1 / 21

John Mc Lo ughlin (Director of Adult Education/European Projects)

Grundtvig Partnership Projects Multiple Intelligence & Parents Education Project IASI Meeting 25 th April 2013. John Mc Lo ughlin (Director of Adult Education/European Projects) Anne Jennings (Project Support Manager) Galway Technical Institute Ireland www.gti.ie.

leland
Télécharger la présentation

John Mc Lo ughlin (Director of Adult Education/European Projects)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Grundtvig Partnership ProjectsMultiple Intelligence &Parents Education ProjectIASI Meeting 25th April 2013 John Mc Loughlin (Director of Adult Education/European Projects) Anne Jennings (Project Support Manager) Galway Technical Institute Ireland www.gti.ie

  2. Galway Technical Institute • Largest Further Education College in West of Ireland • Teaching Staff = 65 • Full-time Further Education students = 1250 • Part-time students on certified and non-certified programmes = 1400 • School of Music = 300

  3. EU Projects • LDV – Initial Vocational Training = 230 students to 8 countries • LDV – VETPro = 20 Teaching Staff to three countries • Grundtvig - MI • Transfer of Innovation – Moving Make it Simple • Partnership – Careers of the Future

  4. Activities • Focus on project team • Geraldine, Alison, John, Anne • Design of worksheet content for use – edited and uploaded • Evaluating worksheet content for use

  5. Activities/Outcomes • Awareness was raised about the project in the college. (Emails to Students/Teachers) • Meetings and minutes taken to record project progress.

  6. Activities/Outcomes • Selection of target groups / client profile to test questionnaire • 3 groups identified 6-9 years / 10 – 12 years / 13 – 16 years • Meeting with Parents to disseminate information on project • Distributed material to various age groups involved (Monday 8th April) • Agreed on a deadline to get results of questionnaire back to GTI (Friday 19th April)

  7. Activities/Outcomes Data analysis and collation on questionnaire results Creation of Spreadsheet document to record findings Meeting to report on events to date

  8. Results of Questionnaires and Work completed with groups • In general, all work was attempted and completed by all client groups. • Some groups found the work more challenging than others • Comprehension of the assigned work was difficult for younger children but very interesting to get results. • Older children managed the tasks well.

  9. MI - Research AnalysisIreland (Sample 12 Parents)

  10. Parent Age Breakdown

  11. Level of Education of Parents

  12. Residence of Parents

  13. Number of Children assessed

  14. Age Breakdown of groups

  15. Motivation Level Achieved • All parents tested 7 worksheets • On average 2-3 activities were tested on each child (Age 6-9) • Parent 1 felt there was a high level of motivation for Linguistic and Interpersonal. Their child was fairly motivated by the other five activities • Parent 2 felt there was a high level of motivation for all activities except Interpersonal • Parent 3 felt there was a high level of motivation for Linguistic, Visual, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal. • Parent 4 felt there was a high level of motivation for all intelligences

  16. Motivation Level Achieved (Age 10-12) • Parent 1 felt there was a high level of motivation for Linguistic, Maths, Interpersonal and Intrapersonal. Less motivation for the others • Parent 2 felt there was a high level of motivation for maths, musical, bodily, intrapersonal. The others less so. • Parent 3 felt there was a high level of motivation for musical. Little for Maths, bodily and interpersonal • Parent 4 felt there was a high level of motivation for all. (Age 13-16) • Parent 1 felt there was a high level of motivation for maths, Little for the rest • Parent 2 felt there was a high level for maths, bodily, interpersonal, and intrapersonal • Parent 3 felt there was high level of motivation for all intelligences • Parent 4 felt there was a high level of motivation for all intelligences

  17. Degree of Difficulty • Not all parents found the activities easy to complete. • No parent found them too short. • Some found the work clear, amusing and substantial. • All stated that they found it time consuming

  18. Child’s own Awareness of MI • All 12 parents agreed that their children improved awareness of their own intelligences except for 2.

  19. Quality of Improved Relationships with parents • 10 out of 12 parents felt that these activities improved relationships with their child significantly.

  20. Awareness of Improved MI • All parents believed that these activities contributed to their understanding of MI

  21. What’s Next? • Review of the worksheets evaluation • Preparation for the final meeting in Denmark

More Related