Table 2 Mean and standard deviation of responses to specific questions (maximum and minimum are 5 -strongly agree- and 1 -strongly disagree- respectively)
From: Turning a traditional teaching setting into a feedback-rich environment
CVEN30170 | CVEN40150 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Mean | St. Dev. | Mean | St. Dev. | |
Q1 - The new approach was efficient in allowing me to practice and retain material taught in lectures & test my knowledge on a continuous and promptly basis | 4.43 | 0.50 | 4.29 | 0.45 |
Q2 - Revising answers and my score let me reflect on the topic and made me aware of points that I failed to understand or that I needed to reinforce | 4.09 | 0.77 | 3.81 | 0.79 |
Q3 - Being informed of my performance in real-time made me want to work harder and to pay more attention to notes and to preceding lectures to improve my score | 4.56 | 0.58 | 4.29 | 0.82 |
Q4 - The alignment of all questions posed by the SRS to learning outcomes helped me to be aware of the concepts/skills that I need to achieve for the module | 3.96 | 0.75 | 4.09 | 0.61 |
Q5 - I believe it is a good idea to organise SRS questions and answers around a game theme | 4.22 | 0.72 | 4.43 | 0.79 |
Q6 - I found lectures to be more engaging with the use of a wireless-based SRS than without it | 4.61 | 0.49 | 4.24 | 0.53 |
Q7 - I feel my learning has been accelerated by the guided step-by-step questioning of SRS approach used here | 4.13 | 0.54 | 3.95 | 0.72 |
Q8 - Overall I would recommend the use of a wireless-based SRS approach in the future | 4.56 | 0.50 | 4.29 | 0.63 |