(Albalooshi & Alkhalifa, 2002), and a proposal of this technique as a possible method of testing that would
highlight the system’s benefits.
The predictions that were made are that it will not result in a lower level of performance than the classroom
lecture, while it will be able to result in a highly significant improvement in student performance from their post-
lecture test levels.
Students were distributed into three groups based on a quiz they were given earlier in the course to ensure that all
groups are comparable tested over two consecutive days. Group 1 attended the lecture only while group 2
attended the lecture and the following day used the module. Group 3 on the other hand, did not attend the lecture
and just used the module on the second day. Both groups 1 and 2 took a test at the end of the classroom lecture.
All groups took the second test on the second day, which was highly similar to the first test with a difference in
the order and wording of the questions.
5.1. Subjects
45 students from the University of Bahrain volunteered to participate in this experiment in exchange for class
credit. They were distributed evenly into three groups of 15 students each.
5.2. Materials
Materials included in this experiment concentrated on Stacks as a data structure. They included one classical
lecture given to groups 1 and 2. Additionally, students in groups 2 and 3 used the multimedia module for that
particular data structure. Then the tests included 7 questions, which tested comprehension of the various parts of
the presentation as well as the ability to recreate or imagine new uses or applications of stacks.
5.3. Results
As shown in figure 1, group 2 showed a highly significant improvement in test results following using the
system when compared to their post-classroom lecture levels. An ANOVA test showed F= 9.19 with p< .005.
No significant differences were found between group 1 who attended the classroom lecture only and group 3
which used the system only. In this case, F=.598 with p<.446 which shows that they are extremely comparable.
|
(∣πnιp (Jτκ |
Gruup T⅝⅝t> |
Gr⅛μu IliWc | ||
|
l est One |
Iesflwu |
Twt Onc |
Twt Twct Tfcit One |
Tesl TWo |
|
Tl |
-TT |
7 |
-∣7√ |
-1∑5 |
|
8 |
12? |
9 |
11 |
8.5 |
|
У 5 |
У |
Ll 5 |
14 |
10.5 |
|
7 |
S |
8 |
10.5 |
6,5 |
|
12 |
Il |
7 5 |
7 5 |
13 |
|
22 |
24 |
6 |
14 |
13.5 |
|
IO |
∣9 |
12 |
13 |
7 5 |
|
7 |
S.5 |
8.5 |
14 |
12.5 |
|
8 5 |
f∙. |
5 |
l∣; |
8.5 |
|
17 |
18.5 |
Ll 5 |
18 |
6 |
|
⅛ |
У |
7 |
7 5 |
12.5 |
|
8.5 |
9.5 |
5 |
9.5 |
13.5 |
|
115 |
13.5 |
8 |
I? |
11.5 |
|
У 5 |
6,5 |
10.5 |
15 |
Ю.5 |
|
7 5 |
7,5 |
LO__________ |
12.S ______________ |
10.5 |
|
SD= 2,9≈3 |
sυ 1.УЯІІ |
SD= А. 167 |
SD= 5 J05 |
SlJ 2.759 |
|
X>IO.5- 4 |
Х> 10.5-6 |
X-IQ.5- 4 |
X-IO 5 11 |
X>IO5-IO |
|
X <10.5-11 |
X <10.5-9 |
X40,5=∣∣ |
X <10.5=4 |
X 10-5=5 |
Figure 1. Study results
52