Grant agreement number: 2006-4531 /001-001 ELE-ELEARN
Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency
Unit P1 – Lifelong Learning: Comenius, Grundtvig, ICT and
Lingua
eLEARNING PROGRAMME
D5.2 Methodology for practice peer learning
Contents
General visit methodology .................................................................................................. 2
1: Selection of schools and formation of triads .............................................................. 2
2: Tasks before the visit .................................................................................................. 2
3: Tasks after the visit ..................................................................................................... 3
Example of steps 14-15, developed for triad 3’s Bjerregrav Report: ........................ 4
Guidance for the school visit report writing process .......................................................... 4
General visit methodology1
1: Selection of schools and formation of triads
The selection of schools and their grouping in triads is the responsibility of the partners acting
collaboratively. A triad is a group of three schools of a similar type, one from each of three
countries. Therefore partners need to share some brief information about the nature of the
proposed triad schools to determine that they will have something in common.
Among the criteria for selection of schools is that they should already be engaged in self review of
their ICT activities and be willing to engage in discussing and sharing their experiences with a
peer group from the other schools in the P2V programme.
Each school in a triad hosts one visit from the other two schools and each school makes two
visits to schools in other countries.
2: Tasks before the visit
The three project partners provide a co-ordinator (e.g. from ministry, inspector, municipality) to
work with the schools; one of them manages the triad, makes things happen, and liaises with the
EUN office. Visit dates are agreed between triad members. As these have to fit in the cycle of
three visits in the lives of busy people it would be good to have an overall plan of such dates and
deadlines that allows realistic amounts of time for the work to be done.
EUN sets up a mailing list for each triad.
Each school completes a self-review form, either the Becta ICT Mark (if they are already using it
in that country, i.e. Northern Ireland and Norway) or the online form developed by the Dutch
inspectorate in P2V. The form should be shared with other schools, at least two weeks before the
visit as visitors not only have to read the material but also prepare questions. Either a Norwegian
and/or a Northern Ireland school is in four of the 5-6 triads and they are already using the Becta
framework; but as the P2V form is developed we can valorise it.
Each school prepares and exchanges with the other schools in their triad other information on
their school. This information should provide background information so that the visiting school
may spend more time working on the specific focus selected by the host school.
EUN and the host country partner provide documentation about the country‟s education system
and ICT in schools, at least a week before the visit. This material should be read in advance by
the visitors to reduce the amount of time needed for briefing presentations during the visit itself.
Each project partner briefs their visiting school, before the visit, on the education systems /
education culture matters in the country to be visited. The pre visit activities should also allow the
schools making the visit to formulate and share specific questions to the host school before the
visit. Stipulating the objectives of the project would help clarify what is being sought here.
The school hosting the visit draws up the agenda for at least two days spent in the school and
sets the curriculum subject/topic focus for the visit, within the overall project topics of:
Digital resources for learning
Digital literacy of teachers and learners
New learning environments.
The timing of each visit should allow for two clear working days in the host school. This agenda
and the focus should relate to the host school‟s own ICT self evaluation activity (for example
1
Published at http://p2v.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/Methodology%2020080220.doc
foreign language teaching or other subject/topic based activity in the school involving ICT). The
focus should be negotiated and agreed with the other schools in the triad and be related to a
problem or challenge the host school is facing. A schedule of activities should be shared and
agreed between schools before the visit takes place. This schedule should include, for example,
arrangements for tours of the host school, a timetable for visits to classrooms, arrangements for
meeting individual and groups of teachers, arrangements for meeting others involved with the
focus of the visit to the host school and discussion and reflection time in country / role (head
teachers etc.) groups and together.
Provision should be made for social as well as professional interaction.
Each school making the visits is represented by the same three people. As such attendance is
not always possible, mechanisms need to be set up to allow new people to rapidly get up to
speed with what has happened in the procedure (and other visits) so far. One should be the
principal / head teacher. The others should be (a) someone from the visiting school interested in
or responsible for teaching the subject/topic selected by the host school (b) someone to act as
observer/recorder. In some cases a teacher acting as interpreter may be needed.
During the visit the two visiting schools use a set of headings common to both the Becta ICT
Mark and the P2V self-review to record their impressions:
Leadership
Curriculum
Learning and teaching
Assessment and administration
Professional development
Extending opportunities for learning
Resources
Impact on pupil outcomes
We should encourage the use of other media to record aspects of the visit, including photos and
video / audio recordings, interviews, etc.
At the end of each visit the two visiting schools makes a brief presentation to the host of their first
observations under the headings of the review framework and the host school responds,
correcting any facts, mistaken impressions and providing explanations where needed.
The triad agrees on dates:
Submission of draft report by each visiting school
Comments and corrections from host school
Submission of final reports to EUN office
3: Tasks after the visit
Each school writes a more developed report using the self-review framework following reflection
after the visit, with the help of the local adviser, national co-ordinator. For further discussion:
should this be a joint report developed by the two visiting schools, and why?
A report of the visit, the issues raised and the nature of the interaction between school staff
involved will be prepared jointly by the visiting schools and agreed with the host before being
forwarded to the partner organizations and the EUN. If the host requests changes they should be
made before the report is circulated and the version of the report should indicate clearly „Draft‟ or
„Final‟ as appropriate. The peer reviews remain confidential to the three schools
EUN office will carry out a meta-analysis and synthesis of the reports in order to extract key
issues, challenges and outcomes. Each school can decide whether to be anonymous or named,
and will see the draft report before it is revised and published.
To look for subsequent impact of the visit on practices in schools, there should be a follow-up
questionnaire or carry out an interview in the schools visited to get a measure of the impact of the
visit … or even ask those people involved to look out for and record those practices where they
see input from the visit having an impact.
4: Example of steps 14-15, developed for triad 3’s Bjerregrav Report:
1. Northern Ireland (NI) finalizes their draft, similar to the one sent from Norway (NO), using
the same 10 “Becta framework” headlines/themes, reflecting on each of these, and
commenting on specific issues as need be. This includes the specific questions that
Bjerregrav (DK) sent before the visit as their requirement for feedback/evaluation from
the visitors.
2. The two visitor groups (guided by their national P2V WP-coordinators) make a synthesis
of their draft reports, maybe done as a synopsis with the 10 headlines/themes in parallel,
and including reflections on the DK evaluation questions.
3. On the basis of this synoptic draft report, NO and NI finalise among themselves their
discussion/evaluation of the visit to DK.
4. They send the report to Bjerregrav School (Cc: Øjvind and Claus), who can then ask
questions, make objections and comments.
5. NO and NI then have their final discussion/evaluation and make necessary adjustments.
6. Finally a quick round between all three schools to be sure everybody accepts and
approves the report at the three schools, then it is sent to the EUN.
Guidance for the school visit report writing process2
This is guidance; schools can agree to vary their approach to suit circumstances.
1. This guidance should be read by all participants in the school visit programme.
2. The visit and the peer review report focuses on the use of digital resources and learning
environments in support of education.
3. The peer review report is structured by the 8 elements3 of the Becta Self-Review
Framework (SRF). Reports are published on the http://p2v.eun.org website.
4. The host school may wish to set three questions on which they wish the visitors to advise
or comment. The three questions relate to the Becta SRF.
5. In discussion in the school during the visit it is not expected that teams can cover all eight
elements of the Becta SRF.
6. In order to focus the discussion 2 or 3 elements should be selected. The most important
2 elements are Impact and Leadership.
7. The two visiting teams produce a single peer review report about the host school.
2
Published at
http://p2v.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/P2V%20Guidance%20for%20Schools%20report%202008031
3.doc
3
The 8 Becta SRF elements are: Impact on pupil outcomes; leadership and management; teaching and
learning; assessment; curriculum; professional development; extending opportunities for learning;
resources.
8. The report begins with an introduction stating brief details of the dates of the visit, the
names of the visiting schools, the members of the visiting teams and a short description
of the host school.
9. The visit programme is included as an annex in the report.
10. The two visiting teams do not compromise where they have different views.
11. Where the visitors have different comments to make the relevant paragraphs in the report
should be preceded by the country abbreviation, e.g.: NI: In our experience…; DK: This
is a matter of……
12. They visiting teams work together on the final afternoon to start a draft and agree a
timescale to complete the report.
13. The peer review report summarises, at the end of report, the recommendations made by
the visitors.
14. The peer review report includes the questions asked by the host and the
commentary/answers from the visitors.
15. The host school has an opportunity to
correct factual errors in the draft report
add a commentary responding to the peer review to the report
state how it plans to respond to the recommendations
agree that the report may be published - where they do not agree to publication, the
host school‟s name may be removed
16. Any photographs included in the report or project website conform to the host school‟s
Acceptable Use policy: the permission of adults and the parents of the pupils are sought
and provided.
17. Once completed, and agreed by all parties, the report is published by EUN.