Technology for Better Results and Comparative Analysis of EDPA and FDPA - Article Example

Technology for better results and a comparative analysis of EDPA and FDPA Introduction: In modern time, education is not only the stepping stone forthe future and knowledge but at the same time many parents consider this as the most important thing to get success and well established in the future professional life. Based on the marks scored in the examination the level of education or knowledge has been analyzed in every field. Scoring high marks is the only way by which students can establish that their knowledge is at the top level and they are ready to face the challenge of the modern competitive world. Apart from the normal day to day school or college, to score well in the examination, students are now taking the help of private tuitions, specialized coaching centers as well as in modern times some software as well which are designed to evaluate the answers of the students based on their study materials and helping them to figure out where they stands before the examination. Topic of Discussion:The main question of this paper is how important is additional drill or technology for the better results in the examination. At the same time the paper is also give a comparative study of two offline technology namely EDPA and FDP and analyze based on a survey which one is better for the students. How Students can score good score in examination? The school and college level exams bring a big pressure for the students as well as their parents also. The research has shown that the pressure of examination or weight of scoring high marks in examination always generate some anxietymind and in the heart of the student. To overcome those there are number of new theories in the present education system. Mainly the technology has changed the way students used to prepare themselves for studies and examination. The current trend of education is more or less based on one common idea and that is the last mistake is the best teacher of the student. From the early part of 1990s, the “constructivist revolution” as mentioned by Mayer (2004) has brought new conceptions of learning and the demand for life-long learning is omnipresent. To prepare students for better future as well as making them well equipped with the future corporate challenges, various educational institutes are now changing their tactics from vocational training to supervisor-oriented approach and discovery learning approach. In both of these approaches, the main focus is on active as well as experiential learning as a base of practical learning mode. The detail about school setting or the teaching process is a key behind better results. According to Kirschner et.al (2006) unguided or minimum guidance approach in teaching is not as effective compared to that with the guided approach of education. Unguided approach is not so good because it is not considering characteristics like working memory or long term memory of the students. (Kirschner et.al, 2006). It is very clear from their review that guidance is important. In modern world, to score better marks one have to rely on one common idea and that is Practice makes people perfect. Kluge et.al (2009) in their review has mentioned that the psychological relevant mechanism associated with the training is key behind the success of any student in the examination. The more variety of questions students are able to answer in their buildup of examination the more is the chance of scoring good marks. Keith & Frese (2008) in their review has mentioned that, the more students able to face possible error the more perfect they will be. Error training can be considered as one of the great tool to get better results in the examination. In modern times technology plays a significant role in the education system. There are numerous methods by which technology can associated with the preparation for the students before their examinations. It is a proven fact that, with the help of technology, allowing students to identify their own mistakes or “allows students the freedom to discover solutions to problems both independently and collaboratively is a force for good.” (Britland, 2013) Fletcher (1996) in his review has clearly mentioned that when any individual goes to any store to purchase any kind of drill. The actual need is to buy or create the holes. As the shop cannot sale the whole to the customer, the sale the drills or set of drills which helps the individual to create that holes. Likewise, “We must not lose sight that technology for the most part is a tool and it should be used in applications which address educational concerns “(Fletcher, 1996, p. 87) Okojie et al. (2005) in their review has mentioned that school’s administrative board often makedecisions regarding implementation of technology without referring teachers who will assimilate technology into instructional procedure. Generally teachers are in a better position to analyze which kind of technology will suit the students with whom they are associated with. Generally teachers want technology as a supporting tool to identify the weaknesses of the students more easily without taking any lengthy examination. So in modern time, technology addition exercise becomes an all-purpose empathy of various hardware and software companies to get more close to the students who does not talk about specific learning problems nor locate the method by which knowledge can be used to improve instruction (Okojie et.al, 2005, p. 5). Pierson (2001) accepted that “society has comprised computer technology and permitted it to reinvent the ways in which we make, find, interchange, and even think about facts. We are Unable to overlook such extremelyinfusing innovation, school regions often bow to social pressure to fund technology without having a thoughtful plan for implementation” (Person, 2001, p. 413). Gunter (2002) argued that students learn computer skills in isolation of the curriculum structure. (Gunter, 2002) Topper (2005) believes that “for teachers to use technology in support of their teaching, and to see it as a pedagogically useful tool, they must be confident and competent with the technology they are planning to use “(Topper, 2005,p. 304). EDPA or FDPA: Both EDPA and FDPA are two of the most advanced drills that students can used to score good marks in the examination. There are some fundamental differences between these two operations. EDPA stands for editable drill and practice application, while FDPA is fixed drill and practice application. Both applications are offline types, built for Windows based computers and can even run from a pen drive. The main difference between the two is EDPA had no pre-inserted items but requires students to enter their own questions and answers while FDPA had pre-inserted items but no item editing features. From this review it is very clear that in EDPA students can set their own question and after giving answers to those questions can review the standards of those answers whereas in FDPZ there are some fixed question in built and as there are no editing option so students can not change those questions or cannot evaluate their answers based on new questions. The review was carried out between 151 students of University Utara Malaysia, among two different subjects namely Cognitive Sciences and Ethics. Following are the results of those experiments of how both the applications have performed. In Semestar 1, total 30 students have taken the help of FDPA application where as in case of EDPA; the number of students is 20. If one analyze the average marks obtain by all these 50 students, it is clear that those who have taken the application of EDPA have score better marks compared to those who are using FDPA. The average marks for both the applications are 56 for EDPA and 53 for FDPA. In case of Semestar 2, 48 students have use the application of EDPA where as the number in case of FDPA is 35 The average score obtain by the candidates using both of these applications is same in semestar 2 and the marks is 57. In Semestar 3, total number of students using FDPA is more compared to that of EDPA. There are 11 students who have used the drill of FDPA to review their preparation where as the number of students applied the application of EDPA is 7. Like the Semestar 1, in Semestar 3 also despite the number of students using the EDPA is less compared to that of the FDPA, but the average score obtain by the students who are using EDPA is more than that of the students who are using FDPA drill. The average scores are 56 for EDPA and 54 for FDPA. The above graphical representation gives some clear indication about the trend of both the drills. In case of EDPA, as students are able to enter the questions of their own choice, they can review their answers for various types of questions. For both the subjects, Cognitive Sciences and Ethics students are able to later the pattern of questions according to their own choices. Although this drill is a bit time taking compared to that of the FDPA, but still it gives better opportunity to the students to judge their preparation. Whereas, in case of FDPA as there are number of pre-defined questions so it takes comparatively lesser time to evaluate the standard of the answers or review one’s own performance. But, as there are no editing options therefore students are unable to check their answers going out of the box or review their answers for some unconventional questions. In an overall basis, number of students taken the help of FDPA is more than that of EDPA and from the trend one can only say that it is mainly due to availability of red questions thus this offline applications is less time consuming. Regression Analysis: Generally regression analysis is being done to compare the results of two different independent factors on any particular dependent one. In this case both EDPA and FDPA –two separate drills are two independents factors whereas the marks of the students are the dependent variable. Two analyze which one is better, here the regression analysis is based on a particular dummy and the analysis is being carried out to support the hypothesis of the paper and that is “there is something about EDPA which is better than FDPA. SUMMARY OUTPUT                                   Regression Statistics                 Multiple R 0.17373706               R Square 3.02E-02               Adjusted R Square 2.37E-02               Standard Error 5.77815714               Observations 151                                 ANOVA                   Df SS MS F Significance F       Regression 1 154.832039 154.832 4.637481 3.29E-02       Residual 149 4974.677895 33.3871           Total 150 5129.509934                                 Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% Lower 95.0% Upper 95.0% Intercept 52.8694737 1.484040808 35.62535 8.65E-75 49.93698954 55.8019578 49.9369895 55.8019578 Dummy (1-FDPA, 2-EDPA) 2.02526316 0.940460143 2.153481 3.29E-02 0.166901554 3.88362476 0.16690155 3.88362476 From the above table it is very clear that the P value is less than 0.05 which is a clear indication that the hypothesis that has been mentioned at the beginning of the paper is true and that is EDPA is better than FDPA. Like the P value the Coefficients figure is also positive in favor of EDPA. So based on this regression table, in which the FDPA is being considered as factor 1 and EDPA is factor 2 and also FDPA is the Dummy we can easily come to a conclusion that EDPA is a better drill for the students to score better marks in their examination compared to that of the FDPA. Conclusion: On the basis of above analysis and statistical review, it is very clear that technology is one the key behind the success of every individual in their examination. In modern time, to score better marks, technology is one of the best possible source to get prepare, and among the 2 mentioned processes (EDPA and FDPA) EDPA is comparatively better than that of FDPA. The main reason is EDPA can be alterable according to the choice of students so students can test their skills in various parameters. Generally technology increase the learning as well as teaching in three central ways, those are: By expanding the scope of classroom learning beyond the physical boundaries of classroom and increase exam preparation standard by enabling student to design variety of questions for their own evaluation. Technology can increase accessibility of, and meeting with, content and material It can enlarge the traditions or methods for students to demonstrate what they have learned before writing the examination. References Britland, M. (2013), How has technology transformed the role of a teacher?; The Guardian; accessed on 7.7.2014 from http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/jun/18/technology-transform-teaching-students-schools# Fletcher, G. (1996). Former director of the Division of Educational Technology, Texas Education Agency, Executive Vice President of T.H.E. Institute quoted in T.H.E. Journal, 24(4), p. 87. Gunter, S.C (2002). Integrating technology in the classroom; Canada: Thompson: Learning. Keith N, Frese M (2008) Effectiveness of error management training: a meta-analysis. J Appl Psychology; 93(1); pp. 59–69. Kirschner, P.A et.al; (2006); Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: an analysis of the failure of constructivist; discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Education Psychology; 41; pp. 75–86 Kluge, A. et.al; (2009); Designing Training for Process Control Simulators; A Review of Empirical Findings and Current Practices; Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science; 10(6); pp. 489-509. Mayer R.E; (2004); Should there be a three-strike rule against pure discovery learning? The case of guided methods of instruction. Am Psychol; 59; pp. 14–19 Okojie, M. et.al; (2005); The Pedagogy of Technology Integration; The Journal of Technology Studies. Pierson, M. (2001); Technology integration practice as a function of pedagogical experts; Journal of Research on Computing in Education; 33(5). Topper, A. (2004); How are we doing? Using self-assessment to measure changing teacher technology literacy within a graduate education technology program; 12(3); pp. 303-317. Read More