Each of the methodologies learned in the project have been the subject of a training course for all the Faculty of Teachers, so that all are prepared and have begun to carry out activities and didactic units following these methodologies.
This training has been completed with three workshops in which the classmates showed the other teachers some of the activities carried out during the course in order to share experiences, learn together, and inspire one another.
The impact on teachers has been measured through surveys and forms in which teachers were asked about the use, frequency, and satisfaction obtained in the application of new methodologies.
Three questionnaires have been made.
One in which Cooperative Learning was tracked, another in which Multiple Intelligences and the use of evaluation tools such as rubrics or portfolios were monitored, and a last questionnaire asking about the use Of Web 2.0 tools in the classroom.
The first one was held in June 2016, the next in April 2017 and the third in July 2017.
The results show that, in July 2017 (end of the second year of project):
95% of teachers use the Cooperative Learning in class,
85% use Multiple Intelligence palettes,
66% use Web 2.0 tools in class,
45% use evaluation tools such as portfolios or rubrics.
Some results and activities carried on with these methodologies can be found here (Primary school) or here (secondary school).
The evolution of the work of these 2 years is being very good, since we started with the following data:
15% used co-op,
0% used multi-palettes,
5% used web 2.0 tools in the classroom,
5% used rubrics or portfolios.
We leave the questions and answers of the teachers in the three questionnaires:
First questionnaire. June 2016
Second questionnaire. April 2017
Multiple Intelligences and evaluation tools (rubrics and portfolios).
MULTIPLE INTELLIGENCES AND EVALUATION TOOLS QUESTIONNAIRE:
- Degree of personal satisfaction with work in Multiple Intelligences:
- I’m not happy with the work I’ve done: 4
- I am dissatisfied with my work: 12
- I am satisfied with my work and with the effort I make: 21
- I am very satisfied with my work. I like what I’ve done: 5
2. Multiple Intelligences:
- I do not include Multiple Intelligences in my schedules: 8
- I include some activities in my Didactic Units: 19
- The Theory of Intelligences is included in my way of preparing my didactic units but not in a global way: 12
- The theory of intelligences is included in my way of programming my didactic units: 3on my work: 12
- I do not use this technique: 6
- I use it without much structure: 11
- I use it although I can improve its structure: 18
- I rigorously carry out the structure: 7
4. Realization of intelligence palettes by quarter:
- I have not done at least one palette per subject and quarter: 18
- I have made at least one quarterly paddle in one of my subjects: 19
- I have made at least one palette per subject and quarter: 4
- I have done more than one palette per subject and quarter: 1
5. Planning the Multiple Intelligence palette:
- I do not plan: 5
- My planning is not strict, most things are missing: 9
- I do planning but I lack some of the aspects: 16
- I make a careful planning, taking into account the following aspects: having an activity by intelligence, number of groups, components, criteria and evaluation instruments, time of preparation of the final product and public presentation of it: 12
6. Use of rubrics in Multiple Intelligences:
- I do not use rubrics in multiple intelligence assessment: 15
- I used a rubric in the evaluation of multiple intelligences: 12
- I have used at least two rubrics in the evaluation of multiple intelligences: 7
- I have used rubric in some aspects of the development of the palette (for example: attitude of the students in the group, active participation, creativity, coordination, final product, presentation of the final product …): 8
7. Use of the portfolio:
- I do not use portfolio in the evaluation of my students: 21
- I rarely use a portfolio in the evaluation of my students: 11
- Sometimes I use portfolio in the evaluation of my students: 6
- I usually use portfolio in the evaluation of my students: 4
9. Motivation to the work of the students with the activities:
- The students are less motivated than without these methodologies: 3
- Students are equally motivated: 13
- Students are more motivated: 19
- The students are much more motivated with these methodologies: 7
Third questionnaire. July 2017
Web 2.0 Tools
Have you used Web 2.0 tools during the course?
No : 7
1 or 2 times during the course: 7
1 or 2 times each 3 months: 3
1 or 3 times each month: 7
Al least once a week: 4
What kind of tool do you find most useful?
Portfolio and classroom management tools: 5
Tools to work Informal Cooperative Learning: 5
Tools to work Formal Cooperative Learning: 3
Tools to create presentations: 8
Which do you think is the main advantage of using Web 2.0 Tools?
A. Motivates students: 10
B. Encourages meaningful learning: 2
C. Power creativity: 0
D. Ability to manage information: 9
How do you evaluate the work done by students with Web 2.0 tools?
A. I don´t evaluate it: 6
B. I evaluate effort and interest: 3
C. I evaluate the final result with a mark: 3
D. I use rubrics and/or portfolio to evaluate the process and the result: 9