Participants - LUMAsub.luma.fi/eutrain/outputs/memorandum7.pdf · 2016-05-19 · Participants Bulgaria 1. Zhelyazka Raykova, PhD, ... Welcome and introduction of FNBE (15 min) Carita

EU TRAIN European training for student teachers in science Evaluation and closing meeting of the EU TRAIN, Socrates program Helsinki, September 3rd – 7th, 2008

Participants Bulgaria

1. Zhelyazka Raykova, PhD, Assistant Professor of Methodology of Physics Teaching, University of Plovdiv

2. Jordanka Dimitrova Dimova, PhD, Associate Professor of Methodology of Chemistry Teaching, University of Plovdiv

3. Kostadina Katsarova, MSc, Teacher of Physics at Plovdiv Language School (Teacher Training School)

Estonia

4. Ott Krikmann, MSc, Assistant of Didactics of Physics, Centre of School Physics, University of Tartu 5. Jaan Susi, PhD, Lecturer of Didactics of Physics, Centre of School Physics, University of Tartu 6. Miia Rannikmäe, PhD, Professor of Science Teaching (Biology and Geography Teaching),

University of Tartu 7. Jack Holbrook, PhD, Visiting Professor, Science Didactics Department, University of Tartu 8. Erkki Tempel, BSc, Teacher of Chemistry and Physics at Miina Härma Gümnaasium (Teacher

Training School) 9. Toomas Liivamägi, PhD, Advisor of Minister, Ministry of Education Poland

10. Katarzyna Przegietka, PhD, Teaching Assistant, Physics Education Laboratory, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń

11. Aleksander Kazubski, PhD, Head of Chemistry Education Laboratory, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń

12. Jozefina Turlo, PhD, Head of Physics Education Laboratory, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń 13. Janusz Pleskot, MSc, Head of the Education Department of Toruń Municipal Office Great Britain

14. Richard Walton, BSc, MEd, PhD, CPhys, MInstP, PGCE, Reader in Education, Sheffield Hallam University (external evaluator of the project)

Finland

15. Pekka Parkkinen, MSc, Teacher and Trainer of Physics and Chemistry, Teacher Training School, University of Jyväskylä

16. Tom Nevanpää, MSc, Teacher and Trainer of Physics and Chemistry, Teacher Training School, University of Jyväskylä

17. Jarkko Lampiselkä, PhD, University Lecturer of Chemistry and Physics Education, University of Helsinki (leader of the project)

18. Seija Valtonen, MSc, Teacher and Trainer of Physics and Chemistry, Teacher Training School No. 1, University of Helsinki (coordinator of the project)

19. Timo Kärkkäinen, MSc, Teacher and Trainer of Physics and Chemistry, Teacher Training School No. 1, University of Helsinki

20. Hilkka Koljonen-Toppila, Lic.Phil., Teacher and Trainer of Physics and Chemistry, Teacher Training School No. 1, University of Helsinki

21. Jari Lavonen, PhD, Professor of Physics and Chemistry Education, University of Helsinki 22. Lauri Vihma, MSc, Teacher of Chemistry and Physics, City of Helsinki (webmaster of the project) 23. Markus Huhtamäki, participant of the student mobility from Helsinki to Plovdiv 24. Harri Leinonen, participant of the student mobility from Helsinki to Plovdiv

EU TRAIN – European training for student teachers in science 2 Evaluation and closing meeting, Helsinki, September 3rd – 7th, 2008

Contact information for participating institutions

Participating institution No. 1

University of Helsinki

Project leader Dr Jarkko Lampiselkä

Department of Applied Sciences of Education P.O. Box 9 FI-00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO FINLAND tel. +358 9 1912 9570 fax +358 9 1912 8165 mob. +358 50 547 5697 [email protected]

Coordinator MSc Seija Valtonen

Teacher Training School No. 1 P.O. Box 38 FI-00014 HELSINGIN YLIOPISTO FINLAND tel. +358 9 1912 8172 fax +358 9 1912 8165 mob. +358 50 524 6081 [email protected]


University of Jyväskylä MSc Pekka Parkkinen

Teacher Training School P.O. Box 35 (N) FI-40014 JYVÄSKYLÄN YLIOPISTO FINLAND tel. +358 14 260 1908 fax +358 14 260 1901 mob. +358 50 370 7325 [email protected]


University of Plovdiv Dr Zhelyazka Raykova

Faculty of Physics 24 Tsar Asen St. Plovdiv 4000 BULGARIA tel. (+) 359 32 261 270 fax (+) 359 32 635 049 [email protected]


University of Tartu Dr Ott Krikmann

Centre of School Physics Faculty of Science and Technology Riia 142 51014 Tartu ESTONIA tel. +372 737 5518 fax +372 737 6520 mob. +372 5 667 1930 [email protected]


Nicolaus Copernicus University Dr Katarzyna Przegiętka

Education of Physics Laboratory Grudziadzka Street 5 87-100 Toruń POLAND tel. +485 6 611 3310 fax +485 6 622 5397 [email protected]

External evaluator

Dr Richard Walton

Centre for Science Education Sheffield Hallam University City Campus Howard Street Sheffield S1 1WB tel. +44 (0)114 225 4890 fax +44 (0)114 225 4872 [email protected]


Memorandum Friday, 29th August, 2008 Arrival of Dr. Zhelyazka Raykova Saturday, 30th August, 2008 11:00 Excursion to Porvoo (Dr. Raykova and MSc Valtonen) – 15:00 16:00 Preparations for the meeting presentations Sunday, 31st August, 2008 Morning service at the International Evangelical Church Visit in a Finnish-Bulgarian family Monday, 1st September, 2008 Excursion to Helsinki 16:00 Working in the Library of Behavioural Sciences – 20:00 Tuesday, 2nd September, 2008 10:00 Working in the Kumpula Science Library – 14:00 16:00 Preparations for the meeting presentations Wednesday, 3rd September, 2008 15:00 Workshop: Final report 17:30 Dinner Thursday, 4th September, 2008 09:00 Opening of the meeting and final review (PhD Lampiselkä) 09:30 Budget and financial review (MSc Valtonen)


MSc Valtonen presented the situation and distributed calculations dated on 30th June, 2008. There are still some funds left to be used. Claims should be sent before the end of September. Invoices can be sent later but not later than the end of the year 2008. Members of the team were asked to check tables if all the information is correct. All institutions should fill in the table where the working days done for the project are related to the work plan: Work Plan vs. working days. Poland has done it already and that could be used as an example. 10:45 Coffee break 11:35 Chemistry lesson observing (teacher Hilkka Koljonen-Toppila) 12:50 Lunch 14:15 Final revision to the Work plan (MSc Valtonen) Part of the work plan was revised in details in working group. 15:00 Collation of Final report 16:00 Contents of the presentation DVD for the project (MSc Kärkkäinen and MSc Vihma) MSc Valtonen explained that DVD could be distributed to those who make decisions about teacher training and those who are training teachers. MSc Vihma told that he is collecting the contents of the DVD. Partners in every participating country are supposed to translate the most of the contents into their own language (in spite of those parts of material that are already translated). After translation partners should send translated material back to MSc Vihma. He will organize the production of the DVD with MSc Kärkkäinen. Contents of the DVD:

PPT: Short presentation/overview about the project and how the recommendations have been created. Arguments for mobility and for guided teacher training. Mentor training is needed for proper guidance. Information can be received from Dr Lampiselkä and copied from Socrates program application on project‟s website (Outputs and Documents section). Already translated to national languages.

PPT: Recommendation for the national curriculum for the physics and chemistry teacher training. Should be translated to Estonian and Finnish.

PDF: Example how exchange and the training period abroad can be organized: mobility program and survival course. Information can be copied from the book, page 74 (should be translated to national languages) and pages 102-114 (will be published only in English).

video clips 17:00 Dinner


Friday, 5th September, 2008 09:00 Welcome and introduction 09:10 The outcome of the project, Polish point of view 10:00 Coffee break 10:30 Discussion 11:30 Lunch 13:00 Visit at the Finnish National Board of Education 1. Welcome and introduction of FNBE (15 min) Carita Blomqvist 2. The guests introduce themselves (10 min) 3. Mutual recognation of foreign teaching qualifications Co-operation with universities, Finnish point of view Maisa Montonen (15 min) 4. Co-operation with foreign universities Bulgarian point of view + discussion (Zh. Raykova) (10 min) Estonian point of view + discussion (T. Liivamägi) (10 min) Polish point of view + discussion (K. Przegietka) (10 min) 5. General discussion and giving the book of EU TRAIN to the library of FNBE (15 min) The total time was one and a half hour. 15:00 Co-operation in development of teacher training (PhD Lavonen, MSc Parkkinen and MSc Nevanpää) 16:00 Discussion Partners discussed about the Finnish teacher training model. 17:00 Dinner Saturday, 6th September, 2008 9:30 Polish and Bulgarian participants expressed their thoughts about the physics and chemistry lessons they observed on Friday. 9:40 MSc Katsarova told (PhD Raykova interpreted) about mobility periods in Plovdiv University. 10:05 Coffee break 10:15 The outcome of the project, Bulgarian point of view PhD Raykova presented Bulgarian thoughts about the common curriculum and about the recommendations of the project and Bulgarian group‟s participation in the dissemination. She also expressed some ideas concerning the follow-up of the project. 10:55 Coffee break


11:25 Discussion about the practice guiding MSc Parkkinen directed discussion about the philosophy and process of practice guiding. In Jyväskylä trainer gives to a trainee the theme of the lesson. Then trainer checks trainee‟s lesson plan. One common problem with trainees in this phase is that they think teaching is just talking to students. Participants discussed what the trainer can do during this phase. Important for trainer is to get the trainee to think what is the goal of his teaching and what are the major aims that pupils should achieve. Also the organizing of the lesson requires attention. In Jyväskylä during the lesson trainer is standing near the trainee in case of the trainee needs help. After the lesson trainer gives feedback to the trainee. 12:00 Lunch 13:15 Publication of the book EU TRAIN: towards a Common Curriculum for the Teaching Practice of Science Teachers Mr. Reg Kennedy, MA Ulla Rajavuori, MSc Marjatta Saarinen and MSc Antero Saarnio participated the publication ceremony as guests. MSc Valtonen introduced the celebration of the book. PhD Lampiselkä told about the design of this research and development project. Two cycles of action research were done during the project. During the publication ceremony it was discussed of one of the recommendations the project has created. During the first teacher year, every new teacher should have a mentor, an experienced teacher, who may devote his or her time to supervise the beginner. It turned out that already at the Jyväskylä Teacher Training School and at the City of Helsinki school‟s headmaster will nominate experienced teacher of the same subject as a mentor to the newcomer. Mentor will not get extra pay for that. Headmistress of the junior secondary level of the Teacher Training School No. 1, MA Ulla Rajavuori and school‟s new physics teacher MSc Antero Saarnio liked the idea of the mentor system, at least for the physics and chemistry teacher. This is very important in science because the beginner should get to know the school collections to realise experimental teaching. 14:10 Coffee break 14:40 Publication continued PhD Przegietka presented a review of present teacher training systems. PhD Raykova gave a presentation about comparison of national procedures. PhD Walton noted that there was no attention to made in the comparison how trainees are prepared to face pupils with learning difficulties etc. PhD Holbrook proposed that the findings of the ideological differencies (e.g. are education resources directed only to most talented pupils or to all pupils?) between countries could be stressed to the decision makers of EU. PhD Lampiselkä drew attention to the main findings of the project and pointed out some questions still to be answered through further cooperation/research.


PhD Rannikmäe gave a presentation about her evaluation on the book. For example, some corrections should be made. MSc Valtonen noted that the revised version of the book will be published on the website. PhD Turlo proposed that the development work should be continued. Participating countries should develop European education program for educating mentors for science teacher trainees. Also teachers for that mentor education should be found. PhD Holbrook pointed out how ethics, values, attitudes and ideologies are having effect on all kind of development work. 16:10 The follow-up of the project National groups collected ideas what follow-up procedures should be done nationally. The recommendations for the science teacher education will be disseminated nationally. Articles will be published in national teachers‟ magazines. National presentations will be made. For example, one main conclusion of the project, that the mobility may change trainees‟ attitudes more positive towards science teaching, will be disseminated. One main goal should be more unified science teacher education program nationally. Trainee and trainer teacher exchange between national universities is planned. In Finland the idea of mentors for first-year teachers will be disseminated. An education program for trainer teachers from all over Europe could be built in Finland. 17:00 Closing of the day Sandwiches 18:00 Sauna Sunday, 7th September, 2008 09:40 Opening of the day (MSc Valtonen) 09:45 The outcome of the project, Estonian point of view PhD Susi with MSc Krikmann, MSc Tempel and PhD Liivamägi told about the current state of physics and chemistry teacher education in Estonia. They have only 1-3 student teachers in a year. Lack of students means that in near future there will not be qualified physics and chemistry teachers in schools. One problem is how the common curriculum can be implemented. Another problem is how teacher educators and trainers can keep up their skills because they don‟t have student teachers/trainees. It was proposed that one solution could be in-service training. It was pointed out that the concept of science teacher education doesn‟t include physics and chemistry teacher education in Estonia. Estonian group told also about the evaluation process and their point of view for final evaluation. The group thanked warmly PhD Walton.


During discussion it was pointed out that in Estonia there is not a national standard for teacher education. In Estonia the trainers don‟t give feedback to trainees after training lessons. 10:50 Coffee break 11:00 Deadlines for the end of the project (MSc Valtonen) 11:30 Filling forms for final report 12:00 Lunch 13:15 About project‟s presentation DVD (MSc Vihma) 13:20 How to fill forms (MSc Valtonen) 13:30 Filling forms for final report 14:25 Thanks (PhD Lampiselkä) 14:30 Final external evaluation and main achievements of the project (PhD Walton) 14:55 Four main ideas concerning the project right now Participants jotted down to paper four main ideas/feeling. 15:00 Filling forms for final report 15:30 Final evaluation questionnaire (MSc Krikmann) 15:50 Closing of the session at the meeting venue 18:00 Dinner 21:00 Farewells

Monday, 8th September, 2008 Departures


Allocation of tasks Dead line 10.9.2008 All material for CD‟s and DVD‟s to Lauri and Timo Contents: Jozefina:

Short presentation/overview about the project and how the recommendation have been created. Arguments for mobility and for guided teacher training. For proper guidence mentor training is needed Socrates Programme Application (.pdf) in webpage (already translated) PPT (ask Jarkko)

Seija:

Recommendation for the national curriculum for the physics and chemistry teacher training PPT

Jarkko:

Example how exchange and the training period abroad can be organised: mobility program and survival course, in Book Page 74(translate to national languages), pages 102 - 114 only in English

Ott: translation of recommendations and curriculum in Estonian to Lauri Seija: “ “ “ Finnish to Lauri Pekka: The contents of DVD to Lauri Jane: The contents of Bulgarian DVD to Lauri Jarkko writes the text for 3.1 and 3.2 before 20.09.2008 and delivers it to everyone to be checked.Dead line 15.9.2008 1. Work Plan vs. Working Hours to be sent to Jane 2. Table 3.3 Review of Project Work plan: Estonian group: Evaluations on every page and stages 16, 17, 18, 26, 30 Polish group: Texts of stages 19 – 25 Jarkko: Texts of stages 27 – 29 Pekka: Stages 31- 34 and Description of activity or workpackage (vs. description of specific tasks undertaken) on every page Dead line 20.9.2008 Jane: Collects the working days of the stages and sends to Seija who documents possible changes on every page.


Dead line 25.09.2008 3. Time sheets 4. Invoices National Table 2.3 to Seija not later than 30.09.2008 Mobility documents: Interviews of trainees in English to Lauri Story of mobility with important dates to Seija Other documents: Estonian subject teacher education and training (curriculum) in English. Dead line 30.9.2008 National Table 2.3 Staff costs Table 2.5. Equipments and materials (check, add the books, purpose!) Table 2.8. Subcontracting (check, add referees) Table 2.9. Other costs (check, Internet, material for trainees, Polish book) Dead line 30.10. Table 3.1. Summary of materials, products, publications, modules, courses, conferences, reports, studies and other concrete outcomes Table 3.5.1 Dissemination activities in the whole project duration + documents Other Forms Internal Progress Report Form, Evaluation of the second year, Evaluation of the work undertaken, Concrete outcomes, Expenses 2nd year missing Jyväskylä and Estonia 3rd year


Appendix 1. Final Report, section 3 – Description of project activities, products & results

3.1 - Outcomes and results

Outcomes:

- Mapping of individual teacher training experiences from different participating countries

- surveying of teacher training materials and resources from other European countries

- writing a Common curriculum for physics and chemistry teacher practical training,

- making recommendations for building co-operation between different faculties and departments in science teacher education

- developing experiences in how to work in a group where are members from different countries and cultures and how to work as a team

Networks:

- Webpage, - meetings, - mobility actions

Products:

- Book, - curriculum for practical training in mobility, - survival course for the mobility

Results:

- Strategy for students‟ mobility - Co-operation between different universities in project

The conclusions and recommendations of internal & external evaluations

- The dissemination activities undertaken and their impact on the specific target group

- Student teacher level: mobility has given experiences about other countries practices

- Teacher training level: in international and local conferences ideas and experiences has been shared through presentations and articles

- Administrative level: meetings - Government level: meetings


Appendix 1. Final Report, section 3 – Description of project activities, products & results

3.2 - Project achievements 3.2(b) - What was the added value of the project?

A particularly valuable additional outcome has been the fact that a number of students have implemented the scheme by teaching science in schools in partner countries. Teaching in English has improved student teachers‟ and pupils‟ language skills and science knowledge as well as increasing level of motivation to learning. We have learned to work together in project meetings. We believe that in doing so very valuable methods of collaboration and exchange have been developed which could be used as models for work in subject areas. A further benefit of the project has been to engender positive changes in attitudes within institutions participating in the project towards further collaboration.

3.2(c) - What was the overall contribution of the trans-national work?

This project would not have been possible without trans-national work; the mobilities demonstrated that the theoretical principles could be put in practice and in the case of Bulgaria proved to be ground braking. Whilst the exchange of language teachers has been of longstanding in many countries, the exchange of science teacher training students has been truly innovative. One hopes that this pave the way for similar developments in other subject areas in future.

3.2(d) - How will the project partnership and project network or activities/results be sustained beyond the Community grant?

The contract between Plovdiv University and Torun University for exchanging students and teachers has been made. Plovdiv university is also interested in having similar contracts with Finnish and Estonian universities. In Estonia student teachers are interested in further exchange programmes with Finnish students


Appendix 2. Implementation of the common curriculum, dissemination and follow-up in Poland

1. Implementation of the common TT practice curriculum in the

Faculty of Physics, Astronomy and Applied Informatics, Nicolaus Copernicus University, Torun, Poland – ideas

PRESENT SITUATION (academic year 2007/2008) Structure of the practical training of future physics teachers in lower secondary school level (two subject future teachers – the part devoted to the second subject is similar):

1. Basic practice training period under the supervision of the university teacher – 15 hours during one semester - 1 hour per week during 15 weeks:

- the organisational issues (1 hour) - basic information: students with tutor are analysing the structure of the school

curriculum, constructing the model form of the report from the observed lessons, writing their first scenarios of the lessons (2 hours)

- observation of the lessons, writing the reports (9-10 hours) - feedback – discussion with tutor (2-3 hours)

2. Advanced practice training period – 15 hours during one semester - 1 hour per

week during 15 weeks: - the organisational issues (1 hour) - observation of the lessons given by the experienced teacher (3-4 hours) - observation of the lessons given by other trainees (5 hours) - giving of one, own lesson (1 hour) - feedback – discussion and evaluation of the lesson done by tutor and other

trainees (3-4 hours) (NOTE: the effective number of the working weeks is often less then 15 for example because of the Christmas of Easter holidays and other events) Work organisation: Groups of 4-6 students.

3. Field practice training period: 2 weeks – 40 hours (after the 2nd year of the studies) + 1 week- 20 hours (during the summer term of the 3rd year of the studies):

- 15 hours of observations - 15 hours of students own lessons - 10 hours – other school activities and students independent work

(NOTE: students are choosing the school and the teacher by themselves, the choice is fully free)



Structure of the practical training of future physics teachers in upper secondary school level

1. Advanced practice training under the supervision of the university teacher - tutor: 30 hours / one semester = 2 hours per week during 15 weeks:

- 15 school hours – observation of the lessons given by the experienced teacher and other trainees

- 15 hours of discussion and working on the practical issues of the teacher profession: preparing and feedback of the given lesson, pedagogical problems, methodology of teaching, improving the teaching skills, etc. (the aspect of “reflective teacher”)

2. Field practice training: 5 weeks – 75 hours (after the 1nd year of the Master degree

studies): - 25 hours of observations - 35 hours of students own lessons - 15 hours – other school activities and students independent work

(NOTE: students are choosing the school by themselves, the choice is fully free) DISADVANTAGES

1. According to the Common TT Curriculum Basic practice training should be devoted to the general problems connected with the teachers work like organisation of the school, school as a community of teachers and other staff, pupils, parents, pedagogical problems which are occurring in the school and how to manage them etc. It is not a case in Poland because of small number of the study hours in the pedagogical course,

2. Advanced practice training is spread out too much in time and the number of hours

devoted to it is too small in the relation to the expected achievements, students hasn‟t sufficient background to the almost fully independent work during the Field practice,

3. Field practice (choice of the school, mentoring work of the teacher in TT school) is

not controlled in the sufficient way – tutor in the university could evaluate only the portfolio of students (diary, observation notes, scenarios and evaluation document prepared by mentor of the student – teacher at TT school) and has no possibility to see any lesson given by the student (students are choosing the schools in whole Poland, often in their living places),

4. during the first level of the TT curriculum (teachers for lower secondary school) the

problems of “reflective teaching” are not stressed in sufficient way thus the students have not good knowledge and skills to evaluate themselves.



HOW THE EU-TRAIN COMMON CURRICULUM COULD HELP TO IMPROVE THE PRACTICAL TRAINNING IN OUR INSTITUTION/ POLAND? “Eu-Train” common TT practical curriculum, constructed on the base of the examples of the good practice from every partner country, has pointed out the disadvantages of our system. It is the good starting point to make some structural and methodological changes. However we are not in charge to change the curriculum independently thus we will present our recommendations to the institutional/national authorities. Recommendations:

1. The structure of the teacher training schools should be created (two-three schools per university, located in the town where university is located). These schools should continuously collaborate with the university, and the teachers of these schools should be experienced enough to play the role of the students mentors. University should organise the special courses for future mentors.

2. During the seminar work which is present in the TT curriculum, students should focus

much more on the problems occurring during the school practice in the place of the theory.

3. Changes in the schedule of the practice:

Lower & upper secondary school level:

Basic & Advanced practice: first 15 hours should be devoted to the general issues, next 15 hours should be devoted to the subject practice and it‟s recommended to extend the number of hours of this part to 30 hours (in the place of the second part of the Field practice). The basic content of the curriculum of this part of the practice should be changed and the “reflective teaching” skills of students should be developed more sufficiently. Practice could be condensed in time (for example one day a week at school during two months in the second semester of the 2nd year of the studies – “school day” – 5 hours of school work, 1 hour of feedback with tutor from the university, teacher or/and pedagogue, psychologist etc.)

Field practice: should be organised in October when the academic year is starting - tutors should visit the schools and observe chosen lessons of the students to more objectively evaluate their work. These work should be added to their obligatory working hours in the university. Students should work in groups (5-6 persons) of future teachers of the same and different subjects. Less number of effectively given lessons – more group working, lessons given by two-three students, more discussion and feedback.



PROBLEMS WHICH PROBABLY WILL OCCURE DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON CURRICULUM AND POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

1. organisation of the courses for mentors – financing - European grants (?) 2. changes in timetable: groups of students 4-6 persons per class and two school

days in the timetable during two months and one month of the Fields practice during the third (1st level) and second year (2nd level) of the studies less because of the continuous practice - organisational problem will occur,

3. extension of the obligatory working hours of tutor (10% not more) – financial problem

4. motivating system for mentors - extra hours for TT schools (role of the municipal authorities) = better teaching in the TT classes = higher salaries for mentors. Extra salaries for mentors (only the Ministry could change the present situation).

2. Dissemination and follow-up To share the Project ideas and present the recommendations:

1. The Project ideas and achievements have been presented in the workshop for teachers during the XV National Conference of the Association for Science Teachers in September 2008 (please see the dissemination activities in the Project web-page).

2. The meetings with local authorities (Dean of the Faculty, Director of the Educational

Issues in the Nicolaus Copernicus University have been planned in October 2008.

3. Meeting with the Minister of the National Education has been organised on 18th of September 2008.

4. Recommendations and books will be send to all the institutions involved to the

science teacher training (departments of didactics of science, in-service training centres for teachers etc.).


Appendix 3. Evaluation of Work plan

1. Web design and construction The website has now been written and forms a very important element of the project. It facilitates the dissemination of information between the group but has also proved exteremely valuable in allowing project members to share their ideas both during the formative phases of the project and reflecting upon project outcomes. The structure of the page is relatively simple which means that those using it can do so with minmal training. A consequence of this is that web dialogue has become a major element in the project development. The functionality of the website is degined so that it acts as a repository for all the project documents. This gives access for all project members to the full rage of materials at each stage in the project. It is significant to note that users of the website – teacher trainers and student teachers - have reported no difficulty in its use. Project members have discovered, in useing the website, that it has proved to be more useful than initially expected and would recommend that in future projects such a communication approach was begun earlier. The website has an open access out-facing structure which means that all documents are fully available to anyone who in interested in finding out about the project. 2. Comparing curricula of initial teacher training of future science teachers. A difficulty that was identified at the beginning fo the project was that each partner country had its own curriculum and that these were not immediately compatible. It was important therefore that project partners met regulary in face to face meetings to discuss and explain the nuances of their programmes and to identify ways in which some harmonisation could be achieved. The survey of national teacher training materials proved a challenging task since no general overview had previously existed. In general, it was felt that relatively low levels of coordination exist within the Education Ministries of the participating countries; as a consequence, the project has served to fulfill and important function in bringing this information together for the first time. 3. Coordination meeting in Jyväskylä This first meeting provided an important springboard for the project as a whole because the partners were able to share information and expectations about their courses and the project as a whole. It provided an opportunity for teambuilding in which dialogues between partners could be set up. The opportunity to visit students „on the ground‟ in local schools enabled a concrete picture of the project to be developed. 4. The first draft curruculum for the practice training period During the early stages of the project it was felt that some flexibility should be built into the process of writing the currculum since subsequent work would influneced by the evaluation strategy which was designed to follow an action-research model. The development of the draft currculum was influenced by experiences during the first and subsequent mobility actions.



5. The second co-ordination meeting in Plovdiv The accreditation of the teaching practice experience lies at the heart of the project. This meeting was a first attempt to harmonise the awarding of academic credits for practical experience underatken in different countries. Discussion of ECTs and their comparison with awards made in partner countries took place. It was decided that a system of coefficients should be applied to enableparity between countries to be established. 6. First mobility action plan The production of this plan was a complicated task since it involved coordination not simply between the national Agencies of each of the countries but also internally beween institutions in organising appropriate language and cultural support. In some countries – particularly Estonia - difficulty was experienced in recruiting students who met the agreed selection criteria. This was due to the small target group of students which restricted choice. 7. Dissemination plan It was clear that dissemination of the project would need to take place on three levels: Strategically with Education ministries; at implementation level with teacher training organisations; and operationally with the teacher trainers and student teachers themselves. As the project developed it was agreed that individual partners should identify in detail how dissemination should take place inn their countries. It is pleasing to report that this action has successfully been undertaken by all partners. 8. Evaluation plan It became clear that quantitative data would have little validity given the small sample size in the project however the questionnaires developed for the students, tutors and mentors provided valuable indicative information which has helped to shape the qualitative evaluation of the project. This latter approach was felt to be the most appropriate and time-efficient way of making progress with the evaluation. 9. Interim report of first year At this early stage of the project some difficulty was experienced in gauging the level of information that the report should contain. It was important therefore for dialogue to take place between the project coordinator and senior staff in the university. As a result of this process the interim report was agreed both internally and by the European Commission. 10. Dissemination The interim work of the project and its intended outcomes were presented at two international conferences (Korea and Istanbul) these presentations allowed other science teacher trainers to make valuable formative comments upon the further development of the project and too influence practice in theri own countries. In addition, at the local level, further dissemination took place to inform the academic community (tutors and students) within the participating universities.



11. Meeting in Toruń This third meeting provided an appropriate point in the development of the project to review progress to date and ensure that work was kept on target. It was decided that questionnaires would not be used to evaluate meetings since any new information was felt to be trivial and deflected the work of the evaluator‟s away from more important tasks. This did provide a welcome opportunity to examine classroom teaching and accommodation for students in a host country. Teacher participants were also involved in the meeting which gave further feedback on the progress and effectiveness of the programme. This meeting provided a useful opportunity for all project members to clarify how the documentation should be completed and reported correctly. The adminstrative burden of the project was quite large for all members – the team as a whole valued greatly the work of the project coordinator in guiding the aspect of the programme. 12. 1st mobility action The process of selection and traing of students was undertaken. This was a challenging task for some partners as the team began to implement a new scheme. In retrospect, this process was highly successful but at the time it felt to be both stressful and difficult in solving a number of technical problems within the time contrainst imposed by the system. In particular, tutors for the survival course were difficult to find since this required a wide range of high level skills both in terms of language and culture in the host country. 13. Intensive courses in English language The intensive courses in language and culture have proved to be an essential element in the project. Students found the orientation provided by these courses to be an extremely helpful preparation for their time spent in the country. In particular, the preliminary information provided for the students enabled them to understand the school system in which they were preparing to work and helped them to expand the specialist vocabulary required to teach science. 14. First mobility of foreign students This mobility took place with students finding their first contact helpful and the accommodation satisfactory creating a supportive environment for the development of further work. The experience in school progressed smoothly with students receiving good support. The experience as a whole built up the sudent‟s levels of self-confidence. 15. Culture and language course in host countries The courses provided in the host countries enabled the students to gain a better understanding of the culture of the host country. Visits to places of interest helped reinforce this and gave the students a sense of independence. 16. Results of the 1st mobility The results of the first mobility were much better than expected. Questionnaire data revealed high degrees of satisfaction and very positive attitudes towards the student experience. We were pleased to see that stuents were able to teach successfully in a foreign country and that the pupils learned successfully from them. A major finding from this 1st mobility was that the



problems that had been foreseen were in fact much less in practice. This activity contributed to the disseminaion of the project through the informal contacts between visiting students and other teacher education students. 17. 4th coordination meeting in Tartu The results of the first mobility were discussed at this meeting contributing to the revision of the questionnaires in preparation for the second mobility asa means of repsonding to technical problems that had been identified. Progress was made towards developing the dissemination strategy. 18. 2nd Draft Curriculum It was not found to be necessary to produce a second draft of the training curriculum since the survey of of national schemes showed a very high level of agreemenet between approaches adopted in each of the counties. 19. Dissemination A clear strategy for dissemination has been established whic ensures that information is targeted towards: government deprtments, university academics and classroom practitioners. The strategy has been adhered to closely to rpoduce materials in a range of media: book, papers , talks, DVD etc. A consequence of this has been that level of disemmination have been very high with strong interest beiing shown by press and media. 20. Interim Report for the second year This was not undertaken since it was not required by Brussels, however the project coordinator collected the annual evaluation and reports from the participants, This showed that the project was progressing well on all fronts and folling closely to plan. 21. 5th Co-ordination meeting Plovdiv This meeting stood at an important stage in the project since it was here that many major decision were made with regard to the second mobility, structure and production of the book. Detailed discussion with regard to the overall evaluation of the project to took place in response to queries from Brussels. It was also the point at which the student materials were specified. The website was presented in its initial form with formative comments being made by the project team. 22. Preparation for 2nd mobility This proved to be a very lengthy and detailed meeting since, in responding to findings from the first mobility, significant changes to the administrtion of the mobility took place. Espite the delay this cause there was no over negative impact upon the mobilities which were able to take place as planned. Roles and functions of the sending and host institutions were clearly defined. 23. Intensive courses in English in Plovdiv It was felt that Bulgarian students faced the greatest difficulty in learning English and so, for this reason, the course was arranged in the Cambridge Language Centre in Plovdiv. A strong



focus was placed upon equipping students to have the functional English required to teach Physics and Chemistry with confidence. 24. 2nd mobility in partner countries Difficulties were faced in recruiting students to travel from Finland to Poland and in recruiting Estonian students. Despite these problems that students who did undertake mobilities did carry out teaching practices in Jyvaskyla and Helsinki. Continuing economic differentials between Finland and post-communist countries hinder the choices made by Finnish students. It is hoped that as economic development continues this barrier to progress may be overcome. This is a serious issue for the future when combined with the low popularity (and low salaries) of teaching as a career which militates against west-east mobility. 25. Language and culture courses in host institution The second mobility provided an opportunity for teaching materials to be prepared in the host institution and for these to be shared amongst visiting students. The specialist focus of the language course enabled effective teaching to take place. 26. Results of the 2nd mobility The results of this second mobility were somewhat restricted by the unbalanced pattern of visits. The Bulgarian and Polish students however gained enormous banefit from working with Finnish Colleagues both in the practical sense of developing their teaching skills but also in terms of their personal development in learning how to accommodate new teaching methods and materials. 27. 6th coordination meeting in Helsinki This was the first meeting attended by the new external evaluator. Extensive meetings took place between him and the Estonian internal evaluators. Significant discussion took place about the role and nature of qualitative evaluation and of framing the narrative of evaluation to date. The meeting also produced first drafts of the chapted for the book and the fully developed version of the website. 28. Writing, editing and printing the book and other materials. The book has now been produced with editorial activity taking place in Finland and Bulgaria. The book was published in Bulgaria. In its English form the book has been well received and other language editions are currently being produced. DVD materials have been produced and has been discussed prior to final publication. The CD resource pack has beem specified and should provide a very useful means of disseminating ideas about the project more widely. 29. Recommendations A series of recommendations have been written and agreed by the project team. These have been translated into the partner languages and will form an important element in the materials disseminated after the end of the project. These focus upon elements of good practice indentified in the project but concern has been expressed that these will not be fully



implemented in some countries due to the inflexible financial structures and strongly held tradional approaches held there. 30. Evaluation Aims and Objectives The evaluation was designed as an action-research model to provide formative information to direct i the on-going design and duirection of the project. Specific tasks Questionnaires, interviews, written student logs, group discussion and observations. Evaluation The evaluators made a significant shift in research paradigm in moving from a quantitative approach towards a qualitative approach. For the internal evaluators this involved acquiring some new skills in social science methods and methodology. A consequence of this was that mored detailed and valid information was gained about the individual experiences of students than could be shown through numerical analysis alone. Describe and justify... The change in approach followed discussion with the external evaluator about the validity of information gained from small sample sizes. It was felt that greater reliability would be achieved through in-depth study of a few individuals which could be traingulated with data obtained by other means (observation, group discussion etc,) Impact... The change in approach had a strongly positive impact on the project in that the changes made in the second mobility showed a sensitive response to student needs. The evaluation also identified a number of points of good practice which were fed back to the group and influenced the formulation of the overall project recommendations. 31. Dissemination The dissemination strategy has proved to be a strong feature of the project. The setting up of the website has enabled very effective communication to take place which should extend beyond the life of the project and is expected to have the added benefit of setting up a long standing trans-European interest group. Some discussion has taken place of incorporating this work through international groups sucha as ICASE or GIREP. 32. Final meeting in Helsinki This meeting proved to be a very busy point at which all the working groups were able to bring together the fruits of their labours. The meeting enabled the group to meet the Finnish National Board of Education and for governement officials fro Estonia and Poland to be present and contribute to discussions. The external evaluators were present and worked closely with the internal evaluators to monitor and record progress. After detailed discussion close agreement was reached about the direction and progress of the project.