|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
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
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 partnership level, of
:
·
the domains, areas, performances
indicators for the
benchmarcking , to use
·
the instruments (created during the second year of the project) for assessment and
evaluation of the students achievements,
to use
o
the
selection of the students (Romanian students) who will participate in the
project meeting in Italy
·
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
Educational Research, Methodology and Measurement
·
Constructing activities
o
The drawing up of the materials to be used during
the Comenius 3 I-ProbeNet Conferince
(Graz September 2004)
o
The
creation of the list with
domains,/areas, performance indicators, instruments and target group to use for
benchmarking:
areas:
·
SCHOOL
– FAMILY RELATIONSHIP
o
Instruments
created/used during the second year by the Portuquese team
§
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 TEACHERS ON INTERNAL
EVALUATION AT SCHOOL
o
Instrument
created/used during the first year by the German team
·
IDENTIFICATION
OF THE RISK AREAS OF
ADOLESCENT’S LIFE
o
Instruments created/used during the second year by the
|
PROBLEM AREA |
|
1. Leisure |
|
2. Behaviour |
|
3. Health |
|
4. Contemporaries + social performance (friends) |
|
5. Family |
|
6. School |
|
7. Habits |
·
SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION
o
Instruments created/used during the second year by the Greek team
·
Observation grid for:
·
Coordination of school life
·
Transfiguration
·
Description
·
ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
o
Instruments used during the second year by the
Bucharest Romanian team
·
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
Target group: one
class – first level in school
Rules:
o
instruments to by applied two times-during the fist
and second semester of the school year
o
not all the partners will use all the instruments (for
example the school from
o
Translation in national language of the instruments
and evaluation rules (each partner school).
o
Establishing of the structure and model of report for
each country (the Portuguese team)
o
Implementation of
the evaluation at the local level:
o
Applying
the instruments
o
Collecting
data
o
Data
analysing
o
Printing reports
at schools’ level (each school) and at project level (Vsetin –
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/cuprins.html
(web page created and updated by the Romanian team from Beius).
o
Printing
final material and Joint Report (Ion Creanga High School Bucharest Romania)
·
Dissemination activities:
o
articles in the school’s magazines
o
information panels at each school level,
o
presentation
of the second year results (each school) during the project meeting in Portugal,
o
presentation
of the evaluation reports after the firs
session of evaluation during the project meeting in Italy ( each school
excepting the Romanian school from Bucharest);
o
participation
to the Comenius 3 Conferince I-ProbeNet – Graz Austria September 2005 (Romania,
Greece and Holland) :
·
distribution
of the a CD with our materials created and used during the first and the second
year of the project,
·
organizing
a workshop about the role of
self-evaluation in the quality management in school.
o
Dissemination
seminars during Comenius week (each school);
o
Spring
day activities and dissemination – during the Spring Day, the European
Commissary for Education, Culture and Multilingvism, Mr. Jan Figel, The
Romanian Minister of Education Mr Mircea Miclea, the Ambasador of Permanent Delegation of European Community at Bucharest, participated to the
activities organized in Ion Creanga High Scool Bucharest Romania Mr Jonathan
Scheele and other representavive of
local community participated to the activities organized in Ion Creanga High
School Buchares Romania.
o
Participation
to the local, national and international disemination activities (for example
the Portuguese team which participate to 2 national seminars and the Romanian
tean from Bucharest which participate to 1 national seminar and 1 International
seminar organized between 6-7f May at Bucharest with participation of
representants from12 countries.
o
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 (1-3 teachers from each partner school) in Portugal and Italy (at the
project meeting in Italy participated 10
Romanian students)
o
participation
to the Comenius 3 I-probenet Conference-1 teacher from Romania Bucharest, One
teacher from Greece, one teacher from Holland.
o
teacher
exchanges:
|
From |
2nd GYMNASIO LAMIAS Lamia Greece |
To |
Venray
Holand 1teacher |
|
|
Liceo Scientifico Leonardo da Vinci Sora Italy |
|
Aveiro Praha
CZ 2 teachers |
|
|
Scoala cu clase I-VIII Nicolae Popoviciu Beius Romania |
|
|
|
|
Stredni Zdravotnicka Skola V Vyssi zdravodtnicka skola Vsetin
Czech Republic |
|
Kaufbeuren Germany 1 teacher Venray Holand 2
teachers |
|
|
Stredni Zdravotnicka Skola V Vyssi zdravodtnicka skola Praha
Czech Republic |
|
Kaufbeuren Germany 1 teacher Sora Italy 2 teachers |
|
|
Escola Secundaria de Jose Estevao |
|
Praha Czech
Republic - 2 teachers |
|
|
Istituto Comprensivo di Arce |
|
Aveiro 1 teacher Praha 1 teacher |
|
|
Staatliche
Fachoberschule und berufsoberschule Kaufbeuren Germany |
|
Vsetin |
|
|
Kossuth Lajos
Gimnazium ės Szakközépiskola Sŕtoraljaůjhely Hungary |
|
Vsetin Aveiro |
During this year there were
internal and external obstacles. At the intern level the problem was generated
by the coordinator school. The grant received by the coordinator school for
mobility from the National Agency was a very small and because of this teachers
canot participate to the mobility and they didn’t want to work in the project.
In that conditions for this year, the project team in Ion Creanga High Scool
has a single person, the project coordinator. It was very difficult for one
person to translate, applie collect and analyze data in time. The Ion Creanga High School didn’t respect
the schedule of the tasks and was all the time in delay.
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 to the mobility.
2. What
kind of products have been produced in the course of the past school
year?
q
Local
evaluation reports and an final comparative report about schools self
evaluation
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
( evaluation instruments, PowerPoint and Flash presentations, reports)
q A brochure with materials created and used by the project partners
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
§
during the project meeting in
§
the guest students from
§
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
§
the
teachers participated to the school’s activities and to cultural activities and
they has opportunity to know better the Italian style of life and to realise
that there are common features in the poartners style life and day by day
problems
§
the
hospitality of the hosts teams make all of us to fill that we are a big family
and that the national pride, the selfrespect for our national culture can’t be
conected with in conection with racist or xenofobic fillings.
§
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 Romanian 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. The travel costs for the very poor students were suported from the
Socrates grant and for the rich students were suported by parents.
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 motility activities.
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
meetings, the teachers prepared Power Point Presentations. These kind of
presentations were prepared also for the dissemination sesions.
For the data
analysis we used MS Office Utilitaries.
5.
How effective was the collaboration
between the participating institutions?
Each partner school settled 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