Assessment of the model

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
and Statistics, 2016, Vol. 4, No. 1, 1-8. doi: /ajams-4-1-1
Advertisements

Table 1. Τhe grid analysis with conceptual categories and subcategories by NRC (2012) Tsetsos Stavros et al. The Scientific Practices on the Science’s.
before and after rehabilitation
Intermediate-level learner
Table 1. The Structure of the 9-Year Basic Education Curriculum
Table 2. Result of Actual Technical Writing Needs
Research, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 6, doi: /education
Figure 3. Comparison of class performance
Table 3. Quran memorization students survey responses about App
Table 1. Sample Size No Category Sample Size (F) Percentage (%) 1
Unpacking This Week’s ELA Standards
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Medical students time limitation and huge volume of studies
Table 3. Student’s Mathematical Critical Thinking Ability Description
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Metacognitive Strategy: Think Alouds
Teachers Response (N= 11)
Instructional materials
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Table 8. Drawing result before game
Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio
student achievement scores
Table 2. A Sample Lesson on Teaching Prepositions
January 2019 Designing Upper Economics Electives with a significant writing component Helen Schneider The University of Texas at Austin.
Table 11. Chi-Square Analysis Based on Grade Shift for Study Group
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Project journal: Project title goes here
in the last evaluation of the software
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Project journal: Project title goes here
Test Mean Std. Dev. Mathematics English Language
Table 1. Student’s attitude towards technology (%)
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Significant (2- tailed)
Rating of Water Quality
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Contrast equality of group means
Table 2. Showing mean and SD along with t- critical ratio
Number of categories that are mentioned (0% < categories < 5%)
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Actual descriptive example
Overall Average Female Overall Average Male/Female
Entrapment Efficiency (%) ± S.D.
Table 2. Test of Normality
Text Format Files Number Files Size(Bytes) Words Number
Number of questionnaires sent out
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics
Behavioral strategies
Table 4. Summary of Multi ways ANOVA results
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
95% Confidence Interval for Mean
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
chemistry that are involved in peer group
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Table 2. Cronin, Dekker and Dunn Model
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Table 3. (d) Summary of two way ANOVA for overall adjustment
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Figure 2. MDS-T configuration for the thirteen (13) criteria (and their Place) in DPESS in Athens (NKUA) Chris P. Lamprou et al. Evaluating the effectiveness.
Category Quantity Secondary school 3 Student participant
Table 1. Illiteracy distribution by Gender and Place (No. in million)
Geometry and Mensuration
Table 7. The Result of T Test After Treatment
Table 3. The Structure of the Basic Science and Technology Curriculum
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Table 4. Independent Samples Test Application of ICT by Gender
Table 6. Range Comparisons amongst Subgroups and grade levels
© The Author(s) Published by Science and Education Publishing.
Presentation transcript:

Assessment of the model Table 5. A precept of student’s work sheet (2) Name, Surname ……………………................................ Grade…… Subject ………….......... The depicted concept, process or phenomena in the assessed model......................................... Assessment of the model Task objectives:  Carefully get acquainted with the presented for the valuation model and its description!  Evaluate it considering the criteria given in the table!  Justify the reasons why you have decreased the evaluation if your evaluation is lower than the possible maximum, in the row “your objections and comments”!  Give suggestions for the improvement of the model! No Evaluated position Criteria of valuation Your objecttions and comments Max. number of points Your evaluation 1 Theoretical justification of the model Carefully read the paragraph 1 of the description given for the model “Theoretical justification”! Evaluate it considering the following criteria!  All the theoretical justification of the model seems well comprehensible for me, and I consider it theoretically correct – 2 points.  I understood the information included in the theoretical justification of the model only after reading the text for several times, and/or it is false – 1 point.  There are many mistakes in the theoretical justification of the model; I could not catch the meaning of the text – 0 points. 2 Description of the model Carefully read the paragraph 2 of the description given for the model in the row “Description of the model”! Evaluate it considering the following criteria!  All the information included in the description of the model seems well comprehensible – 2 points.  I understood the information included in the theoretical justification of the model only after reading the text for several times – 1 point.  I could not catch the meaning of the text describing the model – 0 points. 3 The chosen association/similarity with the model Carefully study the picture or drawing of the object, process or phenomenon in the description for the model given in the paragraph 2 in the row “Model”! Evaluate it considering the following criteria!  The object, process or phenomenon presented in the picture engenders direct association in me with the natural science concept which this model is created for – 2 points.  I have got the associations between the object, process or phenomena shown in the picture/drawing and the science concept which this model is created for only after penetrating into it for a long time – 1 point.  To my opinion, the shown object, process or phenomena is not connected in any way with the science concept which this model is created for – 0 points. 4 Model description in English Carefully read the paragraph 3 in the description for the model “Description of the model in English”! Evaluate it, considering the following criteria!  The description of the model is written in comprehensible and grammatically correct English – 2 points.  The description of the model in English contains some mistakes but it does not prevent understanding the information – 1 point.  The English in the description of the model contains many mistakes which do not allow comprehension of the information included in the model – 0 points. Your suggestions for the amelioration of the model: Aiva Gaidule et al. The Use of Associative Images (models) for the Development of Comprehension in Sciences Education. American Journal of Educational Research, 2015, Vol. 3, No. 10, 1305-1310. doi:10.12691/education-3-10-15 © The Author(s) 2015. Published by Science and Education Publishing.