Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

More documents

Recommendations

Info

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learners765432Teacher aTeacher bTeacher cTeacher d10Working on thecomputerWorking on the taskbut not on thecomputerSpeaking to teacher Not doing anythingusefulFigure 11 - Teachers' rating of students' activity during the early part of the pilotSecond questionnaireBy the second questionnaire, teachers were able to reflect on the whole pilot, giving amore balanced view. As regards the new way of working – taking instructions from thescreen – it took time to adjust:“For children it is easier to ask teacher then to try to understand how the platformworks or what words in questionnaire means.”“The students were asking at first me (because it’s their usual system of work) thenwhen I turned their concentration to the system they worked on the platform”“When the students get used to [AtGentSchool] they were able to overcomedifficulties (but not everybody).”Generally, the teachers would have liked more time in which to run the pilot:”I think that they liked the personality but I am not so sure that they were fullysatisfied - but it was mainly different system of working with the computer (they aresome how used to search the internet and [AtGentSchool] was completely new forthem and I think they needed much more time to feel comfortable when using thisnew system)”Although students had experience of working in groups (pairs), it seems that the type ofgroup-work required by AtGentive was different, creating problems for the students:“The students are not used to work independently in such way they are not used tostudy by reading texts themselves. The system there leads them to summarize butnot select the information from such a big amount of data (they are not used to studyin groups and cooperate in this way)”“[AtGentSchool] was completely new system of work so the students had to invent anew way how to be successful or how to overcome difficulties (some of them weresuccessful). Some of the couples had so many problems in social cooperation thatthey failed in project work.”One teacher found particular problems with students that missed one or more classes:“Problem was when children were missing at school … For me was difficult to 1)explain how to use platform 2) explain what is their schoolwork 3) answer theirDel <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 30
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative Learnersquestions (words in questionnaire) 4) control children 5) fill my questionnaire in onetime”One observation in particular was noted, and considered throughout this report:“in my class in experimental group were girls. They work much more they have morepatience and endeavour.”Generally, the experience was seen as positive for the students:“In the beginning it was for children very difficult but after few lessons it was better.”“For children it was something new they like to use computer new type of project.”Teachers again rated the students’ overall use of time using a rating scale of 1-7 on fouractivities, as shown in Figure 12.765432Teacher bTeacher cTeacher d10Working on thecomputerWorking on the taskbut not on thecomputerSpeaking to teacher Not doing anythingusefulFigure 12 - Teachers' rating of students' activity during the latter part of the pilotComparing the first and second questionnaires, Figure 13 shows how the teachers’ viewof student activity changed over the course of the pilot. (Note that the data is taken froma seven-point rating scale and thus percentages are of limited accuracy – they should beused as a guide only.) Initially, teachers felt students spent more time not doing anythinguseful than any other single activity. Later, the ratings become more even, with thehighest rating for working on the task (not on the computer) and an increase in theamount of time speaking to the teacher.Del <strong>4.4</strong>: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 31
Page 1 and 2: ATGENTIVEIST-4-027529-STPDELIVERABL
Page 3 and 4: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 13: AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 22 and 23: May 2007AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP
Page 60 and 61: CollaborationAtGentive IST-4-027529
Page 86 and 87:
AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attent
Page 88 and 89:
DescriptionAtGentive IST-4-027529-S
Page 90 and 91:
Integratability:AtGentive IST-4-027
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123:
Page 124 and 125:
Page 126 and 127:
Page 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
Page 138 and 139:
Page 140 and 141:
Page 142 and 143:
Page 144 and 145:
Page 146 and 147:
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 162 and 163:
Page 164 and 165:
Page 166 and 167:
Page 168 and 169:
Page 170 and 171:
Page 172 and 173:
The effects of a computer agent’s
Page 174 and 175:
Page 176 and 177:
Page 178 and 179:
Page 180 and 181:
4. ResultsAtGentive IST-4-027529-ST
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Additional pedagogical investigatio
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
Page 208:
show all

Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?