1. 4/28/20151 Group D Solomon Four-Group Design Group D Team Mirae Grant Karen Schubert Renee Kirkland Roxanne Sylvester Walden University Designing and Assessing Learning Experience EDUC 8103

2. 4/28/20152 Introduction graphic imagery training program increased skills in graphic image-making, writing, and verbal fluency when independent and dependent variables are Bottrell (2009) performed quasi-experimental research using Solomon Four-Group design to determine if participants in a graphic imagery training program increased skills in graphic image-making, writing, and verbal fluency when independent and dependent variables are measured. measured. Bottrell, C. (2009). Quasi-experimental classroom research in young children's cognition. International Journal of Learning, 16( 6 ), 265-280. Retrieved from EBSCO host.

3. 4/28/20153 Solomon Four Group Solomon Four -Group Design is a technique used to control groups. Participants are randomly selected and assigned to four different groups for observation and/or treatment in a classroom environment Solomon Four -Group Design is a technique used to control groups. Participants are randomly selected and assigned to four different groups for observation and/or treatment in a classroom environment

4. 4/28/20154 Design Type Solomon Four-group design was suitable for researchers to test three hypotheses: Solomon Four-group design was suitable for researchers to test three hypotheses: –Statistical difference between the scores on the Graphic Imagery Attributes Test (GIAT), –The Verbal Fluency Test (VFT), –The Graphic Writing Test (GWT) of students participating in Graphic Imagery Skills Training program and student who did not.

5. 4/28/20155 Rationale The rationale was to determine if students participating in a graphic imagery skills training program would show improvement in their skills in graphic image-making, graphic writing, and verbal fluency. The rationale was to determine if students participating in a graphic imagery skills training program would show improvement in their skills in graphic image-making, graphic writing, and verbal fluency.

6. 4/28/20156 Ethical Considerations Confidentiality: ensuring confidentiality of pretest and posttest scores for the participants to see if the treatment changed the scores from the pretest to the posttest. Informed Consent: obtaining informed consent from participants’ parents, and protecting participants from harm from the treatment and the control group is an ethical obligation.

7. 4/28/20157 Descriptive Statistics Tables were used to show results of the data analysis for the following effects Tables were used to show results of the data analysis for the following effects –History/maturation effects –Pre-testing effect –Interaction effect –Change scores

8. 4/28/20158 Statistical Tables Number of Subjects Number of Subjects Means Means Standard Deviation Standard Deviation

9. 4/28/20159 Inferential Statistics Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test: used to analyze the data from the GWT, VFT, and GIAT test to assume that the population had a normal distribution, which was not proven for the GIAT scores. Kolmogorov-Smirnoff test: used to analyze the data from the GWT, VFT, and GIAT test to assume that the population had a normal distribution, which was not proven for the GIAT scores.

10. 4/28/201510 Inferential Statistics Cont’d t-Test Independent Samples: used to determine effects involving the length of time required to give treatment to the participants, as well as the maturity of the participants. t-Test Independent Samples: used to determine effects involving the length of time required to give treatment to the participants, as well as the maturity of the participants. Mann-Whitney U test: used to determine how the pre-test could impact post-test scores. Mann-Whitney U test: used to determine how the pre-test could impact post-test scores.

11. 4/28/201511 Summarizing Results Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the pre-test scores and the post-test scores of children who had received the treatment, and those who did not, for all three tests (GWT, GVT, and GIAT). Statistical analysis showed no significant differences between the pre-test scores and the post-test scores of children who had received the treatment, and those who did not, for all three tests (GWT, GVT, and GIAT). Noticeable weaknesses in the research design called for future studies to improve the study, such as duration and level of treatment. Noticeable weaknesses in the research design called for future studies to improve the study, such as duration and level of treatment.

12. 4/28/201512 Validating Results Measurement validity - use of mean and standard deviation Measurement validity - use of mean and standard deviation Generalizability - supported by Mann-U Whitney test Generalizability - supported by Mann-U Whitney test Causal Validity - use of t-test independent samples Causal Validity - use of t-test independent samples

13. 4/28/201513 Synthesizing Results Synthesizing the information involves asking questions to construct the research. Synthesizing the information involves asking questions to construct the research. –Bottrell (2009) scrutinized the research structure and identified flaws in the research design that needed further investigation (p. 279).

14. 4/28/201514 Synthesizing Results Cont’d of using the Solomon Four-Group design: the information could be generalized to the larger population, which works well when using small groups Advantage of using the Solomon Four-Group design: the information could be generalized to the larger population, which works well when using small groups using the Solomon Four Group design: the duration of the treatment groups, pre-test effects, and the effectiveness of the GIAT instrumentation. Disadvantage of using the Solomon Four Group design: the duration of the treatment groups, pre-test effects, and the effectiveness of the GIAT instrumentation.

15. 4/28/201515 Conclusion Data analysis for all three tests showed no significant differences between the pre-test scores and the post-test scores for both treatment and non-treatment groups Data analysis for all three tests showed no significant differences between the pre-test scores and the post-test scores for both treatment and non-treatment groups

16. 4/28/201516 References Bottrell, C. (2009). Quasi-experimental classroom research in young children's cognition. International Journal of Learning, 16(6), p. 265- 280. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Bottrell, C. (2009). Quasi-experimental classroom research in young children's cognition. International Journal of Learning, 16(6), p. 265- 280. Retrieved from EBSCOhost. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: from theory to practice. In Experimental Research (pp. 177-207). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lodico, M. G., Spaulding, D. T., & Voegtle, K. H. (2010). Methods in educational research: from theory to practice. In Experimental Research (pp. 177-207). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Long, N. (n.d.). Consuming research. Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc. Long, N. (n.d.). Consuming research. Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc.Consuming researchConsuming research Mills, G. E. (2002). Action Research: a guide for the teacher researcher (pp. 159-175). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hill. Mills, G. E. (2002). Action Research: a guide for the teacher researcher (pp. 159-175). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hill. Statistics Solutions. (2011). Mann-Whitney U Test. Retrieved from http://www.statisticssolutions.com/resources/directory-of-statistical- analyses/mann-whitney-u-test Statistics Solutions. (2011). Mann-Whitney U Test. Retrieved from http://www.statisticssolutions.com/resources/directory-of-statistical- analyses/mann-whitney-u-test http://www.statisticssolutions.com/resources/directory-of-statistical- analyses/mann-whitney-u-test http://www.statisticssolutions.com/resources/directory-of-statistical- analyses/mann-whitney-u-test