22 1,03

Comp 810 15 3,93 6,59 2,66

Comp 811 17 3,41 7,11 3,70

Total 122 4,03 5,80 1,77

Genetics

Experimental classes did worse

Not statistically signifcant

710 signifcantly lower

Balancing chemical equationsTraining skills Chembalancer

http://funbasedlearning.com/chemistry/chemBalancer/default.htm

Chemistrybalancing chemical equations

N Pre test mean

Balancing chemical equations

Exp 1 16 3,67 2,65

Exp 31 10 1,94 3,50

Exp 32 13 2,26 2.69

Exp 5 22 3,41 3,59

Exp 6 18 3,58 3,33

Comp 6 15 3,83 2,93

Comp 7 20 3,13 1,45

Comp 8 19 3,54 2.74

Total 133 3,27 2,82

Pre test out of 10, post test out of 5

Balancing chemical equations

Significant difference between experimental group and comparison group

Comparison class 7 only significantly different from the others

Ecology SimulationSunny Meadows

http://puzzling.caret.cam.ac.uk/game.php?game=foodchain%20

Ecology

class NPre test Mean

Post test Mean

Exp 40 18 3,84 5,27

Exp 41 19 5,99

Exp 50 28 4,20 6,30

Comp 60 25 3,27 4,80

Comp 61 23 3,99 5,70

Total 113 3,83 5,63

Vistfræði

Significant difference between experimental group and comparison group

Significant difference between Exp50 and Comp60

Niðurstaða

“ICT is not the golden ticket”

Short intervention, not realistic to expect large differences

Good tools can make a difference but .......

Tools do not replace effectie teacching

A good tool in the hands of a good teacher the ideal situation

And .....

The pattern ........

A good teacher ?

Less effective teacher ?

What if ........

Gets tools

Aquires knowledge