Comenius 2.1 Project EUROPROF: The European Foreign Language Teacher Professional Profile and Portfolio Number: 129337_CP-1-2006-1-IT-Comenius C21 RESULTS OF SELF-EVALUATION SHEET (for the project group) Institution and country: University of Cumbria, UK (1 questionnaire); University College Syd, DK (1 questionnaire); Vilnius Pedagogical University, LT (1 questionnaire); SSIS TOSCANA, IT (4 questionnaires); NKJO Puławy, PL (1 questionnaire); IUFM de Bretagne, FR (1 questionnaire); University of Iceland, IS (1 questionnaire); Pädagogische Hochschule Tirol, AT (1 questionnaire)1. Put a tick in the chosen box MOTIVATION Ongoing motivation Strong 1111 = 4 Good 1111111 = 11 Weak Poor Comments This has continued to be strong and has increased because of the improvement in communication, organisation, the way we work together during international meetings etc. The group has developed a real identity and we work very well together. This in turn means that we (as a local) team) feel more motivated to do our bit in the project. Motivation and concentration on the project work sometimes decreases because of the general work load, but the project activities themselves are interesting and useful, the response from the student teachers and mentors involved has been very positive, which tend to boost willingness to continue the work. The project is really worthwhile on the level of European analysis and especially on the level of student mobility. ORGANIZATION Division of roles and Very clear and effective 11111= 5 responsibilities Quite clear 111111 =6 Vague Completely unclear Detailed comments This has improved considerably and the delegation of specific tasks to specific partners has meant that everyone has felt more involved in the project. The work done on the student mobility modules is an example of this collaboration Both within our institution and among the international project partners. Scheduling of tasks Excellent 1111 = 4 and deadlines Good 1111111 = 7 Satisfactory Poor 1 The partner institutions abroad have sent one questionnaire which in most cases expresses the opinions and the feelings of the whole team, while the coordinator has asked the Italian people working in the project to write their own individual feedback. Detailed comments This has been generally appropriate – occasionally there have been a few deadlines which have come together and proved difficult to meet given other commitments and constraints. But overall, these have been reasonable and we have become much better as a team in planning ahead and identifying priorities and working backwards from these. We manage to complete the agreed tasks in time almost all the time. The coordinator of the project does good work reminding us of the deadlines. Thank you! Excellent from the point of view of the co-ordinator. Unfortunately, we are under horrible pressure at the PHT following restructuring and cannot always keep to the deadlines. Adherence to project Excellent 11 = 2 protocol Good 111111111 = 9 Satisfactory Poor Detailed comments Good – much better communications between partners. Wiki working well for sharing ideas for portfolio. Partners responding promptly to e-mails and to tasks. Also meeting deadlines During the meetings, we manage to stick to the agenda, but some tasks in between them (e.g. dissemination of the project and informing the coordinator about the dissemination events) sometimes are carried out later than agreed. Coordination Excellent 11111 = 5 Good 111111 = 6 Satisfactory Poor Detailed comments This has become much smoother and more effective since the delegation of responsibilities and tasks to other members of the project. The way we work in meetings is symptomatic of this. Both within our institution and among and among the international project partners. Enough flexibility and efficient democracy. Organisation of Excellent 111111 = 6 international Good 1111 = 4 meetings Satisfactory 1 = 1 Poor Detailed comments These have worked very well and have run very smoothly for the most part. There are still issues of running out of time but the ways of working, of discussing things in groups, of delegating responsibilities to partners etc has worked really well and has made the meetings much more productive and satisfying. Clear, relevant agenda. Enough information before the meetings. Flexible coordination of the meetings. All the hosts have been very hospitable and provided unforgettable cultural experiences! Comments There is still a tendency to spend time on presentations which we could have received in advance. In Vilnius we needed more time to discuss the actual exchange Fine to have group work Fine to split the whole group into groups depending on mentors or coordinators/tutors when not everything is relevant for everybody It is during international meetings that the organizational framework of the project is confirmed and the teamwork spirit the strongest. The personal contacts re-established on those occasions contribute much towards cooperation at a distance. The scheduling of tasks and deadlines has been very clear. Unfortunately, for different reasons, it has not always been possible to respect the deadlines. The reason for this difficulty mainly lies in the fact that the undergoing changes at our institution have produced a vast quantity of extra work (elaboration of a master degree for education, extra meetings, collaborative work with the local universities, etc.). PRODUCTS Quality Excellent 111 = 3 of the products Good 11111111 = 8 Satisfactory Poor Detailed comments The student mobility modules are detailed and thorough and provide a sound basis for future development. Feedback from students and mentors alike was positive – the tasks just need pruning a bit and refining. Everyone involved has been very happy with the first student mobility, which I personally consider to be the main strength of this project. The modules and the ning as well. We are still piloting the products and they have improved I think Good so far – we have not yet finished. Completeness Excellent 1 = 1 and clarity Good 11111111 = 7 Satisfactory 11 = 2 Poor Detailed comments The module handbook is very clear and complete – probably too complete and needs refining and pruning in the light of the experienced we had during the first mobility phase. However the tasks were very useful, the student mobility experience very productive and rewarding and we learnt a lot from this. We will be using this to inform changes and amendments to this year’s mobility period. We still need to make sure the ning is used more efficiently to help mentors and exchange students communicate before the mobility. Hopefully, we’ll find ways to make the portfolio we’re still working on a helpful tool for the student teachers and others involved in initial teacher education in our institutions. A bit unclear in the beginning but this has also improved greatly. Transferability Excellent Good 1111111111 = 10 Satisfactory 1 = 1 Poor Detailed comments I would have thought that it would be relatively easy to transfer the tasks and ideas included in the modules to other contexts and subjects. Indeed we have already used many of the ideas when working with other groups of students who are either going to spend a period of time in another country or with visiting international students. On both counts they have proved very valuable and useful. The most important thing, in my opinion, is to make sure the modules, the mobility structure and the portfolio work well within the limits of our project. There are so many new products available (portfolios, student exchanges…) that EUROPROF products are bound to change, integrate etc afterwards. Products very often make more sense and are more useful to those who have worked on them. It is the process that is important. Comments The good quality of the products is due to the fact that the eight partner institutions staff have well worked together mixing and harmonising their competences and experiences in ITT. But the refinement of the materials should need more time and also the exploitation and the transferability of them has to be verified in the near future. Despite a certain initial uncertainty as to the ultimate product relevance, it now seems to become more and more obvious as the sub-products (such as parts of the portfolio) are beginning to take shape. COMMUNICATION Effectiveness Excellent 111 = 3 Good 1111111 = 7 Satisfactory 1 = 1 Poor Detailed comments The partners have established effective ways to communicate. Some difficulties and initial misunderstandings may arise to different cultures we come from. Yet the fact that we manage to reach agreements and stay flexible is most important! Effectiveness Excellent 11= 2 of the means of Good 1111111= 7 communication Satisfactory 11= 2 (e-mail, wiki, Poor online “europrof community”, Detailed comments telephone, post) The various means of communication work well for us. The ning is excellent as a communicative tool. However, important information tends to get overlooked. Comments Communication has been much improved – partners are much better at responding promptly to e- mails and to meeting deadlines. The wiki site has been very useful in sharing ideas about the portfolio. A certain specialization of particular means of communication can be observed: the e-mail remains the most effective way of daily contact for coordinators, while the ning a suitable platform for exchange students, especially directly before their departure. The wiki and online “europrof community” seem to have taken a back position. It is as yet uncertain what role the moodle platform, just launched, will come to play. It’s still difficult to cope with all the existing websites and platforms. For the French group, it seems unreasonable to use the new ning platform at this point: too many resources have been already put on the old one and all the mentors have been registered on the old one. INTERPERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS Strong 111111 = 6 Good 11111 = 5 Weak Poor Detailed comments These are particularly strong between partners – there is a real identify in terms of the project group as well as between individual partners within the project. It is quite easy and pleasant to cooperate with all the partners! STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES From the above mentioned areas (motivation, productivity, etc...) identify the ones which are strong or weak in the project Strengths Weaknesses Interpersonal relationships; motivation; None quality of the products; organisation and Wasting” time on presentations at delegation of tasks and responsibilities and meetings; we should remember to split the partners meeting deadlines group into smaller groups of mentors and Motivation; group work at meetings coordinators – so that the mentors can Flexibility; positive atmosphere; successful spend time on what is relevant for them communication and cooperation; relevant, Sticking to deadlines (sometimes). useful products of the project; great Communication opportunity to get to know the host Communication; effectiveness of the means countries during meetings; coordination. of communication (wiki, online “europrof Transferability of products community”) Ongoing motivation; scheduling of tasks and Respect of deadlines; a few delays in deadlines; Coordination; Organization of communication International Meetings; quality of the Productivity – clarity - as yet- transferability products and their transferability Multiplicity of websites and platforms Desire to research and work together; Heavy workload within limited periods, lack ability to understand and respect each of clarity in the beginning – some part will other; openness to intercultural be more useful and more transferable than experiences such as student teachers’ others due to cultural diversity mobility Interpersonal relationships, communication, motivation Productivity Motivation, the importance of the project in particular the student exchange Motivation OTHER COMMENTS I think we have made significant progress in the way we work as a project team since the first year. We have learnt from our experience and we are communicating and collaborating more effectively. In addition the student mobility period was without a doubt, a huge success and has proved something that we all want to build on. I think the project is now going from strength to strength. When we have moved from a more technical and specific task (like the one of creating and writing the ITT mapping) to more didactic and intercultural work (like the one on the modules and then on the Portfolio), the project team has cooperated better and got better results. Also the new communication media (wiki and online europrof community) have greatly contributed to changing attitudes and increasing effectiveness. The experience of students’ mobility has come out as essential and in some way as the core of the project: through it it has been possible to trial and verify the quality of the materials and build teachers’ professionalism on practical bases. Despite some misgivings mentioned above, probably mostly due to the stage of the project (our final goal is quite specific and fairly ambitious, and it is only beginning to take shape against the approaching deadline), the project is on course and we stand a good chance of bringing it to a satisfactory completion. The required confidence level appears to be sufficient and partners prepared to put in their part for all their current duties.
Pages to are hidden for
"Put-a-tick-in-the-chosen-box"Please download to view full document