2 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2016
    1. Students who were part of the experimental group (35.41%, N = 7) performed worse than their peers (38.54%, N = 43) onthe pre-test. On the post-test students who participated in collaborative note-taking did significantly better (72.49%) than their peers (64.17%). Presumably this means that the students who participated in the study had lower levels of baseline knowledge at the outset, but they had a more robust level of knowledge by the end of the class and the experiment than did their peers who had taken notes individually. The difference of 8.28% is strikingly similar to the difference in grades. As the results indicate, these are difficult tests for students. The experimental group did not just perform almost a letter grade better in grades; they also performed almost a letter grade better on the pre/post tests

      Pre-post tests showed better gains (again by about 8%) for collaborative note-takers than for students who did not take notes collaboratively.

    2. Table 2 shows that the average grade across all classes and groups (experimental and control) was 72.02%. Students in the experimental group had an average grade of 79.66%, while the control group average was a 71.87% (a difference of 7.79%). Students who participated in collaborative notes performed nearly a single letter grade better than did their peers in the same classes. The ANOVA result found significance at the .01 level (F = 5.47, p < 0.01). Further, Bartlett’s test for equal variance returned a non-significant value, indicating a reliable ANOVA model. It is possible to say there was a statistically significant difference between the control group and the experimental group.

      Students who took notes collaborative scored nearly 8% higher on their course grades than students who did not.