AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008 Del 5.2 AtGentSchool Pilot in Prague Barbora...

AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008

Del 5.2 AtGentSchool Pilot in Prague

Barbora Parráková, Czech Efficient Learning Node

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:European_flag.svg


• 5 Elementary schools • 6 teachers –

Biology/Geography/English • 6 classes involved – 125 pupils• Class = appx. 25 pupils/class• Age of pupils – 11 years

School Pilots AtGentive



ParticipantsElementary schools Teacher Subject

ZS Jizni, Prague Mgr. Kaudersova D.

Czech Language

ZS Jizni, Prague Mgr. Dudrova A. Biology

FZS Brdickova, Prague Ing. Hubalkova, E. English

FZS Cerveny Vrch, Prague+ assisting expert

Mgr. Zerzanova, L.

Geography

7 ZS Kladno+ assisting teacher

Mgr. Sindelarova, M.

Biology

ZS J. A. Komenskeho+ assisting teacher

Mgr. Hildebrandtova J.

English



Location of Pilots



Organisation of the Pilot

• The pilot testing was integrated into regular classes (Biology, Geography, English)

• Assignments were in line with school curricula• If there is non-English speaking teacher, he/she

had assisting English speaking teacher

Modification:Colleague teacher was involved in the project as an expert –

reasons:– More comprehensive language– Adherence to school curriculas



Preparations for Pilot

• Workshop Nr. 1 Basic orientation on the platform – Expert´s role introduction, Online questionnaire– November 2006– Collection of parental consent related to data collection

• Workshop Nr. 2 First hand on experience– January 2007– Bilateral meetings with the teachers - teachers given personal

training on the system use– Finalisation of the Czech version of AtGentSchool platform

• Workshop No3. Second hand on experience – Czech version– March 2007– Teaching plans ready, evaluation system ready

• Workshop No 4. Final – Instructions, problem solving scenario, communicatio, support

schemes introduced – May 2007



Pilot structure

• 6 lessons/1 per week/45 mins• In total 34 full lessons• Workload equalled to 60mins, so

students often used their break



Pilot Progress I.

May – June 2007 – Teachers give feedback via online diary and

questionnaires – students evaluate system behavior via Likert scale

responses

Comments: - One school struggles with technical problems and steps

out of the pilot after 3 lessons- Teachers use support very frequently- Teachers focus more on reporting technical problems- Stabilization of the feedback system- Changes in schedule



June 2007– The same feedback methods are used– Students are queried with more general questions

Comments: - Stabilization of students work- Teachers focus more on student progress reporting- Stabilization of the schedule- Students know the system – more intensive

communication between expert and children

Pilot Progress II.



June 27th 2007 Final workshop after the pilot– Teachers are discussing the pilot, their opinions and

problems with implementation. – Harri Siirtola (UTA) presented rough results from

questionnaires– Inge Molenaar (Ontdeknet) lead the discussion with

focus group– Results presented by Harri Siirtola and OBU

Pilot Progress III.



Our Findings – Do's and Don'ts

• Organize schedule – and have at least 3 back-up plans

• Clarify priorities – research project seems never to be in line with everyday school life although should help it

• Be a best friend with school ICT coordinator – they are the most powerful person on the school and never reply to phone or email

• Clash of (school) cultures – it is very important to know, that anything unusual/unexpected happens during the pilot, it is due to different school culture which is unpredicatble



Thank you for your attention

Barbora Parrakova

CELN


AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008 Del 5.2 AtGentSchool Pilot in Prague Barbora...

Documents

Transcript of AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008 Del 5.2 AtGentSchool Pilot in Prague Barbora...