Title of the deliverable - Cinch Project · Seeker, 7 Jan 2016 18 Meet the 4 Newest Elements!...

MEET-CINCH – Report

/ 10

MEET-CINCH

(Project Number: 754 972)

REPORT

Report on MEET-CINCH Project Survey about nuclear

chemistry educational videos

Lead Beneficiary: CTU

Due date: 31/07/2018 Released on: 19/10/2018

Authors: Mojmír Němec (CTU), Jakub Sochor (G. Blovice)

For the Lead Beneficiary Reviewed by

Work package Leader Approved by Coordinator

Mojmír Němec

Mario Mariani

Clemens Walther

Start date of project: 01/06/2017 Duration: 36 Months

Project Coordinator: Prof Clemens Walther

Project Coordinator Organisation: LUH VERSION: 1.1

Project co-funded by the European Commission under the Euratom Research and Training Programme

on Nuclear Energy within the Horizon 2020 Programme

Dissemination Level

PU Public X RE Restricted to a group specified by the Beneficiaries of the MEET-CINCH

project

CO Confidential, only for Beneficiaries of the MEET-CINCH project


/ 10

Version control table

Version

number

Date of issue Author(s) Brief description of changes made

1.0 21/01/2019 M. Němec Version finalized by the authors

1.1 11/04/2019 M. Němec Minor graphical changes

Project information

Project full title: A Modular European Education and Training Concept In

Nuclear and RadioCHemistry

Acronym: MEET-CINCH

Funding scheme: Coordination Action

ECGA number: 754972

Programme and call H2020 EURATOM, Euratom Fission 2016-2017, NFRP-12

Coordinator: Clemens Walther

EC Project Officer: Katerina Ptackova

Start date – End date: 01/06/17 – 31/05/20 i.e. 36 months

Coordinator contact: +49 511 762 3312, [email protected]

Administrative contact: +420 245 008 599, [email protected]

Online contacts: http://www.cinch-project.eu/

Copyright

The document is proprietary of the MEET-CINCH consortium members. No copying or

distributing, in any form or by any means, is allowed without the prior written agreement of the

owner of the property rights. This document reflects only the authors’ view. The European

Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information contained herein.

“This project has received funding from the Euratom research and

training programme 2014-2018 under grant agreement No 754 972.”

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.cinch-project.eu/


/ 10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report summarizes MEET-CINCH attempt to get feedback from young people in the age

between 16 – 18 years and understand, how they perceive various types of educative videos. The

concept of the attempt was based on complex survey among secondary/high school students. The

survey and its respective evaluation are related to the WP1 Nuclear Awareness, tasks 1.1 Nuclear

Awareness and 1.2 MOOC Development.


/ 10

CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................... 5

2 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF THE TARGET GROUP .................................................................................................................... 5 2.2 BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE SURVEY...................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 DESCRIPTION OF THE VIDEOS ................................................................................................................................ 6

3 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................................... 9

4 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................ 10


/ 10

1 INTRODUCTION

This report summarizes the first MEET-CINCH attempts to get feedback from young people in the

age between 16 – 18 years and understand, how do they perceive various types of educative videos.

The concept of the attempt was based on complex survey among secondary/high school students. In

the survey, various videos were selected, offered for evaluation, and – according to the specified

methodology – distributed to the students. In ideal case, the survey should have allowed to test and

simulate:

• Flipped classroom

• Engaging activities in the classroom

• Pupils’ reflection about their own learning

• Gamification

During the project work on MOOC activities, the target group was shifted to older students and hence

the survey was not finalized to the level of originally planned details. Nevertheless, even the simple

data of this survey may, when inspected closer, bring interesting view on how is the young generation

getting knowledge and adopts their stance on various visual (e-)learning materials and concepts.

Because of its goals, the survey is related to the WP1 Nuclear Awareness, Tasks 1.1 Nuclear

Awareness and 1.2 MOOC Development, partially also to WP4 Student Exchange and Mobility,

Dissemination and Exploitation, Task 4.3 Dissemination and communication.

2 SURVEY

Full description of the survey, its result and conclusions in more details are attached in Appendix 1.

2.1 Description of the target group

The survey took place at the Gymnázium Blovice (High School Blovice or Secondary Grammar

School Blovice). It is a school in the Pilsen region, Czech Republic, which provides education for

approx. 330 pupils and students. In total, 176 students participated in the survey ranging in age from

15 to 18 years in six classes.

2.2 Brief description of the survey

Methodology of the survey was developed by F. Concia (POLIMI, Milano, Italy) and applied by

school teachers and J. Sochor. All necessary information about the methodology and the project was

placed on the “working” web site and used for distribution of the videos (www.meet-cinch.wz.cz):

http://www.meet-cinch.wz.cz/


/ 10

2.3 Description of the videos

In the following text all of the videos are briefly described, including their titles and presenter:

#, topic, title, published Brief description by authors or publisher at YouTube.

Radioactivity

1 A Walk Around Chernobyl. Short reportage from sightseeing in Chernobyl zone and

power plant including description and brief explanation of

the disaster. Dose rate monitoring. Pripyat, red forest. Veritasium, 29 Jun 2015

2 What is Radiation? A woman talking about the topic with the help of text fields,

pictures and photos, she simply explains basic terms and

definitions. Cnscccsn, 11 Mar 2014

3 Can Radiation Give You

Superpowers?

Commented and narrated video collage full of references

to comic books. Simple description of radioactivity and

ionizing radiation, and its effects. Reactions, 4 Aug 2015

4 The genius of Marie Curie Narrated story about M. C-S. and her research in

drawings. TED-Ed, 8 Jun 2017

5 The Most Radioactive Places

on Earth

A reportage or documentary about how radioactivity have

shaped the modern world, the author visits (according his

knowledge) the most radioactive places on Earth. Veritasium, 17 Dec 2014

Isotopes

6 What Are Atoms and

Isotopes?

Interview combined with a video lecture.

Veritasium, 22 Mar 2011

7 What are Isotopes? Commented presentation with simple schematic drawings

explaining differences in the terms element, isotope, ion

etc. FuseSchool - Global

Education, 4 Sep 2012

8 What are Isotopes? This video uses split screen, where in first person view the

guy is drawing his presentation, and in the direct view

(face mimic, gesticulation etc.) Tyler DeWitt, 7 Jan 2012

Fusion

9 Fission and Fusion Commented presentation with simple schematic drawings

explaining differences in the terms fusion and fission, and

some fundamental information about these processes.

Some of the real photos are used as examples.

Teacher's Pet, 8 Sep 2015

10 Fusion Power Explained –

Future or Failure

Commented presentation with simple schematic drawings

explaining how the fusion works and what is necessary to

make it produce electricity. Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell, 10

Nov 2016


/ 10

11 Nuclear Reactions,

Radioactivity, Fission and

Fusion

A man talking about the topic with the help of text fields,

pictures, some schematics and photos.

Professor Dave Explains, 20

Jan 2016

12 Fusion Energy Explained Creators of “PhD Comics” are explaining how the fusion

energy could be used in the way of commented comic book

presentation. Piled Higher and Deeper (PHD

Comics), 9 Jun 2014

Fission

13 Nuclear Fission; splitting the

atom for beginner

Commented presentation with simple schematic drawings

explaining how the fission works.

Fizzics Organisation, 7 Dec

2014

14 Nuclear Fission This video uses split screen, where in first person view the

guy is drawing his presentation, and in the direct view

(face mimic, gesticulation etc.) Tyler DeWitt, 19 May 2012

15 Fission and Fusion Commented presentation with simple schematic drawings

explaining differences in the basics and terms of fusion and

fission. Some of the real photos are used as examples. It is

the video No. 9.

Teacher's Pet, 8 Sep 2015

Periodic table of elements

16 The Four "New" Elements &

How We Got Them–Speaking

of Chemistry

Stand-up presentation about four new elements, where a

man explains and comments pictures and drawings

appearing around him.

Reactions, 13 Jan 2016

17 What Are The Four New

Elements On The Periodic

Table?

Expressive stand-up presentation, where a woman

provides “breaking news style” information about four

new elements introduced to the periodic table.

Seeker, 7 Jan 2016

18 Meet the 4 Newest Elements! Stand-up presentation, where a man comments four new

elements introduced to the periodic table, interlaid with

slides. SciShow, 17 Jun 2016

19 The NEW Periodic Table

Song

Short music video (clip) on the well know theme of periodic

table songs; the video is showing object in various ways

related to the actual element in the lyrics. AsapSCIENCE, 31 Oct 2015

20 Solving the puzzle of the

periodic table

Narrated video made of pictures, drawings, and clips

explaining inner clues in the periodic system and how it

change our understanding of the world. TED-Ed, 12 Dec 2012


/ 10

Nuclear energy

21 Nuclear Energy Explained:

How does it work? (1/3)

Narrated simple graphic clip showing pros and cons of

nuclear energy in the split screen.

Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell,

26 Mar 2015

22 What If We Have A Nuclear

War?

Narrated hand-drawing clip.

AsapSCIENCE, 26 Jan 2017

23 Nuclear Energy Explained:

Risk or Opportunity

Narrated simple graphic clip showing pros and cons of

nuclear energy with respect to the natural sources and

geographical conditions, and comparing it to other

sources. WhatTheWhy, 31 Jul 2014


/ 10

3 CONCLUSIONS

In the survey 22 videos were presented to the high school students. All 22 were evaluated and rated

1 to 5 according to their popularity (1 = least popular, 5 = most popular). In the following, all of the

ratings are summarized as the average values for each video and sorted according the video topic,

class, and video duration.

Table: Average rating of videos by classes

Average ratings of videos by classes

video duration (s) rating 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B

Rad

ioac

tivi

ty

1 494 2.95 3.19 2.36 3.38 2.36 3.52 2.67

2 243 4.10 4.03 4.14 4.03 4.08 4.06 4.26

3 276 3.60 3.58 3.82 3.47 3.96 3.39 3.48

4 303 3.71 3.81 3.61 3.59 3.64 3.88 3.70

5 677 3.65 3.81 3.61 3.53 3.72 3.70 3.52

Iso

top

es 6 178 2.97 3.19 2.89 2.88 2.8 2.97 3.04

7 170 2.68 2.87 2.50 2.75 2.52 2.85 2.52

8 475 4.45 4.42 4.54 4.47 4.48 4.27 4.56

Fusi

on

9 200 3.32 3.35 3.43 2.94 3.52 3.39 3.37

10 375 2.93 3.48 2.50 3.03 2.36 3.30 2.70

11 851 2.57 2.77 2.43 2.56 2.48 2.73 2.37

12 476 3.65 3.84 3.46 3.78 3.48 3.79 3.48

Fiss

ion

13 521 2.64 2.58 2.32 3.09 2.44 2.85 2.41

14 538 3.77 3.94 3.57 3.81 3.4 3.94 3.85

15 280 3.64 3.77 3.36 4.03 3.32 3.82 3.41

Pe

rio

dic

tab

le

16 170 3.15 3.42 3.04 3.28 2.84 3.15 3.07

17 250 4.29 4.42 4.21 4.31 3.96 4.36 4.41

18 297 3.54 3.61 3.32 3.75 3.04 3.79 3.59

19 173 4.59 4.32 4.75 4.56 4.72 4.52 4.74

20 258 4.36 4.29 4.39 4.31 4.28 4.36 4.52

Nu

clea

r

Ener

gy 21 317 4.38 4.61 4.25 4.31 4.32 4.48 4.26

22 301 4.11 4.39 3.86 4.16 3.88 4.30 3.96

23 245 3.93 3.90 3.79 4.22 3.76 4.00 3.81

From the results summarized above one could conclude following:

1. The longest video (851 s) is the least popular one (2.57) and the second shortest video is the

most popular one (4.59), but no significant dependency on the video length was found (Fig.

28).

2. In most of the cases, a consensus among all the classes exists in the least popular video. There

is one exception in each class.

3. Rating of the videos is relatively similar among the classes. The differences are smaller than

0.6 points according to the mean.

4. The most “controversial” videos in rating were video 1 and 10.

No additional statistical evaluation tools were applied to the results. The results and text justification

of the evaluation compared to the content and the way of presentation of each of the respective videos

may help in the preparation of the new educational video-materials.


/ 10

4 APPENDIX

1

Report on MEET-CINCH Project Survey at Gymnázium

Blovice Jakub Sochor, Gymnázium Blovice

Mojmír Němec, CTU in Prague – FNSPE, Dept. of Nuclear Chemistry

1 Characteristics of the school Gymnázium Blovice (High School Blovice or Secondary Grammar School Blovice) is an

educational institution in district town Blovice (Pilsen region, Czech Republic). This school

provides education for 333 pupils from 11 to 19 years old.1 With such number of students this

high school is ranked as a small school.

Figure 1: Location of town Blovice in the Czech Republic Figure 2: The building of the Gymnázium Blovice

1.1 Acknowledgement first Here, all authors and representatives of the MEET-CINCH project want to thank the directress

of the school Mgr. Marcela Šustrová that made possible that this research took place on this

school. The authors would like to thank also the teachers (PhDr. Jana Drhová, Mgr. Hana

Chytrá, PaedDr. Eva Lanková and Mgr. Hana Tlapová) for time provision during their lessons

and for rewarding the students who collaborate well during this project with good marks.

1.2 School educational plan terms nuclear chemistry In the Czech Republic, each high school has its unique school educational plan – so this

section testifies only this specific high school and it can be different in other high schools. On

the other hand, the educational outputs are prescribed by the law. For purpose of this

document, Czech educational system is well described at

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_the_Czech_Republic.

The topic “Radioactivity” is a part of chemistry teaching plan in the first year of higher stage

(age of 15 years) and it takes about one week (3 teaching hours). The same topic is a part of

physics teaching plan in the fourth year of lower stage (age of 14 years) and it takes about half

a month.

The topic “Microworld” is a part of physics teaching plan in the third year of higher stage (age

of 17/18 years) and it takes about half a year. This topic is usually taught by Mgr. Jana Drhová,

who is very interested in that topic and lessons are led by a very scientific way. The other

1 http://gblovice.cz/dokumenty/vyrocni_zpravy/vyrocni_zprava_2016_2017.pdf - Annual report of school, p. 3

2

teachers are not especially interested in that topic (or the topic radioactivity as such) so the

teaching is comparable with other topics.

Despite the size of the school, it is quite successful in various competitions. In the previous

year, 10 students took part in psychics’ competitions, 3 students in chemical competitions and

10 students in the “Students` Professional Activities” (Středoškolská odborná činnost,

http://www.soc.cz/english/).

2 Characteristics of interest group of pupils Many students of Gymnázium Blovice (all of them) took part in this project. The table 1 shows

distribution of participating students among classes and their age:

Table 1: Number of students who took part in this project

Class Label Age Students Total

kvinta 1A 15 / 16 years

31 59

1. class 1B 28

sexta 2A 16 / 17 years

32 57

2. class 2B 25

septima 3A 17 / 18 years

33 60

3. class 3B 27

Total: 176

The difference between classes in the same age of students is history of their previous

education. “Kvinta” (1A), “sexta” (2A) and “septima” (3A) are classes whose students attended

an eight-year gymnasium already since their age of 11 and their education has been focused

to further university studies. The students of classes “1. class” (1B), “2. class” (2B) and “3.

class” (3B) attended second stage of the elementary school till their age of 15 and only then

entered the gymnasium for a four year study at the secondary school so the level of their

previous education may not be as high as it is in “kvinta”, “sexta” and “septima”. It is necessary

to consider this difference when comparing the results.

Classes “4. class” and “oktáva” was not included to this project because of their preparation to

“maturita” (leaving qualification exam/high school exit exam).

3 Methodology of the project

For better communication and time saving, a web site (www.meet-cinch.wz.cz) was created

which includes all necessary information about the project and about its realization. For

practical reasons, the web page is only in Czech but in case of interest it could be also

translated to English or German.

Methodology and related procedures of the survey were precisely adopted and based on the

instructions prepared by F. Concia (POLIMI), as follows:

Instructions for secondary school survey:

Target: 17-19 years old school pupils with some previous chemical knowledge.

General objective: to collect information about pupils’ preferences related to learning tools

and channels, learning methodologies and approaches.

3

Specific objective: to let the pupils 1. Reflect on their own learning style and motivations in

choosing learning resources, 2. Discuss their own choices with a small group of

schoolmates, 3. Negotiate with their peers to achieve a collective result.

Activity Structure (Flipped Classroom):

AT HOME AT SCHOOL IN SMALL GROUPS

AT SCHOOL ALL TOGETHER

Each pupil explores some learning resources and chooses which is his/her favourite and the best in terms of learning effectiveness

4-6 pupils discuss individual choices and select the best resources according to the following criteria: clarity, perceived learning effectiveness, engagement

Each group presents to the other ones the favourite resources and motivates its choice. At the end all the pupils have to vote and to rank resources (in order of preference)

Duration: 1 hour Duration: 1 hour Duration: 1 hour

Description of the activity:

1. Pupils are asked by the teacher to perform the following task: “As homework please open these links: read the texts or watch the videos I selected for you. Then you have to decide which is your favourite one (because it lets you understand and learn something new or in a more effective way) and fill in this survey.”

Title of resource/ video/ text

Have you learnt something new? YES/NO

Does the instructor explain the topic clearly? YES/NO Why?

Would you like to learn through other learning resources/videos like this one? YES/NO

From 1 (low) to 5 (high), how do you rate this resource? 1-2-3-4-5

2. At home pupils individually watch the resources and select the favourite ones. 3. In the classroom the teacher creates groups of 4 persons, who have to discuss and

rank the two best resources: they have to motivate why they choose these two videos in terms of clarity, perceived learning effectiveness, engagement (in this occasion they can have the same questionnaire with 3 questions to guide them in explicating their motivation).

4. Each group shows the classmates the two favourite videos explaining the motivations of the choice.

5. At the end of the presentations all the students have to vote only one resource, writing on a piece of paper the title / the number of the video (secret ballot) ore using Socrative (https://www.socrative.com/ if teachers have previously set the activity).

6. The group of pupils who proposed the winning video receive an award.

The role of the teacher:

1. To motivate the pupils in giving their useful contribution to an European project 2. To explain clearly the activity stages, the duration, the rules 3. To observe how the groups arrives at the result 4. To collect all the motivations provided by individual pupils and groups 5. To collect other information: Did the pupils use at home mobile devices or laptop?

Were the pupils sceptical about the teacher’s request or were they curious and interested? Is there some factor that can have conditioned the choices and preferences?

From our point of view, thanks to this Focus group it is possible to test and simulate: • Flipped classroom

4

• Engaging activities in the classroom • Pupils’ reflection about their own learning • Gamification

As it is defined in the table above, points were awarded to rate each video. Pupils can use integers from 1 to 5, where 1 means that the video was awful and 5 means that the video was absolutely fantastic.

5

4 Results of the project

4.1 Opinions of each single video In the following chapter and tables, rating of each video is presented in column graph and

detailed table. Opinions and comments of the students written in the survey are summarized

in the text parts of the table “Verbal evaluation” and “Comments to the style”, respectively. The

purpose of these text parts is to present some general opinion of the students, they are written

by student, and they are not introducing or substituting scientific evaluation of the results.

4.1.1 Radioactivity

4.1.1.1 A Walk around Chernobyl

Average rating: 2.95

Verbal evaluation Students know much information about Chernobyl and Chernobyl’s nuclear disaster from lessons so many people don’t like this video so much because they didn’t learn anything new. It wasn’t evaluated as a “scientific” video but something like a good tour guide. Teachers won´t use this video in lessons because for this purpose the TV series “Seconds From Disaster” may be used.

Comments to the style Style of the video is acceptable; no one has a serious objection. Some pupils said that they could watch this video even for longer time than its 8 minutes.

Figure 3: Rating of video number 1

4.1.1.2 What is Radiation?


Verbal evaluation This video doesn’t have much new information for old pupils, but they think that it can be really useful for young pupils who don’t know anything about radioactivity. Older pupils are not bored from this video because they can repeat this topic.

Comments to the style Style of the video is acceptable; speaker talks clearly, and graphic was rated as good. The pictures are well chosen. The commentary is well timed and synoptic.


1 2 3 4 5

3B 5 10 3 7 2

2B 6 11 6 1 2

1B 6 12 5 4 1

3A 3 7 3 10 10

2A 2 9 3 11 7

1A 4 6 7 9 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 0 5 10 12

2B 0 0 5 13 7

1B 0 0 6 12 10

3A 0 0 7 17 9

2A 0 0 7 17 8

1A 0 0 7 16 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

6

4.1.1.3 Can Radiation Give You Superpowers?


Verbal evaluation This video does not bring much new information for older pupils, but they think that it can be quite useful for young pupils who don’t know anything about radioactivity.

Comments to the style Style of the video is bad – they think that this is something like “flying circus”. There is no scientific approach but there are many exaggerative effects, useless graphic and scenes from films. It looks like a trailer for some longer video.


4.1.1.4 The genius of Marie Curie


Verbal evaluation This video evolves the pupils’ knowledge, which they have from “regular” lessons chemistry or physics. The video is very interesting, not boring, well organised and with a good graphics.

Comments to the style Style of the video is good and there is nothing students would like to denounce. Especially the chronological process is sensible.


1 2 3 4 5

3B 5 2 5 5 10

2B 1 0 8 6 10

1B 3 1 6 6 12

3A 5 3 9 6 10

2A 6 0 9 7 10

1A 3 2 10 6 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 5 5 10 6

2B 0 5 5 9 6

1B 0 6 6 9 7

3A 0 3 5 16 9

2A 0 2 12 10 3

1A 0 4 6 13 8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

7

4.1.1.5 The Most Radioactive Places on Earth


Verbal evaluation This video provides a lot of very interesting information about radiation on different places around the world. The speaker speaks understandably and uses quite remarkable illustration (bananas), which are intelligible for the pupils. For them, it is really interesting to see these places “at least on the monitor”.

Comments to the style Pupils think that this video can teach them information about radioactivity, but without noticing it (something like subliminal teaching).


4.1.2 Isotopes

4.1.2.1 What Are Atoms and Isotopes?


Verbal evaluation This video doesn’t contain new information for even younger pupils and already for them it is very brief - they can’t use this video nor like summary or repetition.

Comments to the style The idea with modelling clay is interesting.


1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 5 8 8 5

2B 0 1 11 7 6

1B 0 3 11 8 6

3A 0 5 7 13 7

2A 0 6 10 9 7

1A 0 3 6 15 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

3B 3 5 12 2 5

2B 6 3 8 0 7

1B 5 6 10 1 6

3A 3 5 17 4 3

2A 3 7 14 5 2

1A 3 3 12 9 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

8

4.1.2.2 What are Isotopes? (by FuseSchool)


Verbal evaluation This video is a suitable source of information for younger pupils (beginners in nuclear chemistry). The speech of the speaker is unnecessarily fast, but the graphics is very simple, understandable and connected with speech, so at the end the content is easy to understand. This video could be a part of explanation during chemistry or physics lessons.

Comments to the style -


4.1.2.3 What are Isotopes? (by Tyler DeWitt)


Verbal evaluation This video doesn’t contain any new information for older pupils, but they can use this video as a summary or repetition. Pupils rate the speech of the video very positive; they like comparison with cars and its clarity. Some pupils think that it is a less scientific video, but for beginners it may be a suitable manner of learning.



1 2 3 4 5

3B 7 9 5 6 0

2B 6 7 5 7 0

1B 6 9 6 7 0

3A 3 14 4 9 3

2A 2 14 7 8 1

1A 3 11 7 7 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 0 0 12 14

2B 0 0 0 12 12

1B 0 0 0 13 13

3A 1 1 0 16 14

2A 0 0 0 15 14

1A 0 2 0 17 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

9

4.1.3 Fusion

4.1.3.1 Fission and Fusion


Verbal evaluation Speech and language of the video is pleasant, but sometimes a little bit difficult. On the other hand, the animations are simple and good understandable even for younger pupils. Fusion and fission are often confused so this video is good for understand the difference.

Comments to the style The commentary is relatively well understood.


4.1.3.2 Fusion Power Explained – Future or Failure


Verbal evaluation This top-quality video provides new information about function and problematics of fusion power, which is not discussed in school so much. The pleasurable speech is on a very high scientific level, so it suits rather on some scientific exhibition or conference. High scientific level of presentation seems to be a reason of its low rating.



1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 5 11 5 5

2B 0 5 7 8 5

1B 0 6 10 6 6

3A 3 4 9 11 6

2A 5 7 8 9 3

1A 3 3 12 6 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5

3B 5 8 4 10 0

2B 5 12 2 6 0

1B 6 11 2 9 0

3A 4 6 7 8 8

2A 7 5 6 8 6

1A 3 6 5 7 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

10

4.1.3.3 Nuclear Reactions, Radioactivity, Fission and Fusion


Verbal evaluation This video (noted as scientific) is useful for older pupils as a repetition before the exam - in a comprehensive form it contains all the needed information, which they have learned in school, but the continuity is missing. Supplementary effects and animations are simple and effective. The lower rating seems to be again caused by a “complicated” topic – it is the worst rated video.



4.1.3.4 Fusion Energy Explained


Verbal evaluation No one wants to say or write any long and comprehensive comments or opinions to this video. The reason was not found out.

Comments to the style The audio of the video is very bad, and many pupils have problems to understand (especially younger and not very good English speakers).


1 2 3 4 5

3B 5 12 5 5 0

2B 6 6 7 6 0

1B 6 11 5 6 0

3A 3 11 12 6 1

2A 2 13 14 3 0

1A 3 8 13 7 0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 8 5 7 7

2B 0 8 7 5 7

1B 0 4 3 4 3

3A 0 7 4 8 14

2A 0 9 1 8 13

1A 0 6 3 12 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

11

4.1.4 Fission

4.1.4.1 Nuclear Fission; splitting the atom for beginners


Verbal evaluation The speech of speaker is dull, monotonous and boring. In addition, video does not catch pupils’ attention because of bad graphic (either none or like from 90’s education video, which is used even now). This video “represents” the old generation of education videos, so it does not show any progress. It is the second worst rated video.



4.1.4.2 Nuclear Fission


Verbal evaluation The speaker explains this topic well even for younger pupils. Images and comparisons are well selected and helping to understand. .

Comments to the style The technological concept when they can see even the speaker/lector and his gesticulation during the video was appreciated. The quality of audio is a little bit worse, but it is intelligible.


1 2 3 4 5

3B 5 16 0 6 2

2B 7 10 0 5 2

1B 6 15 0 6 1

3A 3 15 5 4 6

2A 2 12 5 7 6

1A 4 14 7 3 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 9 0 6 12

2B 0 11 0 7 7

1B 0 9 0 7 10

3A 0 8 1 9 15

2A 0 10 0 8 14

1A 0 6 4 7 14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

12

4.1.4.3 Fission and Fusion


Verbal evaluation The graphics of the video is simple, but very effective for learning. The speech of speaker is comprehensible. This video is understandable even for younger pupils thanks to simultaneous transcription in some difficult parts.



4.1.5 Periodic table

4.1.5.1 The Four "New" Elements


Verbal evaluation This video is for all the pupils a little bit more scientific and professional because in our school there are no lessons or lectures about superheavy elements (SHE). It has an interesting concept of TV news and it is short, so I think that can be a beginning of each chemistry lesson – if the video comes out regularly, for example once a week, pupils can be informed about news in chemistry during the lessons.

Comments to the style - Figure 18: Rating of video number 16

1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 10 4 4 9

2B 0 11 2 5 7

1B 0 10 1 7 8

3A 0 6 8 5 13

2A 0 2 8 7 16

1A 0 7 5 7 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 10 10 2 5

2B 0 13 6 0 5

1B 0 12 9 1 5

3A 0 12 8 9 6

2A 0 10 9 6 4

1A 0 9 7 8 7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

13

4.1.5.2 What Are the Four New Elements On The Periodic Table?


Verbal evaluation The similar description can be applied as for the video 16; this can be also used as a “news”. But this video is made in a simpler way, so it has a better ranking. The speech of the speaker is interesting and dynamic, not boring. Some pupils reported problems with fast speech.



4.1.5.3 Meet the 4 Newest Elements!


Verbal evaluation The speaker speaks well, some pupils mentioned some kind of accent. It was appreciated that the difficult parts are written on the screen. At the beginning it gives an impression that it isn’t so scientific, but after a few tens of seconds it is a suitable source of new information from chemistry even for younger students - because the explanation is said in an easy way.



1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 3 0 7 17

2B 0 5 0 8 11

1B 0 5 0 7 16

3A 0 3 0 12 18

2A 0 3 0 13 16

1A 0 3 0 9 18

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5

3B 5 3 0 9 10

2B 6 6 0 7 6

1B 6 5 0 8 9

3A 3 3 3 13 11

2A 2 3 5 13 9

1A 3 3 7 8 10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

14

4.1.5.4 The NEW Periodic Table Song


Verbal evaluation This video (song) has the best average rating in this project because of the length (only three minutes), catchiness, playfulness and simplicity - even the younger pupils understand it. Pupils learn from this video utilization and/or the origin of the name of each single element (including SHE). It can be useful for learning elements’ positions in periodic table (on our school are exams on “blind map of periodic table”). Pupils said that they could not believe that chemistry can be taught in a funny way. Comments to the style -


4.1.5.5 Solving the puzzle of the periodic table


Verbal evaluation The idea of video with draw “slides” was rated to be good. On the other hand, the folds on the drawing paper and absence of other colours than white and black were mentioned to be disturbing element and a little bit boring.

Comments to the style The same concept can be found in the videos from the Academy of Sciences of the Czech Republic called “Nezkreslená věda” (http://www.otevrenaveda.cz/nezkreslena-veda/, only in Czech); this portal is very popular.


1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 0 0 7 19

2B 0 0 0 7 18

1B 0 0 0 7 21

3A 0 0 0 16 13

2A 0 0 0 14 18

1A 0 0 3 13 14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 0 5 3 19

2B 0 0 6 6 15

1B 0 0 6 5 17

3A 0 3 4 4 22

2A 0 5 2 3 21

1A 0 3 3 7 18

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

15

4.1.6 Nuclear Energy

4.1.6.1 Nuclear Energy Explained


Verbal evaluation In this video, a quite simple topic is explained in a good way so it was commented as a suitable source of information even for young pupils. Pupils remember from this video that a nuclear energy is the cheapest, the best and the most ecological power and it’s biggest expansion was in years 1975 – 1980.

Comments to the style The graphics is interesting.


4.1.6.2 What If We Have A Nuclear War?


Verbal evaluation The speech is understandable but very fast and it is not easy to catch all the information. Pupils remember from this video that they should care about peace, about environment and they realize the danger resulting from nuclear weapons and wars. It was mentioned that the video is intertwined by real short shots of nuclear bombs’ explosions thus clarifying the message.



1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 0 5 10 12

2B 0 0 5 7 13

1B 0 0 6 9 13

3A 0 0 4 9 20

2A 0 0 7 8 17

1A 0 0 3 6 22

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 0 5 18 4

2B 0 0 5 18 2

1B 0 0 6 20 2

3A 0 0 4 15 14

2A 0 0 7 13 12

1A 0 0 4 14 16

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

16

4.1.6.3 Nuclear Energy Explained: Risk or Opportunity


Verbal evaluation Interpretation in this video is educational, comprehensible, in detail and exhaustive for all pupils. They remember that the safest nuclear power plant is power plant with three circuits and they are from year to year more and more safe.



1 2 3 4 5

3B 0 0 10 12 5

2B 0 0 11 12 5

1B 0 0 12 9 5

3A 0 0 7 10 6

2A 0 0 5 17 7

1A 0 0 8 11 12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

17

4.2 Summary of the results In the Table 2, all of the ratings are summarized as the average values for each video and

sorted according the video topic, class, and video duration.

Table 2: Average rating of videos by classes

Average ratings2 of videos by classes

video duration (s) rating 1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B

Rad

ioa

cti

vit

y 1 494 2.95 3.19 2.36 3.38 2.36 3.52 2.67

2 243 4.10 4.03 4.14 4.03 4.08 4.06 4.26

3 276 3.60 3.58 3.82 3.47 3.96 3.39 3.48

4 303 3.71 3.81 3.61 3.59 3.64 3.88 3.70

5 677 3.65 3.81 3.61 3.53 3.72 3.70 3.52

Iso

top

es

6 178 2.97 3.19 2.89 2.88 2.8 2.97 3.04

7 170 2.68 2.87 2.50 2.75 2.52 2.85 2.52

8 475 4.45 4.42 4.54 4.47 4.48 4.27 4.56

Fu

sio

n

9 200 3.32 3.35 3.43 2.94 3.52 3.39 3.37

10 375 2.93 3.48 2.50 3.03 2.36 3.30 2.70

11 851 2.57 2.77 2.43 2.56 2.48 2.73 2.37

12 476 3.65 3.84 3.46 3.78 3.48 3.79 3.48

Fis

sio

n 13 521 2.64 2.58 2.32 3.09 2.44 2.85 2.41

14 538 3.77 3.94 3.57 3.81 3.4 3.94 3.85

15 280 3.64 3.77 3.36 4.03 3.32 3.82 3.41

Peri

od

ic t

ab

le 16 170 3.15 3.42 3.04 3.28 2.84 3.15 3.07

17 250 4.29 4.42 4.21 4.31 3.96 4.36 4.41

18 297 3.54 3.61 3.32 3.75 3.04 3.79 3.59

19 173 4.59 4.32 4.75 4.56 4.72 4.52 4.74

20 258 4.36 4.29 4.39 4.31 4.28 4.36 4.52

Nu

cle

ar

En

erg

y 21 317 4.38 4.61 4.25 4.31 4.32 4.48 4.26

22 301 4.11 4.39 3.86 4.16 3.88 4.30 3.96

23 245 3.93 3.90 3.79 4.22 3.76 4.00 3.81

From the results summarized above one could conclude following:

1. The longest video (851 s) is the least popular one (2.57)

2. The second shortest video is the most popular one (4.59)

3. In most of the cases, a consensus among all the classes exists in the least popular

video. There is one exception in each class.

4. Rating of the videos is relatively similar among the classes. The differences are smaller

than 0.6 points according to the mean (Fig. 27).

5. The most “controversial” videos in rating were 1 and 10 (Fig. 27).

6. No significant dependency on the video length was found (Fig. 28).

No additional statistical evaluation tools were applied to the results. In the following graphs,

various projection of the results – related to the conclusions above – are presented.

2 arithmetic mean of ratings

18

Figure 27: Differences between average class rating and overall average rating of the

respective videos in the classes.

Figure 28: Visualization of average rating in the classes for different length of the videos

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Poin

t dif

fere

nce

s to

th

e av

erag

e va

lue

Video number

1A 1B 2A 2B 3A 3B

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Ave

rage

po

ints

per

cla

ss

t [s]

1A 1B2A 2B3A 3B

Title of the deliverable - Cinch Project · Seeker, 7 Jan 2016 18 Meet the 4 Newest Elements!...

Documents

Transcript of Title of the deliverable - Cinch Project · Seeker, 7 Jan 2016 18 Meet the 4 Newest Elements!...