د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B69

random; it consisted of schools that were not selected for participation in a pre-test of one of
the LVS tests. The second sample contained 617 schools of which 27 agreed to participate
(4.4%).
The questionnaire was filled out online by the respondents. Schools that agreed to
participate in the study received an e-mail with a link to the questionnaire, which was
distributed within the school by the contact person. In total, nearly 100 respondents from 56
schools filled out the questionnaire (15 males, 81 females, one gender unknown). The
relatively large amount of females in the sample is typical for the Dutch primary school
teacher population. A recent publication of the Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture, and
Science (2011) indicates that, currently, 81% of the teachers in primary education are female.
The group of respondents consisted of class teachers (including teachers with an additional
task, such as ICT coordinator) (n = 37), internal support teachers (including remedial
teachers) (n = 43), and school principals (including adjunct principals and location managers)
(n = 17).
Data analysis. The data that were gathered using the questionnaire were analysed both
qualitatively and quantitatively. The quantitative analysis was conducted using Classical Tests
Theory (CTT) in TiaPlus (2010). The extent to which the reports from the Computer Program
LOVS were correctly interpreted was examined using descriptive statistics. Interpretations of
various user groups were compared to the standard of 85% correct. Furthermore, the
differences between the various user groups were analysed using ANOVA. The relationship
with other variables was examined using ANOVA and Pearson correlation analyses. The
qualitative analysis was intended to interpret the quantitative data in terms of points of
struggle for the various respondent groups on the various reports. For example, whether there
were differences between the various user groups with respect to the particular reports was
explored.
5.4. Results
5.4.1 Focus Groups
The results of the focus group meetings suggest that several aspects of the reports
caused confusion or a faulty interpretation. For example, in multiple reports, a triangle that
points up or down was used. The participants noted that this symbol suggested a particular
meaning, namely ‗increase or decrease‘. However, the symbols were merely meant to indicate
grades/groups of pupils or a point in a graph. Furthermore, the use of colour was not always
straightforward. For example, in the trend analysis, the colour red carried the meaning ‗below
average‘, while green meant ‗above average‘. In this same report, however, the colour green
was also used to indicate groups. Participants noted that this led to confusion.
In addition, the use of colour was not always sufficiently distinctive. For example,
participants noted that the lines indicating the group average and the national average in the
ability growth report were hard to distinguish from one another. Furthermore, the participants
noted that the distinction between individual and group norms was not clear. The concept of
score interval (90% confidence interval around the ability) was also not clear to most
participants. Moreover, none of the participants indicated that they used the score interval in

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني