alagesandre.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web view1/12/2011 · course: evaluation of elearning...

Assessment Authenticity Confirmation

Name: Alages Andre, Tom Bowie, & Mark Vince

ID number: N/A

Course: Evaluation of eLearning for Effective Practice

Assessment: Collect, analyse and interpret data for the evaluation project. (Group assessment)

By submitting this document by email/assignment manager, we declare that the work submitted for assessment is all our own original work.

Submitted: 1 December 2011

Evaluation of eLearningfor Effective Practice

Assessment 2: Evaluation Report

By: Alages Andre, Tom Bowie and Mark Vince

1 December 2011

2

RESULTS

Table 1 presents an overview of how the findings will be reported in the sections below. The findings from the two groups of samples will be reported in relation to the evaluation questions using the samples’ responses elicited from the questionnaire and interview.

Table 1: An overview of the presentation of the findings

Samples Evaluation questions Data collection instruments / methods

1. Teacher users

Q1aQ1bQ2aQ2b

Questionnaire & Interview Questionnaire & Interview Questionnaire & Interview Questionnaire & Interview

2. Expert users

Q1aQ1bQ2aQ2b

Questionnaire & Interview Questionnaire & Interview Questionnaire & Interview Questionnaire & Interview

1. Teacher users

The responses of this group to the questionnaire (Appendix 1) and interview (Appendix 2) were used to answer the Evaluation questions below. Table 2 indicates the responses to the questionnaire and interview for Evaluation Question 1a.

Evaluation Question 1a

How the iLessonPlan helped Teacher users to develop their knowledge of the key components in Parts 1-3.

Table 2: Teacher users’ responses to the questionnaire and interview for Evaluation Question 1a

Evaluation Questions Sub-questionsQuestionnaire Responses to

questions

Interview Responses to

questions

1 Does the iLP help Teacher users to successfully develop their knowledge of lesson planning?

a) Does the iLP help them to successfully develop their knowledge of the key components in Parts 1-3?

Q1-4 Q1

3

Summary of Teacher users’ responses to the Questionnaire (Q1-4)

The findings indicate that of the six Teacher users, all understood clearly each of the key components of lesson planning in Parts 1-3. Also all understood clearly how to answer the questions for each of the key components in Parts 1-3.

Out of the six, four of them did not face any problems in understanding the key components in Parts 1- 3. This is exemplified in TU01’s response, ‘I found each part very simple to follow and having examples for each of the fields within the teaching plan made it easy to understand the fundamental requirements’. However, two users did face problems in responding to questions as stated below:

1. ‘The questions for filling in Nationality and Gender’ (TU03).2. ‘The learning outcomes on p.3 is limited to (1) the microskills and (2) outcomes.

a. ‘ We sometimes teach more than one skill in a class, e.g. speaking and listening together

b. The choices provided under each microskill are not comprehensive’ (TU04).

Four of the six Teacher users did not offer any suggestions to improve the iLP. Of the two who offered suggestions, one related to technical aspects in improving the iLP as in Appendix 3. The other related to using ‘a table to summarize each activity in a class with the specified column of 'skill', 'learning objectives/outcomes', 'interaction', 'time allocated' and 'resources' (TU04).

Summary of Teacher users’ responses to the Interview (Q1)

Five of the six users responded very favourably to the iLP helping them develop their knowledge of lesson planning. This is seen in the following comments:

1. ‘Extremely good’ (TU02).2. ‘Nicely sets out step by step what to do’ (TU03).3. ‘It helps me to think more thoroughly about planning the lesson. It helps teacher trainees to

plan a lesson’ (TU04).

Four of these users had a limited number of years teaching ESOL which ranged from 11/2 to 2 years as seen in Table 3. The data for this table was gathered from the ‘iLessonPlan Cover Sheet’ (Appendix 4). Only one user responded negatively by stating, ‘“Teaching grandma to suck eggs” (TU05). This was from a Teacher user who had taught ESOL for 17 years. As shown in Table 3, he was one of two users who had the highest number of years teaching experience. This point will be discussed further in the Discussion section.

Table 3: Teacher users - Total number of years teaching ESOL

TU01 TU02 TU03 TU04 TU05 TU06Computer Literacy

Assessed 1-5 5 1 3 4 3 3

1. Total no. of years teaching 0 20 10 6 53 25

2. Total no. of years teaching ESOL 0 1.5 1 2 17 20

To sum up, the findings from the questionnaire and interview appear to corroborate each other. They indicate that most of the Teacher users agreed that the iLP helped them to successfully develop their knowledge of the key components in Parts 1-3. Specifically all of them

4

understood clearly each of the key components of lesson planning in Parts 1-3. Also they understood clearly how to answer the questions for each of the key components in Parts 1-3. Moreover most of them did not encounter any problems in understanding the key components in Parts 1- 3. Finally most of them did not offer any suggestions to improve the iLP.

Evaluation Question 1b

How the iLessonPlan helped Teacher users to successfully develop their knowledge of the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1-3.

Table 4: Teacher users’ responses to the questionnaire and interview for Evaluation Question 1b


questions


questions

1 Does the iLP help Teacher users to successfully develop their knowledge of lesson planning?

b) Does the iLP help them to successfully develop their knowledge of the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1-3?

Q5-8 Q2

Summary of Teacher users’responses to the Questionnaire (Q5-8)

All the Teacher users found the organization of Parts 1-3 to be clear and they also found Parts 2-3 logical and easy to follow. There was an overwhelming response that there were no problems in following the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1- 3. While a user agreed, she commented she found the process time consuming.

Three of the six users expressed satisfaction with the existing structure and flow. Two users suggested improvements whereas one did not complete her response. One related to the user interface suggesting the addition of navigation buttons at the bottom of each page while the second suggested to follow more a flowchart layout as a mechanism to check the endpoint of the plan matched the learning outcomes. These are useful suggestions and do contribute to the design of the iLessonPlan. However, they don’t assist our understanding of how the iLP helps students to develop their knowledge of the structure and flow of a lesson.

Teacher users’ responses to the Interview (Q2)

The responses in the interview support that from the questionnaire. Five of the six users clearly indicated that the iLP helped to develop their knowledge of the structure and flow of a lesson.

Their comments were strongly favourable pointing out the step by step nature and guiding factors incorporated in the iLP. One of the responses felt it would definitely show you what to do if you didn’t know, while another considered it to be teaching things which were already well known. As TU01 commented,

5

‘The iLP puts your knowledge of structure and flow into perspective. For me it builds a structure which inturn creates the right flow to the lesson plan.In the absence of classroom contact, the iLP still maintains the fundamental requirements e.g. structure, process flow, guidelines and examples to assist with the content of an activity’.

These users had a combined ESOL teaching experience of 4.5 years as seen in Table 3 where the data was collated from the ‘iLessonPlan Cover Sheet’. The one negative comment was from the same Teacher user as in Q1a and this will be discussed in the Discussion.

To summarise the findings from the questionnaire support that from the interview. All the Teacher users seem to have found the organization of Parts 1-3 to be clear and Parts 2-3 logical and easy to follow. Most of them did not encounter problems in following the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1- 3. Three of the six users were satisfied with the existing structure and flow. Suggestions were made on further improvements to the iLP.


Teachers users’ opinions about the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, readability and other functions

Table 5: Teacher users’ responses to the Questionnaire and Interview for Evaluation Questions 2a

Evaluation Q Evaluation sub-QResponses to

questions in the Questionnaire

Responses to questions in the

Interview

2. What are the perceptions of users about the features and functions of the iLP?

a) What are users‟ opinions about the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, and readability?

Navigation Q 9-10, 12

Colour Q13-15, Readability Q17-19 Other functions -

Q11, 16

Q3 - 4

6

Summary of Teacher users’ responses to the Questionnaire

Navigation (Q 9-10, 12)

All the Teacher users found it easy to find their way around the iLP and felt they knew where they were at all times. They also found the content and screen instructions easy to locate. This seems to indicate that the iLP was easy to use and they felt confident navigating around it as shown in Chart 1.

Colour (Q13-15)All the users found the bright colours used for the navigation buttons made it easier for them to locate and use them. They also found the colour scheme i.e. black text against a white background helped them read the instructions. Five of the six users found that the consistent colour scheme on each page helped them keep track of what they were doing. The findings seem to indicate that the colour scheme used in the design of the iLP facilitated easily their use of the lesson planning tool as seen in Chart 2.

TU01 TU02 TU03 TU04 TU05 TU060

1

2

3

4

Chart 2: Teacher users’ responses to the Questionnaire for questions related to colour

Q13 The bright colours used for the navigation but -tons made it easier for me to find and use them.Q14 The consistent colour scheme on each page helped me keep track of what I was doing..Q15 The colour scheme ie black text against a white background helped me read the instructions.

7


1

2

3

4

Chart 1: Teacher users’ responses to the Questionnaire for questions related to navigation

Q9 How easy was to find your way around the iLP?Q10 Did you know where you were at all times while working on the iLP?Q12 The content and screen instructions were easy to locate.

Readability (Q17-19)All the users found dividing the content appropriately using panels helped them to read and understand the content. They also found the overview in Part 1 helped them anticipate what they were about to read in the rest of the iLP. Moreover they found the highlighted headings and subheading useful in scanning for information. This seems to show that the users found the content in the iLP to be readable as displayed in Chart 2.

8


1

2

3

4

Chart 3: Teacher users’ responses to the Questionnaire for questions related to readability

Q17 Dividing the content appropriately using panels helped me read and un-derstand the content.Q18 The overview in Part 1 helped me anticipate what I was about to read in the rest of the iLP.Q19 The higjhlighted head-ings and subheadings were useful in scanning for in-formation.

Other functions (Q11, 16)

All the teacher users found the drop down menu boxes in Part 3 helpful in providing definition for difficult terms such as language skills and language features. They also found the text boxes in Part 3 gave them enough space to write their responses to the questions. This appears to indicate that these functions facilitated the use of the iLP as shown in Chart 4.


1

2

3

4

Chart 4: Teacher users’ responses to the Questionnaire for questions related to other functions

Q11 I found the drop down menu boxes in Part 3 helpful in providing definition for difficult terms such as lan-guage skills and language fea-tures.Q16 The text boxes in Part 3 gave me enough space to write my responses....

To sum up, an overwhelming majority of the users were satisfied with the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, readability and other functions.

9

Summary of Teacher users’ responses to the Interview

Clarity of instructions in the iLP (Q3-4)

All the users seem to have understood what was required when using the iLP. They found the instructions explicit as seen in ‘It’s quite clear on the first page (i.e. intro), instructions are useful for the first time users’ (TU05). Also having examples to illustrate what was required in the response seem to have helped the users as in,

‘Teacher trainees will find this iLP extremely helpful in terms of what they need to focus on for each segment. It will definitely reduce that “uncertainty” of whether teacher trainees have applied the appropriate content applicable to each segment. For e.g the input and output, where do I put the input and the output’ (TU01).

Two of the six users were always clear on what to do. Two users wanted to plan their lesson on other aspects not included in the iLP. An example is ‘Heading referred to reading and I was doing writing’ (TU06). One user was unsure as to how to fill in the question on Gender and Nationality in Page 2 of the iLP. The last user faced problems in saving his responses to the questions and attributed this to lack of grunt in his computer.

Appeal of the iLP (Q5-6) Five of the users thought that using the iLP would help save them time in preparing a lesson. The caution was that you needed to get used to using it and as one said ‘It’s a slow down to speed up process’ (TU02). Though one of the users agreed it would be valuable for a young teacher, he said it lacked flexibility. Only one user disagreed as she found it ‘quite tedious and time-consuming’ (TU04).

Five of the six users agreed that the iLP would help them prepare a lesson they would be comfortable to teach. This is highlighted in,

‘Absolutely, this tool would be so advantageous for teachers in training, International teachers – teaching in english medium. This concept would be most helpful for students studying to be teachers at primary/secondary/tertiary level. As I’ve mentioned in Q3 I could quite easily develop a lesson plan and be confident that all the necessary learning/outcomes components are present’ (TU01).

Two of the users pointed out that the use of terms like ‘Learning Outcome Text type’ (TU06) and acronyms like ‘MCQS’ needed to be clarified. Also one of them found the repetition of Activity 1 and 2 ‘annoying’ (TU05).

Other suggestions (Q7)Two of the users made suggestions pertaining to content in the Teaching Plan and graphical user interface. These are found in Appendix 3.

In summary, the findings from the questionnaire and interview appear to show that most of the users were satisfied with the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, readability and other functions. They found it easy to navigate in the iLP. They found the colour scheme used in the design of the iLP facilitated easily their use of the lesson planning tool in terms of navigation and readability. Also employing panels to chunk content, overviews to anticipate content and highlighted headings and subheading to facilitate scanning was shown to be enhance readability. Other functions used were also shown to be helpful e.g. drop down menu boxes for difficult terms and text boxes for writing responses to questions.

11

Most of the users also found the instructions to be generally explicit. Also they felt using the iLP would help them save time preparing a lesson which they would be comfortable to teach. However, there were some issues and these dealt with macro and microskills, unclear questions, terms and acronymns used.

Evaluation Question 2b (Q20-25)

The appeal of the iLP to Teacher users

Table 6: Responses to the Questionnaire and Interview for Evaluation Questions 2b



Responses to questions in the

Interview

2. What are the perceptions of Teacher users about the features and functions of the iLP?

b) How appealing is the iLP to its users?

Q20-25 Q5-6

Summary of Teacher users’ responses to the Questionnaire

Five of the six users found in general the iLP was easy to use and they did not encounter any problems using it. This is seen in ‘Bold and very simple. I found the steps formed a clear direction in terms of what I needed to add...’ (TU01) and ‘It could be a useful tool and constant use could improve lesson plans (TU03). The one negative response was from a user who found it ‘too long’ (TU04).

Five of the six users also formed more positive than negative first impressions of the iLP. After using the iLP none of their impressions had changed. This is seen in one of their comments ‘... ultimately creates a better plan ergo learning envirnment. possible to still be a little creative without been constricted’ (TU02).

Four of the six users would likely use the iLP in the future whereas 2 would probably not. The four users offered several suggestions to improve the iLP. These focus on improving the presentation of content, including more features and functions and incorporating flexibility. This last point is illustrated in ‘… it would work for a beginning teacher but I wouldn't use it as an experienced teacher unless I could adjust it to my style of lesson planning. If this flexibility could be incorporated it would be a great improvement’ (TU03).

To sum up, the findings seem to indicate that most of the users responded favourably to the iLP. They were satisfied with the graphical user interface used and their positive impression did not diminish after using the iLP. Most would use it in the future and several offered suggestions on how to improve it further.

Summary of Teacher users’ responses to the Interview

Appeal of the iLP (Q5-6)

12

Five of the users thought that using the iLP would help save them time in preparing a lesson. The caution was that you needed to get used to using it and as one said ‘It’s a slow down to speed up process’ (TU02). Though one of the users agreed it would be valuable for a young teacher, he said it lacked flexibility. Only one user disagreed as she found it ‘quite tedious and time-consuming’ (TU04).

Five of the six users agreed that the iLP would help them prepare a lesson they would be comfortable to teach. This is highlighted in,

‘Absolutely, this tool would be so advantageous for teachers in training, International teachers – teaching in english medium. This concept would be most helpful for students studying to be teachers at primary/secondary/tertiary level. As I’ve mentioned in Q3 I could quite easily develop a lesson plan and be confident that all the necessary learning/outcomes components are present’ (TU01).

Two of the users pointed out that the use of terms like ‘Learning Outcome Text type’ (TU06) and acronyms like ‘MCQS’ needed to be clarified. Also one of them found the repetition of Activity 1 and 2 ‘annoying’ (TU05).

Other suggestions (Q7)Two of the users made suggestions pertaining to content in the Teaching Plan and graphical user interface. These are found in Appendix 3.

In summary, the findings from the questionnaire and interview appear to indicate that most of the users responded favourably to the iLP. They were satisfied with the graphical user interface and their positive impression did not diminish after using the iLP. Most would utilise it in the future and felt using it would be a time saving exercise. Also they felt they would be comfortable using it to plan their lessons. Some issues were faced and these revolved around terms and acronymns used.

13

2. Expert users

The responses of this group to the questionnaire (Appendix 5) and interview (Appendix 6) were used to answer the Evaluation questions below. Table indicates the responses to the questionnaire and interview for Evaluation Question 1a.


How the iLessonPlan helped Expert users to develop their knowledge of the key components in Parts 1-3.

Table 7: Expert users’ responses to the questionnaire and interview for Evaluation Question 1a


questions


questions

1 Does the iLP help Expert users to successfully develop their knowledge of lesson planning?

a) Does the iLP help them to successfully develop their knowledge of the key components in Parts 1-3?

Q1-4 Q1-2

Summary of Expert users’ responses to the Questionnaire (Q1-4)

The findings indicate that three Expert users understood clearly each of the key components of lesson planning in Parts 1-3. They also understood clearly how to answer the questions for each of the key components in Parts 1-3.

Two of the users faced problems. One was in relation to the rationale of the iLP but after explantion from the administrator of the questionnaire, she said it was ‘only a temporary glitsch’ (XU01). The other problems related to unclear instructions to the questions on Gender, Learning outcome and terms like ‘MCQ’ and ‘language productivity’ (XU03).

Two of the users did not have any suggestions to offer. However one of them implied that terms used in the iLP might be problematic and this would have been resolved as the trainee teachers would ‘have had terminology explained to them by the time they have to trial it’ (XU01). A suggestion was to introduce macro before micro-skills, ‘there should be reference to the main teaching focus of the lesson before going on to micro-skills. You have to deal with macro before micro.’ (XU03).

Summary of Expert users’ responses to the Interview (Q1-2)

Two of the three users agreed that the key components reflect the components in a lesson plan. One of them stated, ‘Yes they definitely cover any and all eventualities that might come up in a classroom situation’ (XU01). The user who disagreed commented that, ‘No – needs intial stage of general focus before micro-skills’. All the users commented that using the iLP helped them develop their knowledge of lesson planning as well as in helping them to plan for a lesson. This is seen in their comments as in ‘It gives logical method. Lots of ideas for variety’ (XU02) and ‘Helped to identify specific elements need to think about before a lesson so don’t go in unprepared (XU03).

To sum up, the findings from the questionnaire and interview appear to support each other. They show that all the Expert users agreed that the iLP helped them to successfully develop their knowledge of the key components in Parts 1-3. Specifically all of them understood clearly each of the key components of lesson planning in Parts 1-3. Also they understood clearly how to answer the questions for each of the key components in Parts 1-3. While two of them did

14

not face any problems understanding the key components one of them did. He identified unclear instructions to the questions and a couple of terms used. A suggestion was made to introduce macro before micro-skills.


How the iLessonPlan helped Expert users to successfully develop their knowledge of the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1-3

Table 9: Expert users’ responses to the questionnaire and interview for Evaluation Question 1b

Evaluation Questions Sub-questions

Questionnaire Responses to

questions

Interview Responses

to questions

1. Does the iLP help Expert users to successfully develop their knowledge of lesson planning?

b) Does the iLP help them to successfully develop their knowledge of the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1-3?

Q5-8 Q3-4

Summary of Expert users’ responses from the Questionnaire (Q5-8)

All the Expert users found the organization of Parts 1-3 to be clear and they also found Parts 2-3 logical and easy to follow. Also they did not have any problems following the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1- 3 except that ‘the overall skill is not mentioned at all and therefore there is no context for the micro-skill level’ (XU03). Two of the users expressed satisfaction with the existing structure and flow whereas one said there should be consistency between the Introduction on page 1 and the rest of the iLP, ‘The introductory part should follow the same structure as the rest of the resource - Part 1:intro. etc., rather than A.B etc’ (XU03).

Expert users’ responses to the Interview (Q3-4)

All the users agreed that the structure and flow of the key components reflect that in a lesson plan except for ‘example in the middle about LO (Learning outcome – sic) which breaks the flow. This should be at the top’ (XU03). All the users agreed that they developed well their knowledge of the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1- 3 as seen in, ‘Very logical structure and flow’ (XU01), ‘Gave good development of knowledge of structure and flow’ (XU02) and ‘Got a clear idea of how the lesson was going to develop’ (XU03).

To summarise the findings from the questionnaire support that from the interview. All the Expert users seem to have found the organization of Parts 1-3 to be clear and Parts 2-3 logical and easy to follow. Also they did not encounter any problems in following the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1- 3. All agreed that the structure and flow of the key components reflect that in a lesson plan and that it has logical structure and flow and it provides a clear idea on the progression of the lesson. One of the suggestions made was in relation to introducing the macro before the micro-skills. Another one was to maintain consistency in numbering in the pages on the iLP.


15

Expert users’ opinions about the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, readability and other functions.

Table 11: Expert users’ responses to the questionnaire and interview for Evaluation Question 2a



Responses to questions in the Interview

2. What are the perceptions of Expert users about the features and functions of the iLP?

a) What are users‟ opinions about the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, and readability?

Navigation Q 9-10, 12Colour Q13-15, Readability Q17-19Other functions - Q11, 16

Q5-6

Summary of responses to the Questionnaire

Navigation (Q 9-10, 12)

All three Expert users found it easy to navigate their way around the iLP and they were aware where they were at all times. They also found the content and screen instructions easy to locate. This seems to indicate that the iLP was easy to use and they felt confident navigating around it as presented in Chart 5.

XU01 XU02 XU030

1

2

3

4

Chart 5: Expert users’ responses to the Questionnaire for questions related to navigation

Q9 How easy was to find your way around the iLP?Q10 The content and screen instructions were easy to locateQ12 Did you know where you were at all times?

16

Colour (Q13-15)

Two of the three users found the bright colours used for the navigation buttons made it easier for them to find and use them. Moreover they found the colour scheme i.e. black text against a white background helped them read the instructions. All the users found that the consistent colour scheme on each page assisted them in keeping track of what they were doing. The findings appear to show that most of them found the colour scheme employed in the design of the iLP facilitated their use of the lesson planning tool as seen in Chart 6.

XU01 XU02 XU030

1

2

3

4

Chart 6: Expert users’ responses to the Questionnaire for questions related to colour

Q13 The bright colours used for the navigation buttons made it easier for me to find and use them.Q14 The consistent colour scheme on each page helped me keep track of what I was doing..Q15 The colour scheme ie black text against a white background helped me read the instructions.

17

Readability (Q17-19)All the users found dividing the content appropriately using panels enabled them to read and comprehend the content. They also found the overview in Part 1 helped them anticipate what they were about to read in the rest of the iLP. Moreover they found the highlighted headings and subheading useful in scanning for information. This seems to show that the mechanisms used to facilitate reading online has helped to make the text readable as seen in Chart 7.

XU01 XU02 XU030

1

2

3

4

Chart 7: Expert users’ responses to the Questionnaire on questions related to readability

Q17 Dividing the content appropriately using panels helped me read and un-derstand the content.Q18 The overview in Part 1 helped me anticipate what I was about to read in the rest of the iLP.Q19 The highlighted head-ings and subheading were useful in scanning for in-formation.

Other functions (Q11, 16)All the users found the drop down menu boxes in Part 3 helpful in providing definition for difficult terms such as language skills and language features. They also found the text boxes in Part 3 gave them enough space to write their responses to the questions. This appears to indicate that these functions facilitated the use of the iLP as shown in Chart 8.

18

XU01 XU02 XU030

1

2

3

4

Chart 8: Expert users’ responses to the Questionnaire on questions related to other functions

Q11 I found the drop down menu boxes in Part 3 helpful in providing definition for difficult terms such as lan-guage skills and language fea-turesQ16 The text boxes in Part 3 gave me enough space to write my responses to the questions.

In summary, it appears that the Expert users’ responded positively to the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, readability and other functions.

Summary of responses from the Interview

Clarity of instructions in the iLP (Q5-6)

All the users seem to have understood what was required when using the iLP. They found the instructions generally clear but they faced some issues as listed below:

1. Terms used - MCQ’ and ‘Language productivity?’ (XU03). The word productivity is not stated in the iLP. What is stated though is ‘productivity’ and this could be an error on the part of the user who mistook ‘productively’ for ‘productivity’.

2. Unclear on how to answer the question on ‘Gender – M/F or Number’ (XU03).3. Unclear about ‘Main Teaching Point examples – thought had to do something

here’(XU02).4. Activity 1 and 2 – ‘unsure if followup or separate to Activity 1 – perhaps needs ‘Design a

new activity’ (XU02). 5. ‘Right at the beginning in relation to what was basically required. I probably took it too

seriously as if I was the trainee teacher and it became a real mission. But then I realised I was just trialling something to determine its practical value’ (XU01).

In summary, the findings from the questionnaire and interview seem to indicate that most of the Expert users’ responded positively to the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, readability and other functions. Additionally although all agreed that they understood what was required when using the iLP, they faced several issues which revolved around terminology and unclear questions as listed above.

19


The appeal of the iLP to Expert users

Summary of responses from the Questionnaire (Q20-25)

All three users found in general the iLP was easy to use. Two of them did not encounter any problems using it.

One user’s first impression of the iLP when she used it on her screen was positive, ‘Clear and easy to distinguish information’ (XU01). However, after using the iLP, her impression has changed. As she did not provide any reasons for the change, it is not possible to state them. The second user formed a negative first impression, ‘Too much micro-information required’ (XU03) and after using the iLP, his impression seems to be still negative as in ‘I think it can be limiting to creativity, as it forces the student to think only in a down the page linear fashion’ (XU03). The last user considered her first impression to be ‘not relevant’ (XU02) and after using the iLP she says her impression has not changed. It is not possible to say why she held this view as she did not give any reasons for it.

All three users would probably not use the iLP in the future and two of them did not offer any suggestions to improve it. Only one suggestion was offered and it was to ‘focus the student on a general purpose before the micro skills’. These points will be discussed in the section on ‘Discussion’.

In summary, firstly all three users found in general the iLP was easy to use and two of them did not face any problems using it. Secondly, the findings for the users’ first impression of the iLP was split evenly as seen above. This finding did not change after the users’ had used the iLP. Finally all three users would probably not use the iLP in the future and two did not offer any suggestions to improve it further.

Summary of responses from the Interview

Appeal of the iLP (Q7-9)

Two of the users thought that using the iLP would help save them time in preparing a lesson. Their positive comments are, ‘Oh definitely. If we do not have the iLP, then the lesson plan becomes a very fluid document that could carry on indefinitely’ (XU01) and ‘Yes – for a beginning teacher as provides structure, balance and examples’ (XU03). The third user’s comment does not seem to relate to the question as to whether using the iLP would help save time. He says using the iLP is ‘counterproductive as reduces personal creativity’ (XU03). He also suggests students ‘Should be taught principles then produce own template of lesson plan to suite own style eg. Table style, picture style (XU03).

All three users agree that the iLP helps them prepare a lesson they would be comfortable to teach. They also offered several positive outcomes listed below on how they thought the iLP would help trainee teachers to plan their lessons.

1. ‘It will reinforce the terminology they will come across. 2. It will make them aware of key components without which you cannot teach an ESOL

lesson.3. It will help them to plan ahead for e.g. if you need a document camera, then the room

has one … the lesson plan creates an awareness of practical issues like equipment and timing.

20

4. It teaches them discipline in structuring a lesson, timing and sequencing a lesson’ (XU01).

XU03 suggests the iLP could be used as one approach used to teach lesson planning to trainee teachers and another compliments the iLP as seen in, ‘Excellent. Heaps of structure and examples and security as know it’s all there’ (XU02).

All of the users seemed satisfied with the iLP as it is. This is shown in ‘Very useful as is’ (XU02) and ‘...it makes provisions for every little thing I can think of’ (XU01). Of the suggestions offered one was to employ the iLP as ‘part of a wider approach i.e. one approach of a number of approaches and teach the principles. Use this as an example and allow teachers to develop their own templates’. Another suggestion related to a function of the iLP i.e. that ‘Individuals should be able to save their changes’ to the lesson.

In summary, the responses from the questionnaire and interview seem to indicate the following. Firstly, all the users found in general the iLP was easy to use and it would help save time planning a lesson. Secondly they felt they would be comfortable teaching a lesson which was planned using the iLP. Thirdly, they offered several positive outcomes on how they thought the iLP would help trainee teachers plan their lessons. The outcomes focused on terminology used, awareness of key components in a lesson, the importance of planning ahead and considering practical issues, and discipline in preparing a lesson.

The findings were split evenly between those who felt their impressions before and after using the iLP had changed and those who felt they hadn’t. Finally all three users felt they would probably not use the iLP in the future.

Comparison between the responses of the Teacher users and Expert users

There are several similarities and differences between the responses of both groups and these will be presented in relation to the evaluation questions.

1a. How the iLP has helped to successfully develop knowledge of the key components in Parts 1-3.

Both groups agreed that the iLP helped them to successfully develop their knowledge of the key components in Parts 1-3. The majority in both groups indicated they did not have any problems in understanding the key components in Parts 1- 3.

1b. How the iLP has helped to successfully develop knowledge of the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1-3.

All the users in both groups agreed that the iLP helped them to successfully develop their knowledge of the structure and flow of the lesson in Parts 1-3. They found Parts 1-3 to be clear and Parts 2-3 logical and easy to follow. Half the Teacher users and most of the Expert users expressed satisfaction with the existing structure and flow. Moreover several suggestions were made to further improve the iLP.

2a. Users’ opinions about the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, readability and other functions.

Users in both groups responded positively to the graphical user interface in the iLP in relation to navigation, colour scheme, readability and other functions. Most of them also found the

21

instructions to be generally explicit and felt using the iLP would help reduce the time spent planning lessons. In addition they felt they would be comfortable teaching lessons planned using the iLP. They also faced similar issues: unclear questions, terms and acronymns used.

2b. The appeal of the iLP to users

Both groups seem to have responded positively to the iLP. They felt it was easy to use, and it would reduce the time spent planning lessons. Also they felt they would be comfortable using it to plan their lessons. Most of the Teacher users’ had a more positive lasting impression of using the iLP unlike the Expert users where the findings were split evenly. The latter suggested several positive outcomes on using the iLP for trainee teachers: terminology used, awareness of key components in a lesson, the importance of planning ahead and considering practical issues, and discipline in preparing a lesson. Both groups identified similar issues e.g. terminology, acronyms and unclear questions. Most of the Teacher users felt they would utilise it in the future whereas none of the Expert users did.

22

alagesandre.files.wordpress.com€¦ · web view1/12/2011 · course: evaluation of elearning...

Documents