|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
Joint Activity Report
Project Title: SEATL-P System of evaluation for the assistance of the teaching-learning process
2nd Gymnasio Lamias Lamia Greece -partner
Liceo
Scientifico ‘Leonardo Da Vinci’ Sora Italy -partner
Scoala
cu clase I-VIII “Nicolae Popoviciu”
Beius Romania -partner
Stredni Zdravotnicka Skola V Vyssi Zdravotnicka Skola
Vsetin Czech Republic -partner
Raayland College Venray Netherland -partner
Staatliche
Fachoberschule und berufsoberschule Kaufbeuren
Germany -partner
Stredni Zdravotnicka Skola Praha Czech Republic -partner
1.
What activities have been carried
out by the partnership in the past school year?
·
Organizing
activities
o The
elaboration of the working plan and the evaluation plan
o The
establishment, at each school level, of :
·
the
instruments (created during the first year of the
project) for assessment and evaluation of
the students achievements, to
implement and to improve
·
the
domains, areas, performances indicators for
the evaluation of school’s performances ,
to study/create and to use
o the creation of the European Information Office
in Ion Creanga High School in Bucharest
o the
selection of the students who will participate in the project meeting in
Romania
·
Individual
and team study/research/training cources
focused on different topics related to the project:
o
Management and
quality assurance;
o School
development process;
o Benchmarking
in quality school management;
o Managing the evaluation;
o Assessment of students achievement;
o MICE instruments for project evaluation.
·
Constructing
activities
o The
creation of the list with domains, areas
and performance indicators to use by each school for the evaluation of the
quality in school ( Italian schools-internal/external communication, German
school-ethos/climate, Romanian school Beius-school resources, Praha Czech
School-school management, Portuguese School-school comunity, Greece
school- school administration, Holland school –the pupils progress, Bucuresti Romanian school-management and
quality assurance and ethos Vsetin Czech school-ethos/climate and parents assessment, Hungarian school –school
community)
o
Creating and presenting reports about the
implementation and the improvement of the evaluation istruments for student’s
achievement ( Bucharest school Romania
-students portfolio for science, student’s interest for studyng sciences,
students attitude, Greece school- student’s research skills, students reading
authonomy, Italiann schools –students skills in foreign languages, Holland and Germany schools –interest for studying
math and sciences, student’s attitude, Portugal-observation grid, peer
observation and group observation, the
extensive reading grid, Beius Romanian
and Hungarian schools-student’s interest in studying math and science, student’s
foreign languages skills, Czech schools –student’s foreign languages skills)
o
Elaboration of the
instruments and methodology of evaluation the performances/quality management
in school
o Printing the
guide for self-evaluation of school quality
o Implementation of
methodology of evaluation at the local level
o Updating
the project web pages http://www.prof2000.pt/users/mcas/seat-lp/index.htm
(web page created and updated by the Portuguese team) and http://www.scgenerala.s5.com/glines.html (web page created and updated by the Romanian
team from Beius).
·
Dissemination
activities: articles in the school’s magazines,
information panels at each school level, presentation of the first year results
durring the project meeting in Greece, participation to the Comenius 3
Conferince I-ProbeNet and distribution of the book written during the first
year of the project, Comenius week (dissemination seminar, radio and TV
dissemination).
·
Project
self-evaluation activities (of the progress) using
MICE instruments-each school established fields and instruments for
self-evaluation
·
Mobilities:
o project
meetings (1-2 teachers from each partner school) in Greece and Romania (at the
project meeting in Romania participated teachers and 25 students)
o study
visit : from Italy to Romania and from Romania to Germany
o teacher
exchanges:
|
From |
Liceul Ion Creanga Bucuresti Romania |
To
|
|
|
|
2nd GYMNASIO LAMIAS Lamia Greece |
|
Portugal- 3 teachers, Beius Romania –1
teacher |
|
|
Liceo Scientifico
Leonardo da Vinci Sora Italy |
|
Greece-1 teacher, |
|
|
Scoala cu clase
I-VIII Nicolae Popoviciu Beius Romania |
|
|
|
|
Stredni
Zdravotnicka Skola V Vyssi zdravodtnicka skola Vsetin Czech Republic |
|
Italy –1 teacher, Portugal –1 teacher |
|
|
Escola Secundaria
de Jose Estevao |
|
|
|
|
Instituto
Comprensivo di Arce |
|
Germany-1 teacher, |
|
|
Staatliche Fachoberschule und berufsoberschule Kaufbeuren Germany |
|
|
During this year there were internal and external obstacles. At the intern level there were big differences between types of approach of the theme in partner schools. Some of the schools decided to focus to a little number of fields and instruments for evaluation and they had the time to create instruments and to implement them. Other teams had an holistic approach and they hadn’t enough force and time to finalized what they proposed.
At the extern level
the obstacles were financial. There were big differences between the grants
received by the partners schools. Because of this, for some of the schools
there were financial problems with the participation of the students to the
project meeting in Romania.
2. What
kind of products have been produded in the course of the past school
year?
q
A self-evaluation guide of the educational
system ( created in collaboration of all the local teams) that will contain:
·
Performance indicators
·
Evaluation methods and instruments (around of 50 drafts of evaluation instruments)
·
Practical examples of the self-evaluation in
some key-domains (each team selected the domains of interest for his/her own
school) of Management and quality assurance
q
two web pages of the project (created and
updated by the Portuguese team and the Romanian team from Beius)
q
Articles in the competent press (each team
at local level)
q
Publicity panels in each school
q A
CD-rom with the project materials
Each local team selected one or more areas of school activities, to be evaluated and for the selected areas created/adapted and used evaluation instruments. During the selection we tried to cover all the areas of schools activities. The partner schools ‘ options were:
·
Greece :
·
Evaluation
query appliance in English, which was developed by the Portuguese school.
·
An evaluation query developed by the German school,
was translated and given to the teachers of the school , by the students.
·
A
general evaluation query of the school also developed by the German school was
given out.
·
An evaluation tool of the quality of the school’s
management has been developed and used
at school level
·
Italy: the both schools
·
For
implementation of evaluation we have chosen the following instrument : Portuguese material about English language - the Peer Observation
Grid
·
The area of school quality
selected was internal/external
comunicationcommunication and the
instrument created for the evaluation of the area was Educational Competencies and Skills Portfolio
with the contents: Monitoring form, Observation Grid, Observation Language
skills, observation Scientific skills, Observation Technological Skills,
Observation Historical-Social-Economical Skills, Course Two/Three Years Form,
Two/three years final Certification, Final Report.
·
·
School
from Vsetin:
·
Evaluation
of the climate in school –two kinds of essays and evaluation rules
·
Evaluation
of students’ language skills- they created a multiple choice test with 20
questions, divided into four parts according to the topic: Geography, Culture
(in the general sense) and Sport, Politics, History
·
Identification
of risk areas of life of adolescents (they created/adapted and used 7
questionnaires for students and 7 questionnaires for parents for the next
areas: leisure, behaviour, health, friends, family, school, habits.)
·
School
from Praha:
·
Questionnaire
for students to improve school work
·
Questionnaire
for the Internal evaluation of the
school
·
· Instruments for class observation. (attitudes and values, oral comprehension and production)
· School evaluation. – Climate : School – Family Relationship, Class Tutor-Parents relationship, Parents’ Association (Questionnaire to the President of the Parents Association, Grid to analyse notes and meeting minutes resulting from contacts between the class tutor and parents, Questionnaire for parents: School – family relationship, Questionnaire for Parents: The school ethos)
·
Netherland:
·
Implementation
of instruments to evaluate: Students attitude using Checklist (created by the team from
·
Drawing
up and implementation an Observation Checklist to evaluate students’ interest
to study science and math
·
Germany:
·
Implementation
of Group work Checklist
·
Attitude
– interest for studying math and science- Observation Checklist
·
Drawing
up and implementation of Questionnaire for teachers to evaluate Climate of school
·
Hungary:
·
Implementation of instruments to evaluate
students’ skills and attitudes(Checklist
for Evaluation tools for observation -interest for study Mathematics, Checklist for reading behaviour, autonomy for
national language)
·
School evaluation – Climate (Requirement and
satisfaction of parents with the work of the school, Survey to assess the atmosphere in the school)
·
Romania:
·
School from Beius:
·
The assessment of the internal and external communication using “The Pyramid for the Student’s Needs”.
·
School’s
resources (questionnaire for the identification of devices and didactical
means, library, IT and Media, and human resources).
·
School from Bucharest:
·
Implementation of instruments to evaluate
students’ attitude-interest for studing sciences (Portfolio with Checklist
created by Portuguese team and Observation Checklist created by the team from
Holland)
·
Identifying and evaluation of the school
culture (Instruments used: Agenda for meeting
with students, Organization Health Survey (checklist), Questionnaire for
identifying cultural levels (typology of G. Hofstede), Questionnaire – The
behaviour of management and teaching staff – ethical representations,
Questionnaire for finding the sociability and solidarity levels in the
organization, Questionnaire – Behaviours. Management decentralisation level,
Questionnaire – The school organization: the mechanicist/organic organization.
The school organization: the culture of the organization (checklist),
Questionnaire for identifying the hidden personal values set, Questionnaire for
the leader’s emotional intelligence profile,
Survey for the Leader (headteacher), Observation checklist (students’
perception of teacher activity), Checklist
for students perception of teacher.)
All the local teams used as instruments for the selection of the students who participated to the project meeting in Romania the essays with positive and negative aspects about the school.
The printed guide for self evaluation of quality in school will be distribute to the teachers in the partner schools and to other schools in the local areas. Also our work will be presented in the Comenius 3 I-Probenet Conferince on September In Gratz. The project web pages contains our work and it can be accesed by who is interested.
The first reports about the implementation of the instruments created during the first year of the project were presented at local level, in special sesions organized during Comenius Week.
3.
What kind of specific and concrete
measures, if any, have been taken within the project to:
• facilitate the participation of pupils with special
educational needs
·
for the
evaluation of the educational–instructive process we created some performance
indicators. For establishing these indicators, we collaborated with the
school’s counselors and psycho-pedagogues and we took in view the general
characteristics of the learning–teaching process as well as of the personalized
and flexible learning methods.
·
to established some indicators that allow the
identification of the pupil’s
intelligence types and of the individual needs of training and learning.
·
We
tried to create a balance between
comparative evaluation of the pupil’s results and the added value of the
learning process, added value, which takes into account of the initial level
and of every student’s needs and characteristics. Thus, even if the pupils are
not involved directly in the creation of the evaluating methodology, all the
students from the partner schools, including the ones with special needs, will
benefit from the results of this project.
·
ensure equal opportunities for the participation of
female and male pupils and staff?
§
the working teams include (having equal
rights) female and male teachers.
§
the evaluation instruments were created as
not to depend on gender and are used for
boy–students as well as for girl–students.
§
the Romanian team created few instruments to
identify the gender discrimination at school level
§
as for the school evaluation, we established
the achievement indicators, which
emphasize the fact that females and males (teachers and students) are
given equal chance in the school.
§
promote
intercultural education, and/or to help combat racism/xenophobia?
because of the nature of this project, there haven’t been taken concrete and direct measures to fight against racism/ xenophobia, but:
§
the
evaluation instruments created are
useful to and used by both teachers and students without any connection to
nationality.
§
specific indicators, which emphasize
achievements and not nationality, are to be used
§
creating
a common culture of evaluation in our schools
indirectly promote some aspects of intercultural education.
§
during
the project meeting in
§
the guest students lived in the Romanian students’ families
or, all together, in a country house in Bran. In this way they
could be in contact with other
culture, and other level of life.
§
the
issues of the students meeting
discussions and analysis were: what is common and what is different in
our school, what we like and what we
don’t like in our school, how the teachers evaluate us, what we like and what
we don’t like in our evaluation, how
we like to be evaluated. Also
they presented a school day and a holiday day in each country. The results of
this approach were:
·
the sense of belonging to
community at local, national and European level
·
awareness of own identity in a local,
national or European context
§
facilitate
the participation of pupils/schools who/which are disadvantaged for
socio-economic or other reasons?
§
the evaluation instruments created will be
used for the whole scholar population, so for the students with poor
socio-economical status as well.
§
the evaluation system which we want to
create will enable the improvement of the teaching-learning process, thus raising
the chance of admittance in the higher education or of entering the working
field for both students with good material conditions and students with a poor
material condition.
§
At the students project meeting participated
students from different social groups. In the romanian team there are students
from very poor families(monoparental families or gipsy families) and rich families both.
4.
To what extent have staff and pupils
made use of information and communication technologies?
The most important mean of communication was e-mail. We communicate also by phone and directly during the motilities.
For the communication, the coordinator of the Portugal team created and
coordinated an email group and a web
page and the coordinator of the Nicolae Popoviciu Romanian School created the
WEB page of the project.
For the project meeting in Romania, both teachers and students prepared Power Point Presentations. These kind of presentations were prepared also for the dissemination sesions.
For the drawing up the instruments we used MS Office Utilitaries.
5.
How effective was the collaboration
between the participating institutions?
Each partner school will settle its own way in which the school quality
will improve through self-evaluation
Each
school:
q
came up with a report about the
implementation of few instruments created during last year of the project;
q
created the methodology and the
selfvaluation instruments for an area of activity in school;
q
participated with materials for the
evaluation guide.
The
collaboration among schools was established through:
q
periodic exchanges of information using IT
on the activities stage;
q
creating common materials and reports.
q
teacher exchanges
q
study visitd
q
project meetings
We used for the communication English
Language. We think that the
collaboration between partners was good during the second year of the project.
Between the members of a team the cooperation was very well, all the teachers
knowing and assuming their role in the team.
6.
How has the participation of the pupils been organised?
There were two
levels of pupils involvment:
·
As beneficiars of the evaluation instruments
(in each school the teachers used the instruments created in the project to
evaluated students’ skills, attitudes, competencies)
·
As creators/ partipators to the improvement
of the instruments :
·
the translation of the local
instruments in English
·
the students established, during the project
meeting what they like and what they don’t like when they are evaluated and
also how they like to be evaluated (no oral evaluation, more alternative
evaluation-projects, reports, experiments, research)
·
they created essays to evaluate the school
climate
7.
How
have the project activities been integrated in the regular curriculum of
the participating pupils?
There were two kinds of activities :
· Extracurricular activities.
· The teachers had studied individually and participated to the training courses about evaluation at school level (in each partner school) or national level .
· Creating the instruments for evaluation, printing on the computer the material for the brochure, the achievement of the Power Point presentations and WEB pages had been made after classes.
· Curricular activities. The instruments created last year of the project and during this year, were used for the evaluation of curricular and extracurricular activities . The students were evaluated using these instruments. They participated to the self evaluation during the classess.
8.
Has the partnership undertaken any
joint evaluation of the project activities and progress made?
Through the evaluation of this project we understand to evaluate the process of the project implementation as well as the local effects during this project at every concerned school level. We also evaluated the outcomes of this project.
With
a view to evaluation we elaborated a
detailed monitoring and evaluation plan for each activity as well as for the outcomes of it. For the evaluation we used instruments
created in the Comenius 2 project, “MICE” or we designed our own instruments.
The analysis of the dates collected in the project self evaluation show us that
the project activities contributes to the improvement of the school quality and
we are intending to carry on with the
project for another 1 year. Next year we intent to expand the brief to include
a Benchmarking process.
For
the dissemination of a good practice and the competence achieved looking at the
evaluation we intent to propose a
Comenius 3 project on “Evaluation and
Quality Management in Preuniversitary Education”
Project
coordinater: Olivia Maria Jidveian