Page 60 - The SpeakTeach method - Esther de Vrind
P. 60

Chapter 3. Perspective of the teachers - practicality
there were any differences between the baseline measurement and the final measurement at the end of the experiment (factor within test subjects) (the second measurement in-between was ignored here). The scores on the 7-point Likert scale for both groups and both measurements were compared for the two components of the concept of practicality, i.e. the component desirability of the regular teaching and the component probability of being able to successfully use their regular teaching methods in class.
Repeated ANOVA measures examined whether there were differences in the experimental group in the scores for practicality of the SpeakTeach teaching method between the three measurements (the baseline measurement, the interim measurement just before the implementation and the final measurement after implementation of SpeakTeach, see procedure) and these scores were compared with the practicality scores for regular teaching (baseline and final measurements). Just as was done with the mixed ANOVA analysis, separate computations were performed for the components desirability of the teaching method and probability of being able to successfully carry out the SpeakTeach or the regular teaching method. Where differences were found, paired t-tests were performed and corrected using Bonferroni to establish between which measurements
the differences occurred.
Qualitative analysis
To describe the advantages, disadvantages and difficulties that the teachers mentioned in relation to their regular teaching and to establish whether these were different when they used the SpeakTeach method, we used the didactic triangle as the model again (see above). We examined whether the advantages, disadvantages and difficulties that the teachers mentioned were seen as being related to the lesson content/learning aim, the students, or were of a practical nature, and we coded them L (lesson content/learning aim), A (adaptive) and P (practical) respectively. The advantages, disadvantages and difficulties mentioned by the teachers were independently scored by two assessors (the author and an assessor) (Cohen’s κ = 0.82). Where the assessors had coded items differently, they consulted and managed to reach agreement in all cases.
58
57



























































































   58   59   60   61   62