Future Teacher education Lab: results after 2 years of use

163 visualizações

Publicada em

Future Teacher Education Lab post-occupancy evaluation from students and teachers perspective

Publicada em: Educação
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

Future Teacher education Lab: results after 2 years of use

  1. 1. Active Learning Post- Occupancy Evaluation UNIVERSITY OF LISBON- INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION
  2. 2. Tool and study The Active Learning Post-Occupancy Evaluation (AL-POE) research tool was developed by Steelcase Education (SE) researchers in an effort to measure the effect of our solutions on student engagement in the classroom. The following is a presentation of the tool and results of its administration from 21st of February to 24th of March 2017, at University of Lisbon- Institute of Education, Portugal.
  3. 3. Table of contents 1 2 3 Participants Overview of Post-Occupancy Evaluation Results Results in context and consideration
  4. 4. 1. Participants
  5. 5. 1.1 Students
  6. 6. Demographics from Students Type of environment Participants n=13* *usable data 23.08% 38.46% 30.77% 23.08% 7.69% 0.00% 15.38% n/a Standard (as indicated in question above) node Chairs LearnLab ("X" table layout) media:scape (technology enabled tables) Verb media:scape LearnLab ("X" table layout with technology- enabled tables)
  7. 7. Demographics from Students Instruction effectiveness *usable data 0.00% 6.67% 0.00% 20.00% 73.33% Very Ineffective Ineffective Somewhat Ineffective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Somewhat Effective Effective Very Effective Participants n=15*
  8. 8. Demographics from Students POE Type of instruction *usable data 0.00% 0.00% 78.57% 21.43% 0.00% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Only lecture Only lecture > student-to- student work Even mix of lecture and student-to-student work Only lecture < student-to- student work only student-to-student work Participants n=14*
  9. 9. Demographics from Students POE Overall view of engagement *usable data 0.00% 7.14% 78.57% 14.29% Not at all Slightly Moderately Very engaged Extremely Participants n=14*
  10. 10. 1.2 Instructors
  11. 11. Demographics from Instructors Type of environment *usable data 13.33% 40.00% 40.00% 6.67% 33.33% 0.00% 6.67% n/a Standard (as indicated in question above) node Chairs LearnLab ("X" table layout) media:scape (technology enabled tables) Verb media:scape LearnLab ("X" table layout with technology- enabled tables) Participants n=15*
  12. 12. Demographics from Instructors Had Professional Development? *usable data Participants n=16* Effectiveness of Professional Development 56.25% 43.75% YES NO 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Very Ineffective Ineffective Somewhat Ineffective Neither Effective nor Ineffective Somewhat Effective Effective Very Effective
  13. 13. Demographics from Instructors Type of instruction *usable data 0.00% 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% Only lecture Only lecture > student-to- student work Even mix of lecture and student-to-student work Only lecture < student-to- student work only student-to-student work Participants n=16*
  14. 14. Demographics from Instructors *usable data Overall view of engagement on student level 0.00% 6.25% 31.25% 50.00% 12.50% 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% Not at All engaged Slightly engaged Moderately engaged Very engaged Extremely engaged Participants n=16*
  15. 15. 2. Overview POE Results
  16. 16. Overview Student-Instructor Practices Student, n=13 Traditional ALC Collaboration Focus Active involvement Opportunity to engage Multiple means In-class feedback Real-life scenarios Ways of learning best Physical movement Stimulation Comfortable to participate Enriching experience Traditional ALC Instructor, n=15
  17. 17. Overview Student-Instructor Solutions POE Collaboration Focus Active involvement Opportunity to engage Multiple means In-class feedback Real-life scenarios Ways of learning best Physical movement Stimulation Comfortable to participate Enriching experience Traditional ALC Traditional ALC Instructor, n=15Student, n=12|11
  18. 18. Overview Post-Occupancy Evaluation Results The results from this AL-POE study in 2017 at the Institute of Education- University of Lisbon illustrate that the ALC has positive impacts on all factors solicited within the evaluation. Students appeared to be grading factors in a more extreme way than instructors. Students are less tolerant than instructors on practices and solutions for traditional classroom. Instructors and students aggregate grading converged concerning the ALC, meaning that students and instructors indicated ALC as having positive impacts AND quantified these impacts with high uniformity. Average rating for Practices • Students: 2,52→ 4,02 • Instructors 3,09 → 4,04 Average rating for Solutions • Students: 2,19 → 4,06 • Instructors 3,05 → 4,11 [in a 5 points scale]
  19. 19. The two graphs below illustrate the evolution on how Students allocated their grading points to Traditional classrooms and ALC. Switching from Traditional classroom to ALC empowered students with higher learning experiences. SolutionsPractices 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Traditional ALC 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Traditional ALC Overview POE Results
  20. 20. Practices Solutions The two graphs below illustrate the evolution on how Instructors allocated their grading points for Traditional and ALC. ALC enabled instructors to defined new and more adequate approaches to learning. Both Students and Instructors were positively impacted by ALC. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Traditional ALC 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Traditional ALC Overview POE Results
  21. 21. Student, n= 11 Instructor, n= 15 The two graphs below contrast the believes of Students and Instructors that the ALC contributed to increase or achieve… As mentioned before, student are more extreme in their grading. Both, instructors and students believed that ALC had the least effect on achieving higher grade. 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Engagement Higher grade Motivation Creative 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Engagement Higher grade Motivation Creative Overview POE Results
  22. 22. Overall conclusion 1. The ALC has positive impacts on all factors solicited within the evaluation (slide 16-17). 2. Students are more extreme on their way of grading. Instructors are more diverse (slide 18). 3. The Traditional classroom aggregate grading shows the most disparity (slide 19-20). 4. Students and Instructors’ average rating for the ALC are convergent (slide 18- 20). 5. Comparison of the students and instructors’ believes reveal common trends (slide 21). Both believe the ALC impacts best the Engagement while the least is Higher Grade (slide 21).
  23. 23. 3. Results in context
  24. 24. In context It is important to consider the eco-system when placing the results of this study in context. The design of the space cannot be designed or evaluated in isolation from the rest of the variables that will help its success. Space and technology are tools that support the teaching and learning experience. These new active environments and solutions are designed to support an active way of teaching and learning, which for many is a complete shift from what they have done in the past. The list below highlights three important considerations when moving forward with a successful active learning. SHIFT to NEW WAY OF LEARNING DENSITY TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS NEW CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT ISSUES
  25. 25. In context Active Learning Journey Both teachers and students need to understand the new pedagogies that are being put in place and why they are being implemented. This is a shift, with space being just one piece of the puzzle. Time for adjustment and refinement must be given. Ideal An easy, fast and straight shift Reality A complex shift involving multiple variables
  26. 26. In context Density How does density affect active learning?
  27. 27. In context Density How does density affect active learning?
  28. 28. In context Training and professional development How does training and professional development affect active learning?
  29. 29. In context Classroom issues How do classroom issues affect active learning? Tools Availability of tools like markers/ erasers let the students take advantage of other learning tools and entire space. Management movement can be distracting, new protocols and consideration
  30. 30. Study developed by: Theo Daoudi For further information: http://www.steelcase.com/ http://ftelab.ie.ulisboa.pt/

×