P RE - QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION DATA

A total of 343 questionnaires has been collected between December 2014 and July 2015.

After cleaning the data and removing duplications³ the number of questionnaires came down to 293. This number corresponds to unique teachers and their breakdown per country can be seen below in Table 14.1

Table 14.1 Go-Lab Pilot phase B pre-questionnaire

Country No of completed pre-questionnaires

Austria 20

Belgium 3

Bulgaria 1

Croatia 13

Cyprus 31

Estonia 19

France 4

Germany 16

Greece 32

Hungarian 1

Ireland 2

Italy 29

Poland 2

Portugal 10

Romania 2

Spain 93

3 In the case of duplications, the oldest dated and most complete questionnaire has been kept while the most recent one has been removed and not taken into account for this analysis.

UK 15

It is worth mentioning at this point that in Bulgaria and Romania, due to curriculum changes, the implementation activities have started in April 2015 so more data and a more precise analysis will become available in October 2016. No questionnaires have been filled in in Switzerland and the Netherlands due to lack of registered Pilot teachers in those specific countries but the necessary actions have been taken in order to resolve this issue for the upcoming Pilot phase C and collect data from these groups as well.

After matching the pre data with the post received data, a total of 130 responses have been taken into account for the analysis and comparison with the post data in section 14.4.

While overall a significant amount of data was collected, the amount per country is limited, and therefore no country analysis will be done. In this way, we can avoid wrong assumptions that can lead to inaccurate generalisations and conclusions.

14.3.1 How do teachers intend to use Go-Lab?

In Figure 14.2 we can see teachers’ replies regarding how they intend to use Go-Lab. As we can see, the majority or teachers (48%) entered Go-Lab with the intention to discover and use online laboratories. A smaller percentage (28%) was already willing to use complete ILSs that they could adapt and use with their classes while the smallest percentage (24%) was committed to implementing their own ILSs. The pattern is similar to the 1% rule in Internet, which states that 90% of the participants of a community only view content, 9% of the participants edit content, and 1% of the participants actively create new content⁴. In the Go-Lab case, though, the teachers participating appear to be more active than usual. It would be interesting to compare these results with the next cycle as teachers become more familiar with the platform, tools and ILSs.

Figure 14.2. How do teachers intend to use Go-Lab?

14.3.2 How experienced are teachers regarding their science teaching

Figure 14.3 provides us information on Go-Lab teachers’ experience regarding their science teaching. Teachers were asked to state whether they agreed or not with a variety of statements targeting the adequacy of their science knowledge in relation to the subjects

4 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1%25_rule_%28Internet_culture%29

they teach, their experience in designing lesson plans that include technology, their ICT knowledge, their capacity to choose and adapt the technologies that fit better to their pedagogical needs, their student assessment methods and finally the use of different teaching methods.

In Figure 14.3 we can see that the majority of Go-Lab teachers, 92%, were confident that they have sufficient knowledge about science (i.e. Biology, Physics etc.) which allows them to teach their science classes (Figure 14.3, 4.2). This understanding teachers have is usually a working understanding of the issues involved but are rarely, as we can see in the interviews below, explicit (Samarapungavan, 1992).Their ability to assess students’

performance along with their capacity to choose the appropriate technology to enhance their science classes score also quite high on their level of experience (Figure 14.3, 4.3 &

4.8).

When it comes to how Go-Lab teachers felt regarding the training they have received to use different technologies for learning science, 66% believe that it is adequate (Figure 14.3, 4.6). Consequently, a 34% feels that more training is needed in order to get them up to speed with the newest technologies. A similar percentage of Go-Lab teachers feel that they are not experienced enough when it comes to the creation of science lessons so it is safe to assume that the satisfaction of these two needs is strongly related to teachers’

interest in Go-Lab (Figure 14.3, 4.9).

Overall and after taking into account teachers’ responses regarding their experience in using ICT during science teaching, their capacity to create lesson plans and their ability to choose appropriate teaching approaches, we can assume that the average Go-Lab teacher is pedagogically experienced but with room of improvement in relation to technical skills and the knowledge of new technologies.

Figure 14.3. Teachers’ science teaching experience.

14.3.3 How do teachers rate their technological skills

In Figure 14.4 we can see how teachers have rated their knowledge and familiarity regarding the selected technological skills.

77% of teachers were very familiar with the use of online laboratories and simulations while they were also confident in passing this knowledge to others. This result matches findings from 2013 according to which 70% of teachers around Europe have at least 5 years of ICT experience (Wastiau, Blamire, Kearney, Quittre, Van de Gaer, & Monseur 2013). A slightly smaller but still large percentage of 74% have also being using online repositories and educational material widely. Lastly, only 29% of the teachers knew how to use authoring tools i.e. Adobe Dreamweaver, Coffeecup etc.

Combining these results with the Go-Lab use indications we have seen in Figure 14.2 we can come to a number of conclusions:

 Go-Lab teachers seemed to be particularly familiar with the use of online repositories and educational resources which made them automatically much more responsive when it comes to the use of Go-Lab repository as a source of discovering online laboratories and related educational material.

 Only a small group of teachers (29%) was familiar with the use of authoring tools.

Consequently, only 24% of teachers appeared to be interested in using the Go-Lab authoring tool and develop their own ILSs.

Figure 14.4. Teachers’ technological skills.

14.3.4 How do teachers understand IBSE scenarios

Figure 14.5 presents how Go-Lab teachers have understood and rated a selection of teaching scenarios in relation to how they promote and develop students’ IBSE skills.

The scenario that includes the analysis of laboratory collected data, the generation of conclusions and the final presentation of these conclusions to the targeted audience, has been selected by 89% of the teachers as the most representative in relation to IBSE. A few explanatory quotes that reveal teachers’ views and understanding can be found below:

 “Student has to go through the experimentation process by him/herself or in a group and conduct the results from those results. He/she also need to collaborate

with his/her colleagues, understand different points of view and discuss the results and the conclusions”, Croatian teacher

 “Presentation and interpretation of data is an important scientific skill. As long the activity that gave them the data is open and involves inquiry then the presentation forms part of inquiry based learning”, Spanish teacher

 “Presentation of a subject to any audience requires interpretation and the adaptation of the acquired knowledge to the understanding abilities of a specific audience. Therefore, it is itself inquiry”, Greek teacher

The scenarios of “Having students use graphics on the Internet to explain how gas molecules move” and “Having students to complete a lab activity or experimentation” are also perceived as good opportunities for developing IBSE skills.

A small but significant group of teachers (36%) do not seem to be convinced regarding the IBSE value of a class discussion about the arrangement of the periodic table. According to a Spanish teacher “In this situation students are following a procedure prepared by the teacher. In my opinion true inquiry based learning should be student led with them deciding the procedure and what they want to investigate.” What is interesting in this scenario is that although it is not an obvious IBSE scenario, 64% of the teachers declare that with the right guidance and input from the teacher, the class discussion can be converted into an IBSE activity.

Figure 14.5. Teachers understanding of IBSE scenarios.

Figure 14.6 shows Go-Lab teachers’ agreement/disagreement to a selection of statements related to the implementation of inquiry based science.

In Figure 14.6 we can see clearly that 84% of the teachers are committed to continually find better ways to teach inquiry based science which in combination to their interest in using online laboratories and finding educational material as we have seen earlier, form the basis of their involvement and interest in the project. 65% of the teachers believe that they know how to explain students to conduct inquiry based science while only 5% feel that despite their efforts they will never be able to conduct inquiry based activities as good as other approaches.

Figure 14.6. Teachers’ views on inquiry based science.

14.3.5 How often do teachers intend to use specific parts of Go-Lab

Figure 14.7 provides us with information regarding how frequently Go-Lab teachers intended to use the basic three components of Go-Lab (authoring facility, repository, ILSs).

More than 70% of the Go-Lab teachers expressed their intention to use ILSs on a weekly/monthly basis, with 64% planning to do the same with the Go-Lab repository. The use of the authoring tools came third in teachers’ preference with 58% of the teachers planning to use it on a monthly/less than monthly basis.

Despite teachers’ tendency to use existing ILSs/repository and their reservations when it came to the use of authoring tools, there was still significant interest in their use.

Figure 14.7. Frequency of use for Go-Lab parts.