Page 202

AD ALTA

JOURNAL OF INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

semantic differential, 6 of which measure the evaluation factor
and 9 the energy factor. Each assessed concept was submitted on
a separate record sheet. Choosing a point on the scale the
subjects of the experiment indicated the degree of properties
expressed by the particular pair of adjectives. Numerical values
1 to 7 were assigned to individual points on the scale. In order to
avoid stereotypical assessment in scales, some scales were
presented in the so-called reverse form and in the record sheet
were marked by an asterisk (Chráska, 2007). It was quite
difficult to choose a certain range of relevant adjectives
applicable to several terms. The original list of 50 scales of
semantic differential according to C. Osgood from 1958
presented by Chráska (2007, p. 225) was helpful. In this paper
we offer an analysis of students' attitudes to one concept (or
object) – a seminar, i.e. that students evaluated the course of the
teaching process aimed at developing of critical and moral
thinking after the experiment had finished.

3.2 Participants

The selected sample of this study consisted of three balanced
groups of 2nd year teacher students of the bachelor's degree at
the University of Prešov in Prešov (one-way ANOVA results - p
= 0.889). There were 21 students in the control group who were
taught in traditional way. Experimental group 1 (EG – n = 21)
and experimental group 2 (EG – n = 20) included a programme
for the development of critical and moral thinking.

3.3 Procedures

The experiment was carried out during 13 weeks of the summer
semester in three subjects. The lectures were presented in
traditional way. During the seminars, the control group
proceeded in the classic usual way. The group was taught by a
teacher who followed exactly the previous customs (according to
the information sheets of study subjects). The experimental
groups completed a programme for the development of critical
and moral thinking (3 hours and week). The teaching during the
seminars was provided by a trained teacher who prepared the
programme and who also mastered the difference between
classical and innovative teaching in the given subjects very well.

In addition to demanding testing of the entry level of critical
and moral thinking, students were presented with moral
dilemmas, e.g. solving socio-cultural aspects of education - the
problem of integrating a classmate of another culture into the
school staff, testing and relatively possible cheating of a student
during an online conference, etc. Part of the preparation for the
seminar lessons was the study of the theoretical anchoring of the
problem and the possibility of its solution. One topic was set
each week. In the integrated way of developing critical
and moral thinking, we used active methodologies: case
stimulation, case studies, workshops with ethical dilemmas,
realistic simulation, various model situations.

3.4 Statistical methods

We used one-way ANOVA (conditions are met, the dependent
variable is at least interval, the approximately normal
distribution, the selection is random and independent and
the homogeneity of the variances is preserved). For descriptive
characteristics, we present the number of subjects of individual
groups (n), mean (M) and standard deviation (SD). The
Benferroni post hoc test was used to determine statistically
significant differences.

4 Research results and discussion

The semantic differential is one of the effective methods used to
find out the views involved in the research.

4.1 Results of opinions of subjects of experimental groups

The two-factor semantic differential record sheet contained 15
pairs of adjectives. At the end of the experiment students
evaluated the course of the teaching process focused on the

development of critical and moral thinking using a 7-point
scale. In Table 1 we present the findings on the term of seminar.

Tab. 1 Perception of the term Seminar in groups of experiments
– evaluation factor

CG – control group (n = 21); EG1 – experimental group 1 (n = 21); EG2 –

experimental group 2 (n = 21)

A pair of adjectives

EG1

EG2

bad / good

4,76

1,23

6,66

0,56

6,70

0,45

unpleasant / pleasant

4,00

1,02

6,66

0,56

6,45

0,66

weak / strong

4,66

1,39

4,90

1,10

4,85

1,15

tense / relaxed

5,00

1,06

6,47

0,73

5,85

1,58

uninteresting /

interesting

5,23

1,44

6,66

0,56

6,50

0,50

ugly / nice

5,19

1,43

6,38

0,72

6,55

0,58

Gross score

4,80

0,90

6,29

0,35

6,15

0,47

Key: n – number; M – average; SD – standard deviation

The evaluation factor (Table 1) indicates that the perception of
the term "Seminar" in the control group (M = 4.80; SD = 0.90)
differs from experimental group 1 (M = 6.29; SD = 0, 35)
and experimental group 2 (M = 6.15; SD = 0.47). Experimental
groups evaluated seminar classes focused on the development of
moral and critical thinking more positively. They evaluated the
innovative way of teaching as better, more pleasant, stronger,
with a relaxed atmosphere, more interesting and nicer. The most
positive average rating was given by EG1. The control group
evaluated traditional teaching more negatively.

The average values in the semantic space of the term "Seminar"
in terms of energy factor are shown in Tab. 2.

Tab. 2 Perception of the term Seminar in groups of experiments -
energy factor

CG – control group (n = 21); EG1 – experimental group 1 (n = 21); EG2 –

experimental group 2 (n = 21)

A pair of

adjectives

ES1

ES2

undemanding /

demanding

3,19

1,36

4,85

1,20

4,25

1,57

moderate / strict

3,61

1,09

3,61

1,21

4,40

1,42

easy / difficult

4,04

1,29

3,66

1,24

4,05

1,24

passive / active

3,66

1,61

6,71

0,54

6,30

1,18

unproblematic/p

roblematic

3,33

1,42

3,04

1,17

2,80

1,91

worthless /

valuable

5,33

1,28

6,33

0,94

5,90

1,75

quiet / loud

3,90

1,63

4,76

0,97

4,65

1,62

short / long

4,09

1,34

4,00

0,92

4,20

1,32

ineffective /

effective

5,90

0,92

6,19

0,79

5,80

1,07

Gross score

4,12

0,68

4,79

0,43

4,70

0,57

Key: n – number; M – average; SD – standard deviation

The term "Seminar", in terms of the perception of experimental
groups, is in close proximity, which means that it is perceived
similarly in experimental groups. Experimental groups rated the
energy factor in ‘during the innovative seminar classes
higher. They considered the seminar for the development of
moral and critical thinking in terms of energy to be more
demanding, stricter, more difficult, much more active, less
problematic, more valuable, a little louder, shorter. Overall, the
highest average score was achieved by EG1 (M = 4.79, SD =
0.43) and slightly lower average by ES2 (M = 4.70, SD =
0.57). The traditional teaching of the control group was
evaluated on average M = 4.12 (SD = 0.68).

4.2 Discussion of the findings

We compared the results of the perception of the term "Seminar"
in individual groups in both the energy factor and the evaluation
factor. We used one-step analysis of variance. The results are
shown in Table 3 and Table 4.

- 202 -