Traditional Vs Interactive Simulation Effect On Students Education Essay

Chapter 4This chapter describes the consequences of the statistical analyses of the informations collected in order to prove the research hypotheses that guided this survey. It besides contains the treatment sing the results from these analyses and information gathered from the Pre-test and post-test on Electrostatic for control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning with synergistic simulation and besides questionnaire on pupils ‘ attitude towards larning scientific discipline.4.1 Reliability of trial instrumentsThe Cronbach ‘s alpha dependability coefficient was calculated to find the dependability of the trials instruments. Table 4.1 shows that the Cronbach ‘s alpha dependability coefficients are scope from 0.600 to 0.885. This indicates the trial points are acceptable for usage in the survey. Table 4.1 Cronbach ‘s Alpha Reliability for Test on Electrostatic and Questionnaire on Attitude. N of points Cronbach ‘s Alpha Reliability Attitude towards Science 28 0.885 Trial on Electrostatic 27 0.6444.2 Traditional vs. Interactive Simulation consequence on pupils ‘ accomplishment on ToEThis subdivision describes the consequences of analyses to obtain replies for the first research aims: To look into the effectivity of two different instructional attacks ( I ) learning with traditional manner or ( two ) instruction and larning with Interactive simulation on pupils ‘ accomplishment on trial of electrostatic In order to arouse replies to the research aim, the undermentioned research inquiry and research hypotheses were formulated. Research Question 1: Is there important consequence in pupils ‘ accomplishment on Pre and Post trials on electrostatic ( TOE ) for ( one ) control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and ( two ) experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) ? The void hypotheses are formulated in order to reply research inquiry 1: H 1: There is no important difference in pupils ‘ accomplishment on the pre and station trials on electrostatic for control group ( learning with traditional learning manner ) . H 2: There is no important difference in pupils ‘ accomplishment on the pre-post trials on electrostatic for experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) . Paired sample t-test was conducted severally on the average tonss of pre and station trials on electrostatic ( ToE ) for ( one ) control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and ( two ) experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) . Table 4.2 Consequences of Paired sample on Test on Electrostatic ( ToE ) for control ( n = 31 ) and experimental groups ( n=25 ) Sample Group Trial on Electrostatic Mean Score South dakota Mean Diff. South dakota T Sig. ( 2-tailed ) Effect Size ( Eta ) Control Group ( Teaching with Traditional manner ) Pre Post 9.19 18.06 2.71 5.43 8.87 4.84 10.20 *.000 0.71 Experimental Group ( Teaching and larning with synergistic simulation ) Pre Post 8.72 22.16 4.33 4.68 13.44 3.80 17.69 *.000 0.83 *p & A ; lt ; 0.054.2.1 Consequences of mated sample t-test for Hypothesis 1.A paired-samples t-test was conducted to measure the impact of the intercession on pupils ‘ mean tonss on the ToE for control group ( learning with traditional manner ) . It can be seen that from Table 4.2, there was a statistically important addition in the mean mark between the Pre and Post on ToE for control group from ( M= 9.19, SD=2.713 ) to ( M=18.06, SD=5.428 ) severally at T ( 30 ) = 10.20 at P & A ; lt ; 0.05 degree. The consequence size ( .71 ) indicates a big consequence size on pupils ‘ accomplishment before and after. The average mark difference between Pre and Post ToE is M=8.87. Therefore the void hypothesis 1 is rejected. This indicates that there is important difference in pupils ‘ mean mark for control group ( learning with traditional manner ) before and after intercession. It means that the pupil performed significantly better in the post-test compared to their public presentation in the pre-test. This shows that pupils do understand to what the instructor is learning.4.2.2 Consequences of mated sample t-test for Hypothesis 2.Same trial has been conducted to measure the impact of the intercession on pupils ‘ mean tonss on the ToE for experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) . Besides from table 4.2, there was a statistically important addition in the mean mark difference between the Pre and Post on ToE for experimental group from ( M = 8.72, SD = 4.326 ) to ( M = 22.16, SD = 4.679 ) at T ( 24 ) = 17.69 at P & A ; lt ; 0.025 degree. The consequence size after intercession for experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) is ( .83 ) indicates a really big consequence to pupils ‘ accomplishment in ToE. The average mark difference between Pre and Post ToE is ( M = 13.44 ) . With these, the void hypothesis 2 is besides non accepted. This means there is important difference in pupils ‘ accomplishment after intercession utilizing synergistic simulation. It means that the pupil besides performed significantly better in the post-test compared to their public presentation in the pre-test after utilizing synergistic simulation in the instruction and learning electrostatic.4.2.3. DecisionFrom the consequences of the tabular array above, it can be concluded that after learning either with traditional method or utilizing synergistic simulation, it have significantly consequence on pupils ‘ accomplishment in trial on electrostatic. However harmonizing to the findings, it was found out that pupils ‘ accomplishment is somewhat higher in experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) compared to pupils ‘ accomplishment in control group ( learning with traditional manners ) as the consequence size is 0.83 and 0.71 severally. It shows larning public presentation was better when utilizing simulations in instruction and acquisition compared to learning with traditional manner. Research Question 2 Is there important difference in pupils ‘ accomplishment on Pre and Post Test on Electrostatic ( ToE ) between control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) ? The void hypotheses are formulated in order to reply research inquiry 2: H 3: There is no important difference in pupils ‘ accomplishment on the pre-test on electrostatic between control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) . H 4: There is no important difference in pupils ‘ accomplishment on the post-test on electrostatic between control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) . Independent sample trial was conducted on the average tonss of pre and station trials on electrostatic between control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) . Table 4.3 Consequences of Independent T-Test on Test on Electrostatic for control and experimental groups Trial on Electrostatic Group Mean South dakota Mean Diff. T Sig. ( 2-tailed ) Effect Size ( Eta ) Pre Control Experimental 9.19 8.72 2.71 4.33 .474 .477 .636–Post Control Experimental 18.06 22.16 5.43 4.68 4.10 2.98 *.004 0.40 *p & A ; lt ; 0.0254.2.4 Consequences of independent sample t-test for Hypothesis 3In this subdivision, it shows that there is non differ significantly, ( t = .477, DF=38.54, p=.636 ) in pre-test on electrostatic between control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning with synergistic simulation ) as ( M = 9.19, SD = 2.71 ) and ( M=8.72, SD=4.33 ) . There is merely a little mean difference between both groups i.e. ( M=.474 ) . Therefore the void hypotheses 3 can be accepted. This means that the degree of apprehension of the pupils towards electrostatic in both category i.e. control group and experimental group are the same.4.2.5 Consequences of independent sample t-test for Hypothesis 4By looking at table 4.3 under post-tests for both groups, it shows that there is significantly difference between post-test on electrostatic between control group ( learning with traditional manners ) and experimental group ( learning with synergistic simulation ) as T ( 54 ) = 2.98 at P & A ; lt ; .025. This is because the average difference is big i.e. ( M = 4.10 ) comparison to the pre-test mean difference. The consequence size is ( =.40 ) which means giving a moderate consequence when the pupils intervene by synergistic simulations. But still, it shows great betterment in post-test on electrostatic between control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning with synergistic simulation ) as ( M = 18.06, SD = 5.43 ) and ( M=22.16, SD=4.68 ) . This shows that with the aid of synergistic simulations, it so effectual in bettering pupils ‘ accomplishment in natural philosophies topics. The void hypothesis will non be accepted.4.2.6 DecisionThe consequence from the independent trial analyses, there is no important difference between pre-test of control and experimental group. However, there is extremely important difference between post-test control group and experimental group at P & A ; lt ; .05. And the consequence size indicates that learning with synergistic simulation do hold moderate consequence on pupils ‘ accomplishment on electrostatic. From the consequences it shows that synergistic simulation can assist in pupils understanding better in natural philosophies constructs compared to learning with traditional manner.4.3 Traditional vs. Interactive Simulation consequence on pupils ‘ attitudes towards ScienceThis subdivision describes the consequences of analyses to obtain replies for the 2nd research a ims: the consequence of on control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) on pupils ‘ accomplishment and attitude towards Science. In order to arouse replies to the research objectives, the undermentioned research inquiry and research hypotheses were formulated. Research Question 3 Is there important difference in pupils ‘ attitude before and after learning for experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) ? The void hypotheses are formulated in order to reply research inquiry 3: H 5: There is no important difference in pupils ‘ attitude before and after learning for experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) . H 6: There is no important difference in pupils ‘ attitude before and after learning for experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) for different sphere. Paired sample t-test was besides performed on the average difference of pupils ‘ attitude toward scientific discipline before and after learning for both experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) and for different sphere ( involvement, pertinence, continuity and motive ) at P & A ; lt ; .05. Table 4.4 Consequences of Paired sample on Survey on pupils ‘ attitude towards larning Science for control and experimental groups Sample Group Survey Nitrogen Mean Mark South dakota Mean Diff. South dakota T Sig. ( 2-tailed ) Effect Size ( Eta ) Control Group Pre Post 31 31–3.74–.483–––––Experimental Group Pre Post 25 25 3.50 3.97 .326 .440 .467 .613 3.81 .001 0.524.3.1 Consequences of mated sample t-test for Hypothesis 5.Table 4.4 reveals that the difference between the pre-survey and post-survey for experimental group is statistically important at T ( 24 ) = 3.81 at P & A ; lt ; 0.01 degree. As the mean of pupils ‘ attitude towards scientific discipline was increased from ( M= 3.50, SD=.440 to ( M=3.97, SD=.326 ) with the average difference of ( M=.467 ) . It indicates that the pupils ‘ attitude towards scientific discipline is going more positive after being introduced to interactive simulation and the consequence size Tells with synergistic simulation, it does give great impact on attitude of pupils. As during the lessons, for experimental groups they interact with the pedagogue while the instructor explains the electrostatic by utilizing the synergistic simulation. This shows that pupil truly interested to cognize what happens.4.3.2 Consequences of mated sample t-test for Hypothesis 6.From table 4.5, there are statisticall y important for all the spheres as for involvement T ( 24 ) = 6.162, pertinence T ( 24 ) = 2.552, and motive T ( 24 ) = 2.751 at P & A ; lt ; .025 excepting continuity T ( 24 ) = 2.367 shown non important at P & A ; lt ; .025. Out of the four dimension, involvement in larning scientific discipline has the highest average difference ( M =.726 ) followed by pertinence ( M =.400 ) and so motive ( M =.360 ) . The tabular array farther Tells that after the pupils being taught utilizing synergistic simulation, it gave great impact on pupils ‘ involvement towards larning scientific discipline as the consequence size is ( .67 ) i.e. large consequence. Along with pertinence and motive as both gave moderate consequence ( .40 ) every bit good as continuity ( .32 ) . Therefore the void hypotheses is rejected for 3 spheres i.e. motive, involvement and pertinence except for continuity, there is no important difference therefore, void hypothesis is accepted. Table 4.5 Consequences of Paired sample on Survey on pupils ‘ attitude towards larning Science for different sphere for experimental groups Sphere Survey Mean South dakota Mean Diff. South dakota T Sig. ( 2 tailed ) Effect Size ( Eta ) Interest Pre Post 3.29 4.02 .441 .370 .726 .589 6.16 *.000 0.67 Applicability Pre Post 3.56 3.96 .516 .416 .400 .784 2.55 *.017 0.40 Continuity Pre Post 3.69 4.05 .561 .470 .360 .761 2.37 .026 0.32 Motivation Pre Post 3.47 3.86 .521 .404 .383 .696 2.75 *.011 0.404.3.3 DecisionsFrom the information analyses above, this proved that pupils ‘ attitude towards scientific discipline shows more positive after been exposed to new learning manner i.e. learning with synergistic simulation. Therefore both hypotheses 5 and 6 are rejected as there are important differences in pupils ‘ average attitude towards Science. This means synergistic simulations able to hold on pupils ‘ attending and hike their involvement and motive to larn Science. Research Question 4 Is there important difference in pupils ‘ attitude after learning between control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) ? The void hypotheses are formulated in order to reply last research inquiry 4: Hypotheses 7 There is no important difference in pupils ‘ attitude towards scientific discipline after learning between control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) . Hypotheses 8 There is no important difference in pupils ‘ attitude towards scientific discipline after learning between control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) for different sphere ( involvement, pertinence, continuity and motive ) Independent sample trial was conducted on the average difference of pupils ‘ attitude toward scientific discipline before and after learning for experimental group ( learning and larning with synergistic simulation ) and for different sphere ( involvement, pertinence, continuity and motive ) at P & A ; lt ; .05.4.3.4 Consequences of independent sample t-test for Hypothesis 7Under this subdivision, the average study points is at P & A ; lt ; 0.05 which indicates that pupils ‘ attitude towards larning Science do differ significantly after learning i.e. comparing between learning with traditional manner and synergistic simulation. Table 4.6Independents sample Test on pupils ‘ attitude towards scientific discipline after learning between Control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and Experimental group ( learning with synergistic simulation ) Survey Group Nitrogen Mean South dakota Mean Diff. T Sig. ( 2-tailed ) Effect Size ( Eta ) Post Control Experimental 25 31 3.74 4.02 .483 .327 .287 2.64 .011 0.34 This indicates learning with synergistic simulation make assist student better engage in the lesson taught. And be more synergistic with the instructor as compared to traditional instruction manner.4.3.5 Consequences of independent sample t-test for Hypothesis 8Table 4.7 Independent T-test on pupils ‘ attitude towards scientific discipline after learning between Control group ( learning with traditional manner ) and Experimental group ( learning with synergistic simulation ) in different sphere Sphere Group Nitrogen Mean South dakota Mean Diff. T Sig. ( 2 tailed ) Effect Size ( Eta ) Interest Experimental Group 25 4.10 .414 .492 4.06 *.000 0.50 Control Group 31 3.61 .478 Applicability Experimental Group 25 3.98 .409 .218 1.74 .087 0.22 Control Group 31 3.77 .505 Continuity Experimental Group 25 4.10 .447 .180 1.26 .214 0.20 Control Group 31 3.91 .621 Motivation Experimental Group 25 3.97 .396 .299 2.32 *.024 0.30 Control Group 31 3.67 .535 As seen from the tabular array when comparing the station study of control and experimental groups merely two of the dimension differ significantly i.e. involvement and motive towards scientific discipline. Whereas, pertinence and continuity towards scientific discipline remain the same for both groups, this indicates there is no important difference. There were large consequence size for involvement sphere ( =.50 ) and moderate consequence size ( =.30 ) . Whereas consequence size for pertinence and continuity indicates little consequence size ( =.22 ) and ( =.20 ) severally.4.3.6 DecisionThe independent trial for this subdivisions conclude that learning with synergistic simulation do give little consequence on pupils ‘ attitude towards scientific discipline. But for the sphere, pupils ‘ involvement towards scientific discipline shows consequence as P & A ; lt ; .05. On the other manus, pupils ‘ pertinence towards scientific discipline does non demo any important di fference as P & A ; gt ; .05.4.4 Students InterviewThe followers was the extract of pupils interview on what do they believe between larning traditionally and larning with the aid of synergistic simulation. Teacher: Which manner of learning would you preferred? Students: Teacher: Is the teacher manner of learning easier to understand? Students: Teacher: In your sentiment, what do you anticipate the instructor to make, to do the lesson interesting? Students: Teacher: Do you believe with the aid of ICT can do the lesson interesting and assist you understand better/ for case what the instructor did in the schoolroom Students: