# Traditional Vs Interactive Simulation Effect On Students Education Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

## Chapter 4

This chapter describes the results of the statistical analyses of the data collected in order to test the research hypotheses that guided this study. It also contains the discussion regarding the outcomes from these analyses and information gathered from the Pre-test and post-test on Electrostatic for control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching with interactive simulation and also questionnaire on students' attitude towards learning science.

## 4.1 Reliability of test instruments

The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient was calculated to determine the reliability of the tests instruments. Table 4.1 shows that the Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients are range from 0.600 to 0.885. This indicates the test items are acceptable for use in the study.

Table 4.1 Cronbach's Alpha Reliability for Test on Electrostatic and Questionnaire on Attitude.

N of items

Cronbach's Alpha Reliability

Attitude towards Science

28

0.885

Test on Electrostatic

27

0.644

## 4.2 Traditional vs. Interactive Simulation effect on students' achievement on ToE

This section describes the results of analyses to obtain answers for the first research objectives: To investigate the effectiveness of two different instructional approaches (i) teaching with traditional style or (ii) teaching and learning with Interactive simulation on students' achievement on test of electrostatic

In order to elicit answers to the research objective, the following research question and research hypotheses were formulated.

Research Question 1:

Is there significant effect in students' achievement on Pre and Post tests on electrostatic (TOE) for (i) control group (teaching with traditional style) and (ii) experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation)?

The null hypotheses are formulated in order to answer research question 1:

H 1:

There is no significant difference in students' achievement on the pre and post tests on electrostatic for control group (teaching with traditional teaching style).

H 2:

There is no significant difference in students' achievement on the pre-post tests on electrostatic for experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation).

Paired sample t-test was conducted respectively on the mean scores of pre and post tests on electrostatic (ToE) for (i) control group (teaching with traditional style) and (ii) experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation).

Table 4.2 Results of Paired sample on Test on Electrostatic (ToE) for control (n = 31) and experimental groups (n=25)

Sample Group

Test on Electrostatic

Mean Score

SD

Mean Diff.

SD

t

Sig. (2-tailed)

Effect Size (Eta)

Control Group (Teaching with Traditional style)

Pre

Post

9.19

18.06

2.71

5.43

8.87

4.84

10.20

*.000

0.71

Experimental Group (Teaching and learning with interactive simulation)

Pre

Post

8.72

22.16

4.33

4.68

13.44

3.80

17.69

*.000

0.83

*p &lt; 0.05

## 4.2.1 Results of paired sample t-test for Hypothesis 1.

A paired-samples t-test was conducted to evaluate the impact of the intervention on students' mean scores on the ToE for control group (teaching with traditional style). It can be seen that from Table 4.2, there was a statistically significant increase in the mean score between the Pre and Post on ToE for control group from (M= 9.19, SD=2.713) to (M=18.06, SD=5.428) respectively at t (30) = 10.20 at p &lt; 0.05 level. The effect size (.71) indicates a large effect size on students' achievement before and after. The mean score difference between Pre and Post ToE is M=8.87. Therefore the null hypothesis 1 is rejected.

This indicates that there is significant difference in students' mean score for control group (teaching with traditional style) before and after intervention. It means that the student performed significantly better in the post-test compared to their performance in the pre-test. This shows that students do understand to what the teacher is teaching.

## 4.2.2 Results of paired sample t-test for Hypothesis 2.

Same test has been conducted to evaluate the impact of the intervention on students' mean scores on the ToE for experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation). Also from table 4.2, there was a statistically significant increase in the mean score 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 &lt; 0.025 level. The effect size after intervention for experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation) is (.83) indicates a very large effect to students' achievement in ToE. The mean score difference between Pre and Post ToE is (M = 13.44). With these, the null hypothesis 2 is also not accepted.

This means there is significant difference in students' achievement after intervention using interactive simulation. It means that the student also performed significantly better in the post-test compared to their performance in the pre-test after using interactive simulation in the teaching and learning electrostatic.

## 4.2.3. Conclusion

From the results of the table above, it can be concluded that after teaching either with traditional method or using interactive simulation, it have significantly effect on students' achievement in test on electrostatic. However according to the findings, it was found out that students' achievement is slightly higher in experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation) compared to students' achievement in control group (teaching with traditional styles) as the effect size is 0.83 and 0.71 respectively. It shows learning performance was better when using simulations in teaching and learning compared to teaching with traditional style.

Research Question 2

Is there significant difference in students' achievement on Pre and Post Test on Electrostatic (ToE) between control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation)?

The null hypotheses are formulated in order to answer research question 2:

H 3:

There is no significant difference in students' achievement on the pre-test on electrostatic between control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation).

H 4:

There is no significant difference in students' achievement on the post-test on electrostatic between control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation).

Independent sample test was conducted on the mean scores of pre and post tests on electrostatic between control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation).

Table 4.3 Results of Independent T-Test on Test on Electrostatic for control and experimental groups

Test on Electrostatic

Group

Mean

SD

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 &lt; 0.025

## 4.2.4 Results of independent sample t-test for Hypothesis 3

In this section, it shows that there is not differ significantly, (t = .477, DF=38.54, p=.636) in pre-test on electrostatic between control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching with interactive simulation) as (M = 9.19, SD = 2.71) and (M=8.72, SD=4.33). There is only a slight mean difference between both groups i.e. (M=.474). Therefore the null hypotheses 3 can be accepted.

This means that the level of understanding of the students towards electrostatic in both class i.e. control group and experimental group are the same.

## 4.2.5 Results of independent sample t-test for Hypothesis 4

By 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 (teaching with traditional styles) and experimental group (teaching with interactive simulation) as t(54) = 2.98 at p &lt; .025. This is because the mean difference is large i.e. (M = 4.10) compare to the pre-test mean difference. The effect size is (=.40) which means giving a moderate effect when the students intervene by interactive simulations. But still, it shows great improvement in post-test on electrostatic between control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching with interactive simulation) as (M = 18.06, SD = 5.43) and (M=22.16, SD=4.68).

This shows that with the help of interactive simulations, it indeed effective in improving students' achievement in physics subjects. The null hypothesis will not be accepted.

## 4.2.6 Conclusion

The result from the independent test analyses, there is no significant difference between pre-test of control and experimental group. However, there is highly significant difference between post-test control group and experimental group at p &lt;.05. And the effect size indicates that teaching with interactive simulation do have moderate effect on students' achievement on electrostatic. From the results it shows that interactive simulation can help in students understanding better in physics concepts compared to teaching with traditional style.

## 4.3 Traditional vs. Interactive Simulation effect on students' attitudes towards Science

This section describes the results of analyses to obtain answers for the second research objectives: the effect of on control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation) on students' achievement and attitude towards Science.

In order to elicit answers to the research objectives, the following research question and research hypotheses were formulated.

Research Question 3

Is there significant difference in students' attitude before and after teaching for experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation)?

The null hypotheses are formulated in order to answer research question 3:

H 5:

There is no significant difference in students' attitude before and after teaching for experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation).

H 6:

There is no significant difference in students' attitude before and after teaching for experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation) for different domain.

Paired sample t-test was also performed on the mean difference of students' attitude toward science before and after teaching for both experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation) and for different domain (interest, applicability, persistence and motivation) at p &lt; .05.

Table 4.4 Results of Paired sample on Survey on students' attitude towards learning Science for control and experimental groups

Sample Group

Survey

N

Mean

Score

SD

Mean Diff.

SD

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

0.52

## 4.3.1 Results of paired 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 significant at t(24) = 3.81 at p &lt; 0.01 level. As the mean of students' attitude towards science was increased from (M= 3.50, SD=.440 to (M=3.97, SD=.326) with the mean difference of (M=.467). It indicates that the students' attitude towards science is becoming more positive after being introduced to interactive simulation and the effect size tells with interactive simulation, it does give great impact on attitude of students. As during the lessons, for experimental groups they interact with the educator while the teacher explains the electrostatic by using the interactive simulation. This shows that student really interested to know what happens.

## 4.3.2 Results of paired sample t-test for Hypothesis 6.

From table 4.5, there are statistically significant for all the domains as for interest t(24) = 6.162, applicability t(24) = 2.552, and motivation t(24) = 2.751 at p &lt; .025 excluding persistence t(24) = 2.367 shown not significant at p &lt; .025 . Out of the four dimension, interest in learning science has the highest mean difference (M =.726) followed by applicability (M =.400) and then motivation (M =.360). The table further tells that after the students being taught using interactive simulation, it gave great impact on students' interest towards learning science as the effect size is (.67) i.e. big effect. Along with applicability and motivation as both gave moderate effect (.40) as well as persistence (.32). Therefore the null hypotheses is rejected for 3 domains i.e. motivation, interest and applicability except for persistence, there is no significant difference thus, null hypothesis is accepted.

Table 4.5 Results of Paired sample on Survey on students' attitude towards learning Science for different domain for experimental groups

Domain

Survey

Mean

SD

Mean Diff.

SD

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

Persistence

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

0.40

## 4.3.3 Conclusions

From the data analyses above, this proved that students' attitude towards science shows more positive after been exposed to new teaching style i.e. teaching with interactive simulation. Therefore both hypotheses 5 and 6 are rejected as there are significant differences in students' mean attitude towards Science. This means interactive simulations able to grasp students' attention and boost their interest and motivation to learn Science.

Research Question 4

Is there significant difference in students' attitude after teaching between control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation)?

The null hypotheses are formulated in order to answer last research question 4:

Hypotheses 7

There is no significant difference in students' attitude towards science after teaching between control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation).

Hypotheses 8

There is no significant difference in students' attitude towards science after teaching between control group (teaching with traditional style) and experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation) for different domain (interest, applicability, persistence and motivation)

Independent sample test was conducted on the mean difference of students' attitude toward science before and after teaching for experimental group (teaching and learning with interactive simulation) and for different domain (interest, applicability, persistence and motivation) at p &lt; .05.

## 4.3.4 Results of independent sample t-test for Hypothesis 7

Under this section, the mean survey items is at p&lt;0.05 which indicates that students' attitude towards learning Science do differ significantly after teaching i.e. comparing between teaching with traditional style and interactive simulation.

Table 4.6Independents sample Test on students' attitude towards science after teaching between Control group (teaching with traditional style) and Experimental group (teaching with interactive simulation)

Survey

Group

N

Mean

SD

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 teaching with interactive simulation do help student better engage in the lesson taught. And be more interactive with the teacher as compared to traditional teaching style.

## 4.3.5 Results of independent sample t-test for Hypothesis 8

Table 4.7 Independent T-test on students' attitude towards science after teaching between Control group (teaching with traditional style) and Experimental group (teaching with interactive simulation) in different domain

Domain

Group

N

Mean

SD

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

Persistence

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 table when comparing the post survey of control and experimental groups only two of the dimension differ significantly i.e. interest and motivation towards science. Whereas, applicability and persistence towards science remain the same for both groups, this indicates there is no significant difference. There were big effect size for interest domain (=.50) and moderate effect size (=.30). Whereas effect size for applicability and persistence indicates small effect size (=.22) and (=.20) respectively.

## 4.3.6 Conclusion

The independent test for this sections conclude that teaching with interactive simulation do give slight effect on students' attitude towards science. But for the domain, students' interest towards science shows effect as p &lt;.05. On the other hand, students' applicability towards science does not show any significant difference as p &gt; .05.

## 4.4 Students Interview

The following was the excerpt of students interview on what do they think between learning traditionally and learning with the help of interactive simulation.

Teacher : Which style of teaching would you preferred?

Students:

Teacher : Is the teacher way of teaching easier to understand?

Students:

Teacher : In your opinion, what do you expect the teacher to do, to make the lesson interesting?

Students:

Teacher: Do you think with the help of ICT can make the lesson interesting and help you understand better/ for instance what the teacher did in the classroom

Students: