Noah Heilveil
Technical Artist ♦ Environment Artist
Experiment Findings
Of course, following trials comes interpreting data.
- All participants took post-test.
- 20 points or Higher indicates a positive disposition towards specified critical thinking index
-16-18 indicate a moderate to weak disposition towards specified critical thinking index
-13-15 indicates no disposition towards specified critical thinking index
->13 indicates an oppositional disposition towards specified critical thinking index
In a combined total of all indices, participants were required to score 130 or more on the post-test to indicate a positive disposition towards critical thinking.
- Several participants that did not reach 130 were approaching a positive disposition
- There was an almost even split between experiment and control groups. Indicating a similar degree in efficacy in improving disposition towards critical thinking regardless of whether participants completed standard critical thinking exercises or completed a session with the design artifact.
- 30% participants admitted to limited gaming experience. Participants who are less familiar with video games may struggle initially with the artifact creating additional learning hurdles.
Experimental Limitations
Experiment Group Disposition by Metric (scroll for each)
I would be remiss to not mention the limitations of the study
- The limited trial size leads to limited statistically relevancy
- Some trials were conducted remotely, but still under observation, though separation from proctor may have factored into difficulties with either control or experiment groups
- CCTDI is limited to Doctoral thesis, in order to construct the surveys I used questions provided from Facione’s work developing the tool.
- Several bugs occurred during gameplay, that while not the intended experience did provide an engaging emergent opportunity to observe participant problem-solving skills.
- Failure to fully execute on the art vision to enhance the technical delivery.
While the trial size does not lend itself to validation through statistical analysis, it is still useful for recognizing patterns more clearly than pretty colored boxes.
It further proves with 70% confidence that this is a valid tool for exercising critical thinking. While it may not be more impactful than control trials and existing exercises, it is likely comparable in providing value by diversifying the options available to learners with differing needs.
(Facione, 1995)
As concerning as these figure may be, I would call our attention towards that earlier 2018 Hart Research Associated conducted employer survey of 501 business executives.
In that study it was found that only 34% of college graduates arrive well prepared in critical thinking according to executives and hiring managers.
Even when Peter Facione was designing the CCTDI in 1995 only 13% of 587 college freshman surveyed indicated a positive disposition on all seven metrics. "Only 13% of these 587 new college students were positive on all seven CT dispositional sales of the CCTDI. The other 87 percent were disposed against at least one of the seven aspects... (Facione, 1995)." This indicates that there may be a generally lower trend towards critical thinking disposition than educators aspire to see.