Buscando el menos uno (-­‐1) por el camino del más 22

The Beam Bending survey consisted of two parts for a total of 14 questions. A sample of this survey is shown in Appendix D. The first 7 were multiple-choice, Likert scale questions and the last 7 were open-ended. Each Likert scale question was summarized, based on the numeric score, into a bar graph in Excel and then the average and standard deviation were calculated.

81

The open-ended questions were summarized by transcribing the responses from each student into a list so as to group the responses by question. The results from these questions are presented below.

One of the design goals for the interface was to make it user friendly and to save time when compared to the traditional method. Questions 3 and 4 were posed to specifically answer these questions; the results are shown in Figure 4-1 and 4-2.

Figure 4-1: Beam Bending Question 3 [Avg. 4.7, Std. Dev. 0.48]

All 10 participants at least agreed that the interface was easy to use and 70 percent strongly agreed. According to Figure 4-2, almost all of the participants thought that using the interface saved time overall as 9 of 10 participants strongly agreed with this statement. These results seem to suggest that the goal of creating a time-saving, easy-to-use graphical user interface was

accomplished.

One thing the interface offers that the traditional method cannot is a graphical display of the deflections in real time. This feature was added with the objective of improving the students

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 # o f Tim es Score Se le cted Score

3) The interface was easy to use

82

understanding of what was actually happening during the experiment. The following 3 questions were concerned with this aspect of the design: Question 5 asked if the participants liked having the graphical display of the deflections, Question 6 asked if the display improved their

understanding, and Question 7 asked if the real-time calculations and display were not helpful.

Figure 4-2: Beam Bending Question 4 [Avg. 4.8, Std. Dev. 0.63]

The scores for Question 5 are very positive with an average of 4.7 and a standard deviation of 0.48, it is clear that all of the participants liked having the graphical display. Question 7 is phrased such that a low score suggests that the participants think the display is helpful. The average score for Question 7 is 1.2 and the standard deviation is 0.63 which implies that all of the participants thought the display was helpful. Now that it has been established that the participants like the display and think it is helpful, the real question can be answered: Does the display improve the understanding of the Beam Bending lab?

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 # o f Tim es Score Se le cted Score

4) The interface saved time overall

83

Figure 4-3: Beam Bending Question 6 [Avg. 4.2, Std. Dev. 0.79]

According Figure 4-3, the responses are all positive but there does not seem to be an agreement about how much it improves the understanding. This variation could be caused by the fact that different people learn in different ways so perhaps the participants that gave a score of “3” are not visual learners but the ones that scored a “5” are. The important thing is that none of the students thought it negatively affected their understanding and 8 out of 10 thought it

improved their understanding to some degree.

The learning outcomes are an important part of any course so it was imperative that the outcomes for this experiment were not negatively affected by the use of the interface. The data for this aspect is open to interpretation because Question 2, a Likert scale question, has at least 1 tally for each of the 5 scores but Question 12, which asks, “How do you think the interfaces affect the learning outcomes of the beam bending experiment?”, has all positive comments, with over half citing the real time graphical deflection display. Some of the comments made include, “Not at all, you see how the experiment works real time with the graphs” and “The overall outcomes may be slightly more beneficial, by observing the real time plots”. However,

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 1 2 3 4 5 # o f Tim es Score Se le cted Score

6) Seeing the deflection in real-time improved my

understanding of the beam bending experiment

84

according to Figure 4-4, the interface may or may not be detrimental to the learning outcomes. Sixty percent of the participants disagree that the interface negatively affects the learning outcomes while the remaining 4 participants are either indifferent or think the interfaces has a negative effect on the outcomes. It is possible that there was confusing about what the question was asking but at this point it is difficult to know for sure. Based on the responses to Question 12 and the fact that over half of the participants did select a low score for Question 2 that implies that the interface is not detrimental, it can be assumed that the learning outcomes are, in fact, improved by the interface.

Figure 4-4:Beam Bending Question 2 [Avg. 2.5, Std. Dev. 1.43]

The participants were asked what changes they would make and, also, how they would explain the interface to a friend. Some of the changes that were suggested include, “Larger window”, “Add an option for unit inputs”, and “The ability to redo a test”. When asked how they would describe the interface to a friend, the words “simple” and “easy to use” appear multiple times. One participant said they would explain the interface as, “Essentially, it takes

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 1 2 3 4 5 # o f Tim es Score Se le cted Score

2) Using the interface is detrimental to the

learning outcomes

85

down all the data for you and creates the excel sheet you need to do to finish the lab and you can access it through Google Drive any time”. According to these responses, the attempt to make a simple, easy-to-use interface was successful and the suggested changes would be fairly easy to implement.

Questions 1, 8, 9, 10, and 11 pertained to what the students liked and disliked about each method and which one they preferred. Questions 8 and 9 asked the students to describe what they liked about the interface and traditional method, respectively. The responses about the interface were all positive and suggested that it was easy to use and seemed to save time. One student commented, “It was quick, easier and saved a lot of time”. Most of the students had nothing that they liked about the traditional method but one student did like one thing, he stated: “I like physically having data in my hand (paper)”. The combination of responses from Question 8 and 9 suggests that the students do not really like the traditional method and think the interface positively affects the experimental procedure.

Questions 10 and 11 asked the students, “Describe what you disliked about the interface” and “Describe what you disliked about the traditional method”, respectively. The majority of the students stated that they disliked something about the interface, most of these comments were related to how the data had to be entered into the interface and the fact that mistakes made while entering the data could not be corrected. One student phrased his thoughts as such: “Hard to go back and change values”. The common theme for Question 9 seems to be that the participants did not like having to record the data by hand, having to enter it into Excel themselves, and having to deal with making sure each group member had the correct data. One participant wrote, “It was a pain to have to write everything down between 4 people and then input it all into Excel”. Based on the responses to these two questions, it would seem that although they thought

86

some changes could be made to improve the interface, they dislike the data acquisition process in the traditional method.

Figure 4-5: Beam Bending Question 1 [Avg. 4.8, Std. Dev. 0.42]

Question 1, a Likert scale question, sums up Questions 8 through 11 by posing the statement, “I prefer the interface over the traditional method”. Figure 4-5 shows the results of Question 1 as a bar graph. With an average of 4.8, it overwhelming favors the interface and, as shown in Figure 1, all of the students either “Agreed” or “Strongly Agree” with the posed statement. According the responses from this survey, it is evident that the participants think the interface would have a positive effect on the Beam Bending lab but does require some minor adjustments.