Skip to main content

Table 1 Pre-test variables and significance test between both cohorts

From: Effectiveness of peer review as cooperative web-based learning method applied out-of-class in a role playing game: A case study by quasi-experimental approach

 

Criterion

Control Group

Experimental Group

Significance

(1) Biographic

(1.1) Number of participants

29

31

 

(1.2) Age

20.7 (2.30)

20.2 (1.33)

t(60) = 1.08;p = .284 (n.s)

(1.3) Gender (0 = masculine; 1 = feminine)

0.6 (.50)

0.7 (.54)

t(60) = −1.34; p = .185 (n.s.)

(1.4) Education (1 = excellent … .3 = intermediate)

2.2 (.58)

2.3 (.46)

t(60) = −.97; p = .338 (n.s.)

(1.5) Experience in Building Physics (0 = low; 1 = high)

0.24 (.34)

0.11 (.21)

t(60) = 1.8; p = .078 (n.s.)

(2) Motivation (1 = no … … 6 = yes)

(2.1) I am interested in Building Physics

4.52 (.96)

4.55 (.98)

t(60) = −.14; p = .981 (n.s.)

(2.2) I want to pass a good exam

4.24 (1.55)

4.63 (1.11)

t(60) = 1.13; p = .264 (n.s.)

(2.3) I preferably learn alone

3.77 (1.61)

4.42 (1.34)

t(60) = .72; p = .091 (n.s.)

(2.4) If necessary I ask colleagues for help

3.58 (1.31)

3.44 (1.20)

t(60) = −.46; p = .650 (n.s.)

(2.5) I am rather interested in theoretical input

2.94 (1.26)

3.19 (1.56)

t(60) = .72; p = .477 (n.s.)

(2.6) The use of software is important to me

3.34 (1.42)

3.94 (.99)

t(60) = .88; p = .382 (n.s.)

(2.7) If necessary I will engage more in this lecture

3.21 (1.35)

3.92 (1.17)

t(60) = 2.21; p = .061 (n.s.)

  1. (n.)s. = (not) significant for p ≤ .05; values are means, numbers in brackets indicate standard deviation