د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B72

For the majority of the items, the P‘-values of the various user groups are well below
the standard of 85%. The pattern consistently suggests that internal support teachers are more
able to interpret the reports than teachers. However, it must be noted that due to the small
sample size, the confidence intervals around the P‘-values are large; therefore, no significant
differences are present amongst various user groups at the item level.
From Figure 5.1 it can be seen that Item 2 was the easiest item for all user groups. This
item measured knowledge with respect to the meaning of the level indicators A–E, more
specifically the meaning of level C with respect to the national average. Striking in this
respect are the relatively low average P‘-values for Item 5, which measured knowledge with
respect to the meaning of the level indicator A. The average P‘-value amongst teachers is
particularly low. Furthermore, the P‘-values suggest that the users are more knowledgeable
about the meaning of the level indicators A–E (e.g., Item 2 and 5) than the level indicators I–
V (e.g., Item 14). The hardest item was Item 3, which measured users‘ knowledge of what the
score interval means. Furthermore, Item 10 stands out since both internal support teachers and
principals scored on average above the standard, but teachers did not. This item measured the
interpretation of ability growth as opposed to ability.
Furthermore, the relationship between various background variables and the
interpretation ability was explored.
First, we determined whether there were differences amongst the three groups in terms
of the number of respondents who received training. The differences appeared to be large and
significant, F(2, 94) = 19.38, p < .001. In the group of teachers, only 5% indicated that they
had received some kind of training in the use of the Computer Program LOVS in the last five
years. In the group of internal support teachers, 42% had received training, and the majority
of the school principals, namely 77%, had received training. Whether or not a respondent had
received training in the use of the Computer Program LOVS did not appear to be significantly
related to the total score, F(1, 95) = 0.71, p = .403.
The number of years‘ experience using the Computer Program LOVS did not relate to
interpretation ability (0–5, 6–10, >10 years) (F(2, 94) = 1.11, p = .331).
Furthermore, we examined whether the degree to which the information generated by
the Computer Program LOVS is perceived as useful relates to interpretation ability. No
evidence was found for such a relationship (F(2, 93) = 1.51, p = .227). The respondents
indicated that they perceived the information generated by the Computer Program LOVS to
be a little bit useful (n = 5), useful (n = 37) or very useful (n = 54). For the degree in which
information generated by the Computer Program LOVS is perceived to be useful as the
dependent variable, the ANOVA results, with function as a factor, suggest that there is a
significant difference between respondents in various functions: F(2, 93) = 4.82, p = .01.
Post-hoc analysis indicates that the degree to which the information generated by the
Computer Program LOVS is perceived as useful differs significantly between teachers and
internal support teachers (average difference = -0.35, p = .025), and between teachers and
school principals (average difference = -0.43, p = .039). Thus, internal support teachers and
school principals were more positive than teachers with regards to the usefulness of
information generated by the Computer Program LOVS.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني