4. Statistic
4.4 Qualitative analysis of the individual participant
As mentioned in the method chapter, there was a pilot test conducted in a class of junior high school students asking them to learn human circulatory system with LGD.
Their drawing products were used to construct a coding system for the evaluation of drawing products in the current study with non-biology major post-secondary students.
Though the age and education level of the pilot study participants were different from that of the participants in this study; however, the range (level 0 to 7) of drawing quality which demonstrates the conceptual understanding of human circulatory system remained the same. I also found that the best drawing product quality (level 7), which no one achieved in the pilot study, appeared in this study. Table 4.4 depicts selected typical drawing products for 7 levels (e.g., 0 = circulatory system with no loop, 1 = ebb and flow/Atrial and ventricular, 2 =single loop, 3 = single loop with lungs or single loop with wrong description, 4 = double loop-1, 5 = double loop-2, 6 = double loop-3, 7 = double loop-4) of coding in this study.
35
Figure 4.1: Mental model coding list 0:
No loop
1:
Ebb and flow/ Atrial and ventricular
2:
Single loop
3:
Single loop with lungs or single loop with wrong
description
36
Figure 4.1: Mental model coding list (cont.) 4:
Double loop 1
5:
Double loop 2
6:
Double loop 3
7:
Double loop 4
37
Eight cases selected from four treatment groups were listed in below for a further descriptive analysis. The observation of learners’ serial drawings could be used as another approach to validate the results obtained from the statistical analyses.
Group DIPE
Drawing products of participant A: a gradual LGD benefit learner
The drawing products of participants A showed that before DIPI treatment (drawing, illustration feedback, prompting questions and LGD instruction), the pre mental model was in the low level of 1; while the accuracy score during treatment showed pretty good improvement to a level of 5. But, from the observation note the author jot down, the author found that this individual mainly took note when reading and might allocate less time in the integration of text and drawing. When it came to the posttest, the participants had enough time to integrate text and image materials, the post mental model revealed a highest level of conceptual understanding.
Figure 4.2: Drawing products of participant A
Pre-mental model: 1 Accuracy: 5 Post-mental model: 7
38
Drawing products of participant B: a dramatic LGD benefit learner
This is the learner with the most dramatic transition pattern across the study procedure and there were quite many participants showed this remarkable change in group DIPI.
Participants B had barley no understanding in the beginning test (pre mental model) but during the treatment the accuracy score showed B participant’s drawing achieved the best quality level of 7 and in the post-mental model the conceptual understanding was still the best. Even in the transfer test B gained 14 points.
Figure 4.3: Drawing products of participant B
Pre-mental model: 0 Accuracy: 7 Post-mental model: 7
Group DIP
Drawing products of participant C: learner with high quality knowledge
In the group DIP (drawing, illustration feedback and prompting questions), the participant C demonstrated having a high quality of knowledge in pre-mental model and there were no room for the progress. The content of participant C’s pre-mental model showed good understanding about component and organization of the circulatory system, only function of circulatory is missing. When it comes to the treatment accuracy, participant C had added the function and detailed description of
39
the circulatory system, which make the treatment accuracy and post-mental model perfect.
Figure4. 4: Drawing products of participant C
Pre-mental model: 6 Accuracy: 7 Post-mental model: 7
Group DI
Drawing products of participant D:could be give-up or poor understanding with poor motivation.
The participant D displayed poor understanding (level 0 to show no conceptual understanding of human circulatory system) all the way through pre-mental model, treatment to post-mental model. It demonstrated that this participant did not engaged in learning during the experiment.
40
Figure 4.5: Drawing products of participant D
Pre-mental model: 0 Accuracy: 0 Post-mental model: 0
Drawing products of participant E: an un-interpretable learner
Participant E did demonstrate a level 2 understanding of human circulatory system.
However, the drawing product during the treatment process dropped back to level 0. I infer that he was not willing to engage in leaning. At the end of the experiment, the participant E displayed a level 4 understanding in the post-mental model. The learning transition is hard to interpret.
Figure 4.6: Drawing products of participant E
Pre-mental model: 2 Accuracy: 0 Post-mental model: 4
41
Group D
Drawing products of participant F: a learner once gets progress but regress eventually.
The drawing products of participant F show that he/she learned and integrated circulatory knowledge during the treatment (from level 2 in the first drawing to level 6 in the treatment); nevertheless, in the post-mental model the conceptual understanding dropped down to level 3. In group D, some participants displayed the same pattern as well. I speculate that due to the non-stop experiment tasks, the learner would probably exhaustive during the highly demanding activity and perhaps refuse for the further mental effort investment in the posttest.
Figure 4.7: Drawing products of participant F
Pre-mental model: 2 Accuracy: 6 Post-mental model: 3
Drawing products of participant G: a no-improvement learner
There were no up and downs of participant G. Obviously this participant did not benefit from the strategy, which the learner might failed to grasp the main point of drawing. This pattern showed frequently in Group DI and Group D.
42
Figure 4.8: Drawing products of participant G
Pre-mental model: 4 Accuracy: 4 Post-mental model: 4
Drawing products of participant H: a verbal strategy learner
The participant G demonstrated a category of learners who might be not good at drawing or tended to be a text learner. In the observation note from the author, there seemed to be some leaners like to write text note and had shown little acquisition from drawing. However, the participants with low drawing ability seemed to be in the groups DI and D. Unfortunately, we are not able to investigate if this classification of learner could learn to draw through the DIPI instruction.
Figure 4.9: Drawing products of participant H
Pre-mental model: 4 Accuracy: 4 Post-mental model: 5
43