Deliverable 4.4 - INSEAD CALT

AtGentive IST-4-027529-STP - Attentive Agents for Collaborative LearnersConclusion: Different technical background and settings must be considered in advance.The Czech language uses a character set that was not easy to implement in some areasof the software and the electronic questionnaires. The teachers found a “workaround” ofasking students to use “SMS writing” until the problems could be solved, but this was notan ideal solution.Conclusion: Detailed technical requirements and tests are needed before the pilot. Oncethe pilot starts it is extremely difficult to improvise or to be flexible within the schoolenvironment. In particular, a (computer systems) administrator is often not available at amoments notice; the teachers may not have the technical knowledge to report bugsaccurately. In addition, they are not able to call / email immediately a problem occurs –they usually have no technical support on the spot.Teaching practiceThe usual method of teaching computer classes in the participating schools was forstudents to take their instructions from the teacher. Therefore, while the AtGentSchoolsoftware itself provides instructions, the students were reluctant to follow them, sincetheir experience was that they should wait to be told by the teacher. In addition, theteachers were used to instructing the students. The software did not appear to instructstudents to the extent teachers were anticipating. This encouraged teachers to giveinstruction themselves, rather than stand back and watch the students not understandingwhat they should do.Conclusion: It must be remembered that the teachers first priority is to enable thestudents to learn, not to conduct an experiment. The software – and the experimentalsituation – must assure teachers that their students are able proceed with their learning.If not, the “experiment” will be adapted to ensure that the students are notdisadvantaged.While the concept of group work was not new to any of the students, some did not haveexperience of working in pairs when using the computer. The teachers ameliorated thissituation very effectively by choose pairs of students who were friends.The students usually work more by collecting and filtering information than coming upwith ideas of their own in the way AtGentSchool expects. Teachers addressed this byfocussing on concepts such as “Compare”.Conclusion: Teachers know their students well and can often address problems that mayseem difficult to, or not anticipated by, the experimenters.StudentsStudents were very motivated to participate in the AtGentive pilot. It was seen as a highprestigeproject and very different from their usual school work and allowed them to learnabout another country from someone who had visited the country.The teachers’ view of student activity changed over the course of the pilot. Initially,teachers felt students spent more time not doing anything useful than any other singleactivity. Later, the ratings become more even, with the highest rating for working on thetask (not on the computer) and an increase in the amount of time speaking to theteacher.Del 4.4: AtGentive Final Evaluation Report page 34