|
Qualitative
Analysis:
Decribes use of observation method
|
Two independent observers observed fourteen teaching assistants over an eight-
week period. Each of the laboratory periods was a 3-hour sessions, enabling three 15
minute observations per laboratory period to occur. This resulted in sixty separate
observations for each teaching assistants to be completed. The teaching assistants were
then ranked in terms of their ability to successfully implement the inquiry strategies and
dialogic processes required. The 14 teaching assistants were initially ranked as high or
low implementation.
Using the Tukey Honestly Significance Difference procedure for testing hypothesis
about all pairwise contrasts (Neter, Kutner, Nachtshem, Wasserman, 1996) a number of
important results were obtained. These included:
-
Implementation of appropriate pedagogy was important for student success. On the ACS
California Diagnostic test, at the beginning of the semester, there was no significant
difference between students in sections taught by teaching assistants. On completion of
the laboratory course there was a significant difference between sections taught by high
implementing teaching assistants (M= 70.81, SD= 13.87) compared to low implementing
teaching assistants (M= 64.38, SD= 19.72), t (236) = 2.953, p < .05. An effect size
(CohenĘs d) of 0.38 was obtained.
- The implementation of the SWH approach was of significant benefit for females and was
able to close the gender gap. At the beginning of the course, there was a significant
difference in favor of males (males M= 62.73, SD= 15.27, females M= 56.47, SD= 12.10) t
(285) = -3.812, p < .05. At the completion of the semester, there was no significant
difference between males and females on the ACS End of Semester 1 test. The effect size
due to gender was reduced from 0.45 to 0.04 from the start to the end of the semester.
- The gap between high-achievers, in the top half of the student population on ACS
California Diagnostic test, and low-achievers with bottom half of student population on
ACS California Diagnostic test, was greatly reduced using the SWH approach. While there
was a significant difference between these two groups on both the pre (high achievers M=
74.20, SD= 9.05, low achievers M= 50.86 SD= 8.21) t (285) = -22.50, p < .05 and post-
test (high achievers M= 76.15, SD= 16.77, low achievers M= 64.51 SD= 15.01) t (217) =
-5.20, p < .05 there was a reduction in the effect size. The effect size due to ability on the
pre-test was 2.70. On the post-test the effect due to ability had been reduced to 0.74;
that is, the SWH approach had helped to reduce the gap between the low and high
achievers.
Using an improvement score (IS) calculation (Hake, 2003) [IS= gain / potential gain =
(Post-test score- pre-test score)/ (1- pre-test score)] we were able to determine where
the benefits of the SWH approach had occurred. Two important interactions are described
below:
- The interaction between gender and level of achievement indicated that in terms of
Improvement Score high- and low-achieving females and low-achieving males had similar
scores while high-achieving males did not improve.
|
