Del 5.2 AtGentSchool Pilot in Prague
Barbora Parráková, Czech Efficient Learning Node
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
School Pilots AtGentive
•
•
•
•
•
5 Elementary schools
6 teachers – Biology/Geography/English
6 classes involved – 125 pupils
Class = appx. 25 pupils/class
Age of pupils – 11 years
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Participants
Elementary schools
Teacher
Subject
ZS Jizni, Prague
Mgr. Kaudersova D.
Czech
Language
ZS Jizni, Prague
Mgr. Dudrova A.
Biology
FZS Brdickova, Prague
Ing. Hubalkova, E.
English
FZS Cerveny Vrch, Prague
+ assisting expert
Mgr. Zerzanova, L.
Geography
7 ZS Kladno
+ assisting teacher
Mgr. Sindelarova, M. Biology
ZS J. A. Komenskeho
+ assisting teacher
Mgr. Hildebrandtova English
J.
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Location of Pilots
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Organisation of the Pilot
• The pilot testing was integrated into regular classes
(Biology, Geography, English)
• Assignments were in line with school curricula
• If there is non-English speaking teacher, he/she
had assisting English speaking teacher
Modification:
Colleague teacher was involved in the project as an expert – reasons:
–
–
More comprehensive language
Adherence to school curriculas
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Preparations for Pilot
• Workshop Nr. 1 Basic orientation on the platform
– Expert´s role introduction, Online questionnaire
– November 2006
–
Collection of parental consent related to data collection
• Workshop Nr. 2 First hand on experience
– January 2007
– Bilateral meetings with the teachers - teachers given personal training
on the system use
– Finalisation of the Czech version of AtGentSchool platform
• Workshop No3. Second hand on experience – Czech version
– March 2007
– Teaching plans ready, evaluation system ready
• Workshop No 4. Final
– Instructions, problem solving scenario, communicatio, support
schemes introduced
– May 2007
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Pilot structure
• 6 lessons/1 per week/45 mins
• In total 34 full lessons
• Workload equalled to 60mins, so
students often used their break
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Pilot Progress I.
May – June 2007
– Teachers give feedback via online diary and questionnaires
– students evaluate system behavior via Likert scale responses
Comments:
- One school struggles with technical problems and steps out of
the pilot after 3 lessons
- Teachers use support very frequently
- Teachers focus more on reporting technical problems
- Stabilization of the feedback system
- Changes in schedule
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Pilot Progress II.
June 2007
– The same feedback methods are used
– Students are queried with more general questions
Comments:
- Stabilization of students work
- Teachers focus more on student progress reporting
- Stabilization of the schedule
- Students know the system – more intensive communication
between expert and children
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Pilot Progress III.
June 27th 2007 Final workshop after the pilot
– Teachers are discussing the pilot, their opinions and problems
with implementation.
– Harri Siirtola (UTA) presented rough results from questionnaires
– Inge Molenaar (Ontdeknet) lead the discussion with focus group
– Results presented by Harri Siirtola and OBU
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Our Findings – Do's and Don'ts
• Organize schedule – and have at least 3 back-up plans
• Clarify priorities – research project seems never to be in line
with everyday school life although should help it
• Be a best friend with school ICT coordinator – they are
the most powerful person on the school and never reply to phone
or email
• Clash of (school) cultures – it is very important to know, that
anything unusual/unexpected happens during the pilot, it is due to
different school culture which is unpredicatble
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008
Thank you for your attention
Barbora Parrakova
CELN
AtGentive Final Review, Fontainebleau 5. 2. 2008