For the research knowledge test, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for the total score across all 4 time periods. There was a significant effect of time (F(3, 15) = 15.52, p < .001), thus the means for each of the 4 time periods were significantly different (Time 1, M = 94.3; Time 2, M= 81.7; Time 3 = 129.1; Time 4, M= 131.8). There was also an effect of condition (F(1, 15) = 12.13, p< .05) in which the mean for the lab students (M = 116.64, SD = 2.9) was higher than the control group (M = 101.78, SD = 3.1). There was no interaction effect (p> .10).
For the research efficacy (confidence) test, a repeated measures ANOVA was conducted for the total score across all 4 time periods. There was a significant effect of time (F(1, 14) = 10.2, p < .01), thus the means for each of the 4 time periods were significantly different (Time 1, M = 68.38; Time 2, M= 70.1; Time 3 = 72.5; Time 4, M= 73.6). There was also an effect of condition (F(1, 14) = 6.3, p< .05) in which the mean for the lab students (M = 73.8, SD = 1.5) was higher than the control group (M = 68.5, SD = 1.5). There was no interaction effect (p> .10).
What they mean: Being in the lab significantly improved the students' knowledge about research and their confidence in the research process over students matched to be at the same points in their program, but did not take the lab. They improved as the project progressed (particularly when they were analyzing the data in the 2nd quarter - 3rd testing time).
We continue to work on the oldest old data and the article, although that is going slow due to other work and projects interfering. We hope to have some info on that for you soon.
Lee Stadtlander
No comments:
Post a Comment