Difference between revisions of "Page 14"
(Created page with "{{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="display:none">{{FULLPAGENAME}}</span>}} =Evaluation results = ===Overview === ===Evaluation results per country=== *[[Page 14.1| Evaluation ...") |
|||
| (7 intermediate revisions by one user not shown) | |||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
===Overview === | ===Overview === | ||
| + | Evaluation was seen as a systematic method for gathering, analysing, and using information to strengthen the quality of siLang methodologies, proof-of-concept serious game, and supporting material. This section aims at providing the reader with information concerning the way external evaluation activities were conduct-ed. This section brings also into focus the findings of the evaluation activities to date. On-going evaluation activities are used to ensure that outcomes meet stakeholder objectives. | ||
| + | The siLang evaluation activities had a European-wide reach covering not only the 5 countries that are represented in the project consortium but also 5 more. Specifically, evaluation activities were carried out in: Greece, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Estonia, Romania, Switzerland, Spain, Cyprus, Sweden. The following map demonstrates the 10 countries in which evaluation activities took place. The total number of external users engaged was well in excess of 500 as compared to the proposal foreseen 180. | ||
| − | ===Evaluation results per | + | === Implementation=== |
| + | |||
| + | Qualitative methods were employed. Small case studies took place through which the method of observation and the learning experiments were used. The evaluation aimed at generating qualitative feedback. In some cases (for example in Italy) were evaluation took place remotely some quantitative indicators are used. However, these indicators are mainly used to evaluate the qualitative claims made for the siLang intervention. The following factors were carefully considered in the context of siLang evaluation activities. | ||
| + | *Reactions of the participants in the study | ||
| + | *Participants’ perceptions regarding the relevance of the game towards building communication and language skills applicable at work, the added value of the game in relation to the learning process and the overall quality of the game | ||
| + | *Acceptance of the game as a complementary digital tool for language skill building | ||
| + | *Usability of the game mainly in relation to the design, functionality, and interactivity aspects as well as any possible difficulties encountered by learners during use | ||
| + | *Level of engagement in the situated learning process | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is worth mentioning that evaluation procedure was being slightly adapted to each evaluation group. This was due to the fact that each evaluation group may aggregate different characteristics. In addition, the evaluation activities did not aim at alleviating answers to all of the above topics. siLang team intention was not to force feedback, but to naturally explore participants’ experiences and to identify links to the topics appear above. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===Evaluation results per partner site=== | ||
*[[Page 14.1| Evaluation activities in Greece]] | *[[Page 14.1| Evaluation activities in Greece]] | ||
| Line 21: | Line 34: | ||
*[[Page 14.7| Evaluation activities in Sweden]] | *[[Page 14.7| Evaluation activities in Sweden]] | ||
*[[Page 14.8| Evaluation activities in Switzerland]] | *[[Page 14.8| Evaluation activities in Switzerland]] | ||
| − | |||
*[[Page 14.10| Evaluation activities in Romania]] | *[[Page 14.10| Evaluation activities in Romania]] | ||
*[[Page 14.11| Evaluation activities in Spain]] | *[[Page 14.11| Evaluation activities in Spain]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | === In users' words...=== | ||
| + | *[[Page 14.12| End-users' statements]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | ===Summary of evaluation results=== | ||
| + | |||
| + | *[[Page 14.9| Closing remarks]] | ||
| + | |||
Latest revision as of 13:57, 26 January 2015
Contents |
[edit] Evaluation results
[edit] Overview
Evaluation was seen as a systematic method for gathering, analysing, and using information to strengthen the quality of siLang methodologies, proof-of-concept serious game, and supporting material. This section aims at providing the reader with information concerning the way external evaluation activities were conduct-ed. This section brings also into focus the findings of the evaluation activities to date. On-going evaluation activities are used to ensure that outcomes meet stakeholder objectives.
The siLang evaluation activities had a European-wide reach covering not only the 5 countries that are represented in the project consortium but also 5 more. Specifically, evaluation activities were carried out in: Greece, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Estonia, Romania, Switzerland, Spain, Cyprus, Sweden. The following map demonstrates the 10 countries in which evaluation activities took place. The total number of external users engaged was well in excess of 500 as compared to the proposal foreseen 180.
[edit] Implementation
Qualitative methods were employed. Small case studies took place through which the method of observation and the learning experiments were used. The evaluation aimed at generating qualitative feedback. In some cases (for example in Italy) were evaluation took place remotely some quantitative indicators are used. However, these indicators are mainly used to evaluate the qualitative claims made for the siLang intervention. The following factors were carefully considered in the context of siLang evaluation activities.
- Reactions of the participants in the study
- Participants’ perceptions regarding the relevance of the game towards building communication and language skills applicable at work, the added value of the game in relation to the learning process and the overall quality of the game
- Acceptance of the game as a complementary digital tool for language skill building
- Usability of the game mainly in relation to the design, functionality, and interactivity aspects as well as any possible difficulties encountered by learners during use
- Level of engagement in the situated learning process
It is worth mentioning that evaluation procedure was being slightly adapted to each evaluation group. This was due to the fact that each evaluation group may aggregate different characteristics. In addition, the evaluation activities did not aim at alleviating answers to all of the above topics. siLang team intention was not to force feedback, but to naturally explore participants’ experiences and to identify links to the topics appear above.
[edit] Evaluation results per partner site
- Evaluation activities in Greece
- Evaluation activities in Estonia
- Evaluation activities in Italy
- Evaluation activities in Portugal
- Evaluation activities in Norway
[edit] Evaluation activities in countries beyond the scope of the proposal
- Evaluation activities in Cyprus
- Evaluation activities in Sweden
- Evaluation activities in Switzerland
- Evaluation activities in Romania
- Evaluation activities in Spain
[edit] In users' words...
[edit] Summary of evaluation results
Click here to go back
