Page 106 - Razvoj kompetenc prihodnosti v pedagoških študijskih programih
P. 106

AndrejaŠpernjak inNikaŽidan


                  ulated similar tasks. Both versions shared identical storylines and cognitive
                  challenges. After completing the activity, students completed the question-
                  naire in class under teacher supervision. Teachers were invited to share their
                  qualitative observations via a short feedback form.

                  Data Analysis
                  Data was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics 29. Descriptive statistics (fre-
                  quencies, percentages, and mean values) were calculated to summarize stu-
                  dents’ responses. Chi-square tests were conducted to identify statistically
                  significant differences between the two groups (p <0.05).Open-endedre-
                  sponses were analyzed qualitatively to identify recurring themes related to
                  motivation and teamwork. Teachers’ feedback was used to triangulate quan-
                  titative findings and provide contextual interpretation.

                  Results
                  Table 1 shows the results of the students’ self-assessment of the degree of
                  repetition of the learning content, the knowledge acquired and the diffi-
                  culty according to the individual escape room format. The statements are
                  arranged in ascending order of p-values.
                    There are no statistically significant differences between the two groups in
                  the results listed in Table 1, depending on the individual implementation of
                  the escape room format. Both groups rated the level of difficulty as medium,
                  theirknowledgeasverygood,andmost believethat theywereableto repeat
                  the learning content very well with the escape room. These results suggest


            Table 1 Results of the Students’ Self-Assessment of the Degree of Repetition of Learning Content,
                   the Knowledge Acquired and the Level of Difficulty According to the Individual Escape
                   Room Format
             Question                    Frequences and percentages ()    χ 2    p
                                      ()     ()     ()     ()    ()
             How difficult the escape F   (.)   (.)   (.)  (.)   (.)  .  .
             room is?          V    (.)   (.)   (.)   (.)   (.)
             How you would rate  F   (.)   (.)   (.)  (.)   (.)  .  .
             your knowledge?   V    (.)   (.)   (.)  (.)   (.)
             To which extent you  F   (.)   (.)   (.)  (.)   (.)  .  .
             think you have re-  V    ()   (.)   (.)  (.)   (.)
             peated the learning
             content?
            Notes  (1) strongly disagree ... (5) strongly agree; F – physical version of the escape room, V – virtual
            version of the escape room.


                  106
   101   102   103   104   105   106   107   108   109   110   111