Friday, 14 March 2008
Week 25 Journal
Week 25
14/03/08
This week has once again concentrated on the statistical analysis of our results. On Tuesday a meeting with Steve Manning was held. I found this to be a very useful meeting as Steve went into more detail as to why we should use the statistical methods that we have chosen. This meeting helped me gain a greater understanding of statistical analysis.
On Wednesday I showed the new structure of the final team document to Amanda and Claire. They seemed happier with the new structure and this now allowed the team to go away and plan their own sections. In the afternoon I assisted the team with making the graphs of our results, to show the supervisors on Thursday. Once we had all the graphs together I made sure that I understood what each one was showing.
Thursday’s Supervisors meeting went well with us showing the graphs and explaining to the supervisors what they all meant and how our conclusions from them can be back up from our statistical analysis. The supervisors gave us all feedback on the graphs, and some interesting questions were raised, such as can SAM be used to measure other emotional responses when playing games.
On Thursday I assisted the team by helping Nick and Phill plan out their sections for the final team report, which is to be written over the Easter break.
I feel that this week has been quite successful as the statistical analysis has shown that most of our data is significant, and with the meeting with Steve Manning it allowed me to see that the data was correct and now the team can go and write about our data in the final team report.
Saturday, 8 March 2008
Week 24 Journal
Week 24
07/03/08
The beginning of the week started with me looking through the final team report with Nick, concerns were raised that we felt the document is not written in the correct style but we decided to wait till Wednesday to get feedback from Claire Brierley and Amanda Dewhurst on our first draft.
On Tuesday we continued with testing, after testing around six participants, a team meeting took place to decide that testing should stop to concentrate on the analysis of results, as we knew that analysis of the results would be a hard task using statistical analysis.
On Wednesday a first draft of the final team report was given to Claire Brierley and Amanda Dewhurst, they then gave feedback and confirmed what I had already suspected, that it was written in the wrong style. They gave advice on each section, and for my own section (Evaluation approach) they advised that a flow chart of the testing procedure would look better then a paragraph of writing. I now have a better understanding of what is now needed in the document; one problem was referencing what the team member, but that is no longer needed. So rewriting my section should be a lot easier. From this meeting I went a formed a new structure for the final team document be written in. This will be shown in next Wednesday’s lesson.
On Wednesday afternoon, the team started the analysis of the testing results. This allowed me to start looking at the different method of statistical analysis that Phill had already started looking at.
On Thursday a meeting took place with Dr. John Charlton. This meeting proved very useful as it allowed him to explain the tests that we should use to analyse our test results. He suggested that we use the Wilcoxon signed ranks test to measure the Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance values and the paired T-test to measure the average heart rates. He showed the team how to do these tests in SPSS.
Early indications are showing some good results, and these will be concentrated on next week, before the break for Easter.
07/03/08
The beginning of the week started with me looking through the final team report with Nick, concerns were raised that we felt the document is not written in the correct style but we decided to wait till Wednesday to get feedback from Claire Brierley and Amanda Dewhurst on our first draft.
On Tuesday we continued with testing, after testing around six participants, a team meeting took place to decide that testing should stop to concentrate on the analysis of results, as we knew that analysis of the results would be a hard task using statistical analysis.
On Wednesday a first draft of the final team report was given to Claire Brierley and Amanda Dewhurst, they then gave feedback and confirmed what I had already suspected, that it was written in the wrong style. They gave advice on each section, and for my own section (Evaluation approach) they advised that a flow chart of the testing procedure would look better then a paragraph of writing. I now have a better understanding of what is now needed in the document; one problem was referencing what the team member, but that is no longer needed. So rewriting my section should be a lot easier. From this meeting I went a formed a new structure for the final team document be written in. This will be shown in next Wednesday’s lesson.
On Wednesday afternoon, the team started the analysis of the testing results. This allowed me to start looking at the different method of statistical analysis that Phill had already started looking at.
On Thursday a meeting took place with Dr. John Charlton. This meeting proved very useful as it allowed him to explain the tests that we should use to analyse our test results. He suggested that we use the Wilcoxon signed ranks test to measure the Pleasure-Arousal-Dominance values and the paired T-test to measure the average heart rates. He showed the team how to do these tests in SPSS.
Early indications are showing some good results, and these will be concentrated on next week, before the break for Easter.
Saturday, 1 March 2008
Week 23 Journal
Week 23
01/03/08
This week has been split into two different parts. The first part was writing the Final Team Report. The first thing I did was complete a second draft of my section for the team report. I worked on the parts that had been highlighted by the editor (Nick) and rewrote them, so that they stayed within the style of the document. Later on in the week, I worked with Nick to amend the Implementation section. As my role of secondary editor I read through this section first before it went to Nick. After reading through the first draft, I came up with some of my own ideas and discussed these with Nick. These ideas were then incorporated into the document. Nick and I then went through the whole document to get it ready to hand into Claire Brierley and Amanda Dewhurst as a first draft.
The second part of the week was spent testing the artefact. During this time I tested many participants as well as helping the team to find students to take part.
Next week, I will continue to help Nick get the final team report ready to hand in, and continue to help the team with testing the level artefact.
01/03/08
This week has been split into two different parts. The first part was writing the Final Team Report. The first thing I did was complete a second draft of my section for the team report. I worked on the parts that had been highlighted by the editor (Nick) and rewrote them, so that they stayed within the style of the document. Later on in the week, I worked with Nick to amend the Implementation section. As my role of secondary editor I read through this section first before it went to Nick. After reading through the first draft, I came up with some of my own ideas and discussed these with Nick. These ideas were then incorporated into the document. Nick and I then went through the whole document to get it ready to hand into Claire Brierley and Amanda Dewhurst as a first draft.
The second part of the week was spent testing the artefact. During this time I tested many participants as well as helping the team to find students to take part.
Next week, I will continue to help Nick get the final team report ready to hand in, and continue to help the team with testing the level artefact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)