د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المساعد بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B73

Next, in order to investigate the relationship between the respondents‘ estimates of
their own ability in using quantitative test data and their measured ability, a two-sided Pearson
correlation analysis was conducted. The results suggest a moderately positive relationship,
which is significant: r(95) = .25, p = .013. None of the respondents estimated their own ability
in using quantitative test data as ‗not at all able‘ or ‗not able‘. Of the respondents, 15% judged
themselves as ‗a little bit able‘ (0), 64% judged themselves as ‗able‘ (1), and 18% judged
themselves as ‗very able‘ (2). School principals had the highest estimation of their own ability
and teachers the lowest. The estimation of their own ability differed significantly between
respondents in various functions, F(2, 94) = 11.64, p < .001. The results of post-hoc analyses
indicate that teachers estimate their own ability to be significantly lower than internal support
teachers (average difference = -0.51, p < .001) and school principals (average difference =
-0.59, p = .001). On average, teachers judged themselves just above ‗a little bit able‘ (M = 0.7,
SD = 0.57). Thus, teachers judged themselves to be just above ‗a little bit able‘ in using
quantitative test data, and none of the teachers judged themselves to be ‗not at all able‘ or ‗not
able‘. However, it must be noted that teachers judged their own ability at a significantly lower
level than respondents in a different function.
5.5. Conclusion and Discussion
This study explored the extent to which the reports from the Computer Program LOVS
are correctly interpreted by school principals, internal support teachers, and teachers.
Furthermore, the study attempted to identify possible stumbling blocks concerning the
interpretation of the score reports in the Computer Program LOVS. By conducting two focus
group meetings and administering a questionnaire, both qualitative and quantitative data were
gathered. In the quantitative analyses, distinctions were made amongst teachers, internal
support teachers (including remedial teachers), and school principals.
Results from previous studies (e.g., Meijer et al., 2011) have suggested that users of
the Computer Program LOVS do not interpret the reports generated by the Computer Program
LOVS completely correctly. The results suggest that users have many stumbling blocks in the
current reports generated by the Computer Program LOVS. Teachers seem to experience
difficulties in interpreting both the reports at the group level and at the pupil level.
The results of the questionnaire suggest that teachers, internal support teachers, and
principals have problems with interpreting all five reports. Less than 30% of the respondents
scored at or above the standard of 85% correct. Moreover, the results suggest that not all users
have the basic knowledge that is required to correctly interpret the reports. For example, the
meaning of the levels A–E and I–V and the meaning of the score interval were not well
understood, except for the meaning of the level C.
There were significant differences amongst the various respondent groups in terms of
the total scores on the questionnaire. The total scores of teachers were significantly lower than
those of internal support teachers. The difference between the scores of teachers and school
principals was not significant. When looking at the results at the item level, the pattern
consistently suggests that internal support teachers are most able when it comes to interpreting
the reports.
A major question of this study related to identifying stumbling blocks for users in the
interpretation of reports generated by the Computer Program LOVS. The results of the

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني