Post Test Question 1 Analysis

Each of the students’ post test question 1 results were assigned one or more of the following categories: marking each mushroom with a flag, searching the area by ground type, using the map to cover the entire area, using care to obtain an accurate mushroom count, and using a visual sweep of an area.

flag marking Flag marking (FM) involves tagging each mushroom counted with a biodegradable flag. 75% of the students mentioned FM to indicate that a mushroom had been counted already. This percentage indicates that the students realized that some sort of organization must be utilized to obtain an accurate count. The size of the area and amount of mushrooms emphasized the importance of a non-random search.

ground type When a group searches the field by ground type (GT), they concentrate their counting in one growth medium. When they have completed their data collection in that area, they will continue to exclusively count in another growth medium area, and so on. As described by one student: “They could use the strategy of going in each different kind of ground and use flags to mark each one.” Almost half of the student wrote that they would search by GT. Searching by GT divided the large area into smaller, more workable units that the students were able to see clearly from one end to another. Since the entirety of the field was relatively small compared to the potential capacity of the field (the field exercise used 1/9 of the field application’s size), the GTs might not be so effective in a larger area. Considerations must also be taken for the field being broken up into three GTs, each type occurring once in the field. If the GTs were scattered across the field in multiple patches, searching by ground types might also prove to produce different results.

map Each group was assigned a different treatment using a laptop with a birds-eye view of the field. This map (M) displayed the static field, the real-time position in the field, and a trace indicating the groups’ path as they traversed the field. As one of the students wrote: “Since the computer had a map you could make sure that there was a (dot) in every part of the field.” Only two students mentioned using the map, both being in a trace treatment group. Since only trace treatment students wrote about or drew pictures of the trace and map, one might guess that only this treatment actually aided the students in their field traversals.

careful counting Half of the students wrote about careful counting (CC) as part of their strategy to obtain an accurate count. The students either described their meticulous philosophies: “they should go over the field again and count the mushrooms to make sure they didn’t miss any or they didn’t put two on one mushroom. They could count the field then they could count again”, or they described a repetitive procedure: “They could go around the field 5 times putting flags by the mushrooms”. This method was not included in the pre- or post-discussions, so the students were exercising their common sense.

visual sweep Finally, a few students wrote about using a visual sweep (VS) of an area to add accuracy to their counts. A VS is standing in one area and turning 360 degrees in either direction, eyeballing the area for any missed mushrooms. All the students that wrote about using this method also wrote about using flags to mark counted mushrooms, which allows the sweep to be performed. One student wrote: “first going into the sand area and counting the mushrooms and standing in the middle of the sand area and looking if there were any left” (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Student’s diagram of a visual sweep.

If a mushroom does not have a flag when the student is “turning”, they will mark it (as observed from the field performances). One student mentioned executing a VS after counting and flagging mushrooms in each area, which might only be effective for these smaller ground type areas.

maintain a chart/tally of results 25% of the students mentioned tallying or keeping a chart (MC) of their mushroom counts. This strategy was consistent with the pre-discussion where a chart was created (Figure 2) for the students’ to record their results as they explored the field. One student wrote, “One of the other people should tally what they found on the sand, the rock and the grass,” while another wrote, “They should use a chart that could help them count every day”.

(insert pix)

Figure 2: Sample of one group’s chart.

TREATMENT ANALYSIS

When the categorized results were reorganized into treatment groups (Figure 3), a pattern emerges. The only students to document using a map strategy were ones that had access to the real-time trace displaying the groups’ path. No other students in the other aided treatments (static and real-time position treatments) wrote about using their aids. This phenomenon suggests that the other treatments were not as effective in helping the students in their data-collection and did not affect their strategies. Flag marking (FM) was recorded most often and evenly across all treatments.

The visual sweep (VS) was equally distributed in each treatment, with one student documenting it in each. Since mention of VS was scattered among only three students it can be concluded that only the more-resourceful students in the class discovered this strategy. The post-test elicited the exact same response from the three students across the three treatments. Each wrote about using FM, GT, and VS.

Only the static and trace treatments had occurrences of documented careful counting (CC).

TREATMENT	STUDENT		FM	GT	M	CC	VS	MC
Static
		5	X	X			X
		7
		11	X	X		X		X
		15	X			X
		19	X	X		X
Real-time Position
		8	X	X			X
		14	X
		17	X
		20		X				X
Real-time Trace
		1			X
		2				X
		3	X		X	X
		9		X
		10	X			X
		12	X	X			X
		16	X	X
DNP*
		6	X					X
		13						X
		18	X					X
Treatment Unknown
		4	X	X		X

Figure 3: Diagram of results categorized by treatment. *DNP denotes did not participate.

The students who did not participate in the study also reflect results unique to their category. While they did not have the benefit of engaging in the actual study, they were involved in the pre- and post- discussions. While only two students in active groups wrote about using a chart or tally to record their results (MC), all three non-participating students described using MC to obtain an accurate mushroom count. This trend reflects the lasting impression the pre-discussion chart creation had on these students. Other strategies that might have been revealed to them during the field exploration (e.g. searching by ground type) were not present in their post-tests, however the emphasis of this basic data collection method was strongly ingrained in them. On the other hand, another counting strategy discussed, flag marking (FM) was predominantly documented across all treatments, including the non-participating students, so it can not be assumed that the MC method was de-emphasized because its discovery was not made during the field exploration, as the other strategies were. Nor can its lack of prominence be attributed to its non-use, because while every group utilized FM, each group also used MC. The only conclusion that may be made is the entertaining and visual quality FM versus MC. While MC was executed on regular sheets of paper on charts constructed by each group, FM was conducted in the VR environment on the ImmersaDesk.