د/ايمان زغلول قاسم

استاذ تكنولوجيا التعليم المشارك بكلية التربية بالزلفي

book B75

Visscher (2002) has emphasised that not only do the characteristics of the feedback
and the feedback system determine to what degree feedback will be used, but the perceptions
of the users are also important. Moreover, a negative attitude towards performance feedback
Chapter 5
118
can be an obstacle for feedback use (Bosker, Branderhorst, & Visscher, 2007). In this study,
the degree to which respondents indicated that they perceived the information generated by
the Computer Program LOVS to be useful for their own education did not relate to their
interpretation ability. The respondents indicated that they perceived the information generated
by the Computer Program LOVS as ‗a little bit useful‘, ‗useful‘, or ‗very useful‘. The
difference between the responses from respondents with various functions was significant.
Class teachers experienced the information from the Computer Program LOVS as
significantly less useful than internal support teachers and school principals. The finding that
class teachers experienced the results from the Computer Program LOVS as less useful than
school principals is in line with results from previous studies (Vanhoof et al., 2009,
Verhaeghe et al., 2011, Zupanc et al., 2009). According to Meijer et al. (2011), the usability
of a pupil-monitoring system does not only depend upon the characteristics of the system, but
also on how users deal with the system. Meijer et al. claim that users of pupil-monitoring
systems need to become aware that the results provide useful information about the progress
of pupils. Ledoux et al. (2009) also suggest that teachers see DDDM more like an additional
burden rather than part of their professional responsibilities. Therefore, the researchers
suggest that if data-driven practices in the classroom are to be stimulated, teachers should be
made aware of the usefulness and value of the results of a pupil-monitoring system for their
own education.
Various studies have pointed out that many educators are unsure about their own
ability to use data for school improvement practices (e.g., Earl & Fullan, 2003; Williams &
Coles, 2007). The results from the questionnaire suggest that all the respondents judged
themselves to be ‗a little bit able‘, ‗able‘, or ‗very able‘ to deal with quantitative test data. It is
striking that none of the respondents judged themselves to be ‗not at all able‘ or ‗not able‘.
Thus, these results contrast with results from previous studies. Class teachers did judge their
own ability to be lower than internal support teachers and school principals, but they still
think of themselves as ‗a little bit able‘ to handle quantitative test data. Vanhoof et al. (2011)
suggest that the degree in which feedback is actually used is affected by the level of
confidence SPFS users have in their own knowledge and ability to use data, as well as by their
attitude towards feedback. Thus, the results from this study suggest that these preconditions
for feedback use have been met. Moreover, respondents appeared to be able to make a good
estimate of their own ability in handling quantitative test data.
This study was limited by the size of the sample. Because the sample was limited and
not completely randomly drawn, the results of this study can only be generalised to a limited
degree. A certain amount of self-selection by the respondents also took place. Because of this,
the results are possibly more positive than they normally would be (e.g., with regard to
perceived usefulness). For this study, the selection of five reports was made based on the
frequency with which they have been used within schools and the degree to which they have
been interpreted incorrectly. If the researchers had chosen different reports, this might have
led to different results.
A correct interpretation of the score reports is a necessary precondition for the
successful completion of all phases of the evaluative cycle. Indeed, a correct interpretation is
directly linked to making a justified decision. Nevertheless, whenever a score report is
interpreted correctly, this does not guarantee an appropriate use of the test results in terms of
Interpretation of the Score Reports from the Computer Program LOVS by Teachers, Internal Support
Teachers, and Principals
119
making adaptations to the learning process. Moreover, assessment literacy is not limited to the
correct interpretation of test results, it also taps into the ability to transform knowledge about
what pupils know and can do into meaningful instructional actions (Fullan & Watson, 2000;
Mandinach & Jackson, 2012; Popham, 2009). Future research should point out the extent to
which users are capable of transforming data feedback into instructional actions.

الوقت من ذهب

اذكر الله


المصحف الالكتروني