Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Title:||Immediate test or delayed test : evidence of primary Mathematics learning||Authors:||Arunachalam Thannimalai||Keywords:||Engineering::General::Education
|Issue Date:||2020||Publisher:||Nanyang Technological University||Project:||A284||Abstract:||A preliminary aim of this project is to test for superiority of using worked examples in instruction material (for learners), seen in terms of enhanced learning outcomes for participants. Another preliminary aim is to examine whether conducting a test right after learning would yield worse learning outcomes compared to conducting the test after a break from learning. The secondary aim of this study is to investigate whether learner expertise has an effect on the effectiveness of usage of worked examples in instruction material for learners. In total, three experiments were conducted. First, a Pilot Study followed by Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. The Pilot Study was similar to Experiment 1 with the key difference being the topic of the learning segment which was subtraction of unlike fractions. In Experiment 1, two Primary 2 classes were each split up into two groups, the worked example group and the problem solving group. The worked example group was given learning materials with worked examples while the problem solving group was given learning materials without worked examples. The topic involved was addition of like fractions. Subsequently, one class was given immediate testing (post-test on fractions) on the same day as learning while the other class was given delayed testing on the subsequent day of learning. The findings showed superiority of usage of worked examples in instruction material but there was unexpectedly no superiority of delayed testing over immediate testing. In the secondary study involving Experiment 2, the same testing conditions were used as described above, but this time two primary 4 classes of students (expert level students) were used as the participants instead of primary 2 students (novice level students). The experimental design and testing materials used were the same as that used in Experiment 1. The results showed that there was no superiority of usage of worked examples found which conformed with the Expertise Reversal Effect. The findings also showed that there was no superiority of delayed testing over immediate testing for the group of primary 4 participants which is contrary to the initial expectations. Overall, usage of worked examples facilitated novice primary 2 students’ learning and this benefit became much less significant when learner expertise level grew as seen in the case of primary 4 student participants. However, there were no significant evidences of benefits of delayed testing over immediate testing, found in the study.||URI:||https://hdl.handle.net/10356/139210||Fulltext Permission:||restricted||Fulltext Availability:||With Fulltext|
|Appears in Collections:||MAE Student Reports (FYP/IA/PA/PI)|
Updated on May 26, 2022
Updated on May 26, 2022
Items in DR-NTU are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.