| Literature DB >> 33228097 |
Nicolás Julio Bores-Calle1, Ana Escudero2, Daniel Bores-García3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Fostering student's map reading skills, specifically understanding contour lines, is a challenging area of the Physical Education curriculum.Entities:
Keywords: contour lines; orienteering; secondary education; teaching interventions; theoretical contents
Year: 2020 PMID: 33228097 PMCID: PMC7720116 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228599
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Sample characteristics as a function of the intervention type.
| Characteristics | TI-1 | TI-2 | AC | PC-1 | PC-2 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of classes randomly assigned | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | |
| N total (students) | 48 | 76 | 27 | 52 | 35 | |
| Gender | Girls | 24 | 32 | 15 | 25 | 16 |
| Mean age (y.o.) | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.1 | 13.2 | |
Note: TI-1: theorical content integrated into practice; TI-2: theorical session; AC: active control; PC-1: passive control; PC-2: second passive control, with data collected one year later than the rest.
Figure 1Selection of items from the final evaluation test (post-test).
Figure 2Selection of images shown to participants in TI-1 (a) and TI-2 (b).
Means and standard deviations of preliminary analyses: Correct responses in the pre- and post-test as a function of gender, presentation order, and intervention type.
| Variable | Moment of Evaluation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pre-Test | Post-Test | |||||||
|
|
|
| IQR |
|
|
| IQR | |
| Gender | ||||||||
| Boys | 116 | 0.19 | 0.19 | [0.00–0.73] | 114 | 0.48 | 0.18 | [0.00–0.87] |
| Girls | 107 | 0.20 | 0.22 | [0.00–1] | 103 | 0.49 | 0.21 | [0.03–0.90] |
| Presentation order | ||||||||
| 1 | 90 | 0.22 | 0.21 | [0.17–0.26] | 63 | 0.47 | 0.20 | [0.42–0.52] |
| 2 | 82 | 0.18 | 0.20 | [0.14–0.23] | 67 | 0.46 | 0.21 | [0.41–0.51] |
| 3 | 51 | 0.19 | 0.19 | [0.13–0.24] | 45 | 0.54 | 0.19 | [0.48–0.60] |
| 4 | - | - | - | 42 | 0.50 | 0.16 | [0.45–0.55] | |
| Intervention type | ||||||||
| TI-1 | 48 | 0.20 | 0.20 | [0.14–0.26] | - | - | - | - |
| TI-2 | 67 | 0.24 | 0.19 | [0.20–0.29] | - | - | - | - |
| AC | 27 | 0.18 | 0.23 | [0.09–0.26] | - | - | - | - |
| PC-1 | 46 | 0.15 | 0.18 | [0.10–0.20] | - | - | - | - |
| PC-2 | 35 | 0.19 | 0.24 | [0.11–0.27] | - | - | - | - |
Note: TI-1: theorical content integrated into practice; TI-2: theorical session; AC: active control; PC-1: passive control; PC-2: second passive control, with data collected one year later than the rest. n: sample size; M: mean score (of correct responses); SD: standard deviation; IQR: interquartile range 95% confidence interval.
Figure 3Interaction Type of Intervention x Moment of Evaluation.
Results of paired samples t tests examining the difference between participants’ performance in pre- and post-test as a function of the type of intervention.
| Intervention Type |
| Student’s | df |
| 95% CI | Cohen’s | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TI-1 | 46 | 0.20 (0.20) | 0.58 (0.17) | −14.65 | 45 | <0.001 | [−0.44, −0.33] | 2.02 |
| TI-2 | 64 | 0.25 (0.19) | 0.55 (0.15) | −12.191 | 63 | <0.001 | [−0.36, −0.26] | 1.784 |
| AC | 25 | 0.19 (0.23) | 0.51 (0.17) | −10.488 | 24 | <0.001 | [−0.38, −0.25] | 1.581 |
| PC-1 | 42 | 0.13 (0.17) | 0.41 (0.16) | −10.456 | 41 | <0.001 | [−0.33, −0.22] | 1.659 |
| PC-2 | 25 | 0.24 (0.26) | 0.26 (0.21) | −0.552 | 24 | 0.586 | [−0.11, −0.06] | 0.095 |
Note: TI-1: theorical content integrated into practice; TI-2: theorical session; AC: active control; PC-1: passive control; PC-2: second passive control, with data collected one year later than the rest. n: sample size; Mscore: mean score (of correct responses); SD: standard deviation df: degrees of freedom; p: p value; 95% CI: 95% confidence interval.
Figure 4Percentage of participants, as a function of intervention type, who correctly responded to either easy or difficult items in the post-test.