School Year 2007/08 - Startseite / Gotthold-Ephraim ...lessgym-kamenz.de/files/comenius0708.pdf · School Year 2007/08 G. ... • Each visiting teacher submits the questionnaire to

Comenius 1 – School Development ProjectThe Teacher and the Classroom

Year III

School Year 2007/08School Year 2007/08

G. – E. - Lessing Pahklimae Gymnasium IES Leopoldo Cano IIS SalveminiGymnasium – Kamenz Narva Valladolid Rome

School Development ProjectYear III

The Teacher and the Classroom

• Meeting of Principals and CoordinatorsNarva – 08/13 November 2007

Comenius 1 – SchoolDevelopment Project

Babinets - Lehmann - MartinRaimondo - Sepe

2

• Joint Declaration on European Partnership 2007/08



• Pahklimae Gymnasium



3

• Pahklimae GymnasiumNarva - Estonia



JOINT DECLARATION ON EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP

From November 08 to November 13, 2007 the representatives of uppersecondary schools of the following countries met in Narva, Estonia:

1. Gotthold-Ephraim-Lessing-Gymnasium Kamenz, Germany2. Istituto Istruzione Superiore “Gaetano Salvemini”, Rome, Italy



4

2. Istituto Istruzione Superiore “Gaetano Salvemini”, Rome, Italy3. IES Leopoldo Cano, Valladolid, Spain4. Pahklimae Gymnasium, Narva, EstoniaAs a result of the meeting all participating parties express their intent to maintain theirpartnership by:1. Teacher mobility;2. Student mobility;3. Student exchange;4. Application for the European Educational Programme SOKRATES II, COMENIUS I

– School development projects.



JOINT DECLARATION ON EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIPFields of cooperation:1.Teacher mobility within the school development project.The project deals with the teacher and the classroom.The visiting teacher is supposed to hold a lesson in the hosting school to get someexperience working in a different school environment.Lessons will be observed by visiting teachers and reported on a standardized form.



5

Lessons will be observed by visiting teachers and reported on a standardized form.As to the student questionnaire each school will ensure that 2 surveys are carried out inthe lower classes and 2 in the upper classes before the arrival of visiting teachers.The teacher questionnaire will be carried at all schools by the visiting teachers.The visiting students who travel with the teachers will have to give a presentation of about

25 to 30 minutes and carry out a questionnaire they give a presentation in.All the results will be done in an electronic way and each coordinator is responsible for thetransmission of the data to Rome.The data will be processed and the results will be distributed to all participating schools ina final presentation of year 3.


The Teacher and the ClassroomJOINT DECLARATION ON EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP

The following data are either approved of or envisaged for the forthcoming teacher exchanges.October 2007 – July 2008 Number of teachersKamenz - Narva 1Kamenz – Valladolid 3Kamenz – Rome 3Rome - Narva 2Rome – Kamenz 2Rome - Valladolid 3



6

Rome - Valladolid 3Narva – Valladolid 2Narva - Rome 2Narva - Kamenz 2Valladolid – Kamenz 1Valladolid – Rome 1-2*Valladolid - Narva 1

* still to be negotiated.The weeks for the teachers exchanges are:1. 8 March - 14 March 2008 in Kamenz, Germany (a team of 5 teachers)2. 12 April - 18 April 2008 in Valladolid, Spain (a team of 8 teachers)3. 10 May - 16 May 2008 in Rome, Italy (a team of 7 teachers)




2. Student mobilityIn the application for project year 3 all schools have applied for budget to allow forstudents to travel to another partner school. Each school provides at least 1student to travel.



7

student to travel.The following data are either approved of or envisaged for the forthcoming studentmobilities.




October 2007 – July 2008 Number of studentKamenz - Narva -Kamenz – Valladolid 1Kamenz – Rome 1



8

Rome - Narva -Rome – Kamenz 1Rome - Valladolid 2*Narva – Valladolid 1Narva - Rome 1Narva - Kamenz 1Valladolid – Kamenz 1Valladolid – Rome 1Valladolid - Narva -*still to be negotiated.




The weeks for the student mobilities are:1. 8 March - 14 March 2008 in Kamenz, Germany (3 students)2. 12 April - 18 April 2008 in Valladolid, Spain (3 students)3. 10 May - 16 May 2008 in Rome, Italy (3 students)The students will attend the same number of lessons as the teachers. They prepare a presentation on



9

The students will attend the same number of lessons as the teachers. They prepare a presentation ontheir country, town, their hobbies etc. for a minimum of 25 minutes and they conduct a survey amongthe students of one class. The students report the results into a standardized form.The students will have to write an article about their experience (1 page maximum).Each coordinator is responsible for the transmission of the data to Rome.


The Teacher and the ClassroomJOINT DECLARATION ON EUROPEAN PARTNERSHIP

3. Student exchangesAll sides agree to comply with the established principles with respect to correspondence of age, sizeof groups and duration of stay.The following aspects should be considered:1. Foreign language skills of students when travelling abroad.



10

1. Foreign language skills of students when travelling abroad.2. Lessons in the respective language/culture of the hosting country.3. The education goals of the exchange must be maintained.4. Families will have to be made aware of advantages and limits of the student exchange.

Narva – Kamenz 20 – 26 April 2008 ca. 20 studentsKamenz – Narva 16 – 23 October 2008 ca. 20 students




4. Continuing partnership arrangementsAll participating schools are requested to do their best to circulate the results.The following recommendations have been agreed on:- Increasing the use of new technologies in the exchange of information and



11

communication (Internet, school websites, newsletters, e-mail)- The introduction of videoconferencing, first between teachers, in order to effect

communication at various levels.

Narva, 13th November 2007



Fields of cooperation2007/2008

• Teacher mobility



12

• Teacher mobility• Comparison of results 2007/08• Student mobility• Comparison of results 2007/08• Student exchange• Continuing partnership arrangements



Section 1Teacher Mobility

• Lesson observation: March – May 2008



13

• Lesson observation: March – May 2008• Evaluation of forms: June 2008• Distribution of results in the schools: September 2008


The Teacher and the ClassroomTeacher Mobility (Team of 5 Teachers)

Kamenz 8 – 14 March 2008



14


The Teacher and the ClassroomTeacher Mobility (Team of 8Teachers)

Valladolid 12 – 18 April 2008



15


The Teacher and the ClassroomTeacher Mobility (Team of 7Teachers)

Rome 10 – 16 May 2008



16



Teacher Mobility

SECTION 2 - A



17

STUDENTS’ STUDY HABITS


The Teacher and the ClassroomMy Study Habits Check List

AT SCHOOL: Always Almostalways

Almostnever

Never

Are you often distracted by your peers in class?Do you take notes during the lessons?Do you check your notes after lessons?

AT HOME:Time ManagementDo you always begin to study at a certain time?Do you organise your time in the afternoon betweendifferent activities?Do you make a weekly plan to avoid to start studyingat the last minute?Do you always begin your studies in the afternoon?Do you get 8 hours sleep per night?

Learning EnvironmentIs your workplace free from distractions?Do you work at a quiet place?Do you study alone?Do you have everything you need for your work



18

Do you have everything you need for your workwhen you begin?

Study TechniquesAre you familiar with the organisation of yourtextbooks?If you come across a new term, do you first use thecontext to understand its meaning?Do you look for key expressions when studying atext?Do you use other sources of information to supportyour learning?Do you take notes or underline when studying a text?Can you establish existing links between differentsubjects?

TESTS:Before a test, do you revise the main issues inquestion?Do you prepare a list of expected questions and tryto answer them?

FOR AGE GROUP 14:When sitting the test, do you read the instructionscarefully?When sitting the test, do you organise your time?When sitting the test, do you plan your work?At the end of the test, do you check your work?


The Teacher and the ClassroomMy Study Habit Check List

Student Questionnaire

Procedure

• Each visiting teacher submits the questionnaire to classes in the



19

• Each visiting teacher submits the questionnaire to classes in thelanguage of the hosting country.

• Students fill in the questionnaire according to the instructions.

• All the results are transferred into a matrix form.

• The coordinators process and evaluate the results.

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

kamenz

narva

Distribution of Results (age group <14)



20

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1 2 3 4

narva

roma



Distribution of Results (Age group <14)

AT SCHOOL (questions 1-3)

In general students of all 3 schools seem to be distracted almost identically by theirfellow students (question 1). This correlates with results from the first 2 years.Results confirm similar attitude for all 3 years.



21

Results confirm similar attitude for all 3 years.

The note taking practice is most developed with German students. They are followedby Estonian students. Italian students are least inclined to note taking. This iscorrelates to outcomes of Year I and II. Italian students own their textbooks and areused to underlining the passages in their books.Results confirm similar attitude for all 3 years.

Italian students confirm Year I and II values on checking notes after lessons.Moreover, students who are used to taking notes score higher here as well. ThoughGermans take notes, Estonians check them more often.Results confirm similar attitude for all 3 years.


2.0

2.5

3.0

kamenz



22

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

4 5 6 7 8

kamenz

narva

roma




TIME MANAGEMENT (questions 4-8)

Estonian students take the lead in starting to study at a certain time – confirming values of Year I.Italian students score lowest in this field and their time management seems to have changed.German students are in between. (question 4)Results confirm attitude of year 2.



23

Results confirm attitude of year 2.

German are least inclined to organise their time – a practice most common with Italians, followedby Estonians. (question 5)Result confirm German attitude but differ in the 2 other values.

In Year I and II Italian students confirm the values of Year I in not making a weekly plan as muchas Estonians do. German students do not show this practice either. This has probably to do with aconstant timetable which hardly changes. But in Year III all 3 schools score very low with Italy andEstonia at the same value and Germany even lower. (question 6)

In Year I and II an eight hours` sleep seems to be most common with German students. Italianand Estonian students confirm Year I values. But in Year III this is least common with Estoniansand most common with Italians. (question 8)


2.0

2.5

3.0

kamenz



24

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

9 10 11 12

narva

roma




LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (questions 9-12)

Year III shows very identical results of all 3 schools as to keeping theirworkplaces free from distractions and they are quite low as well. (question9)



25

Estonians, Germans and Italians, too, score high in this respect and all 3values are quite close. (question 12)Results confirm similar attitudes for all 3 years.

A quiet place and studying alone is a general attitude among all students beit from Italy, Estonia or Germany. They all score high values and confirmattitude. (question 10 and 10)Results confirm similar attitudes for all 3 years.


2.0

2.5

3.0

kamenz



26

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

kamenz

narva

roma




STUDY TECHNIQUES (questions 13 -18)

All students of all three schools indicate the same good familiarity with their textbooks with a highvalue but with some reserves to the optimum. (question 13)Results confirm similar attitudes for all 3 years.

The ability to use the context when trying to understand new and key expressions is above the



27

The ability to use the context when trying to understand new and key expressions is above theaverage value for both Estonian and German students with Italians closely following. (question 14and 15)Results confirm similar attitudes for all 3 years.

Note taking and underlining in texts is least common with German students scoring far belowaverage. Germans do not own the textbooks. In contrast Italian students confirm results of Year I– they own their textbooks and apply this practice. (question 17)Results confirm similar attitudes for all 3 years.

All three schools are quite close in their values when it comes to establishing links. (question 18)This is similar for Year II and III.




TESTS (questions 19-20)

In all three schools revising before a test is common



28

In all three schools revising before a test is commonpractice. (question 19)This is similar in Year II and III.

Estonians most commonly prepare a list of expectedquestions and try to answer them. This practice is lessapplied by all students in Year II and III.

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

kamenz

narva




29

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

21 22 23 24

narva

roma



Distribution of Results (Age group <14)(questions 21-24)

Almost all students in all three schools say they read the instructions carefully – attaching the same importance toit. The average score here is naturally one of the highest. (question 21)Results confirm similar attitudes for all 3 years.

German students indicate they least apply the practice of organising their time when sitting a test. This is morecommon for Estonian and Italian students. In this field the values confirm Year II. (question 22)



30

common for Estonian and Italian students. In this field the values confirm Year II. (question 22)

A similar low score is true for Germans in planning their work when sitting a test. Both areas areinterconnected and may explain that tests at the German school are different in their structure andorganisation. Similar to question 22 Estonians score high in planning their work when sitting thetest – perhaps due to the structure and organisation of test papers in Estonia. (question 23)Results confirm similar attitudes of year II and III,

Checking their tests at the end is most common practice with Italian students closely followed byEstonians and Germans. Reading instructions and checking their work afterwards is somethingItalians tend to emphasize on mostly.Results differ from Year II but are similar to Year I.

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

kamenz

narva

Distribution of Results (age group >14 )



31

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

1 2 3

roma

valladolid



Distribution of Results (Age group >14)

AT SCHOOL (questions 1-3)

Italian students score the highest values and say that they feel mostdistracted by their fellow students. Germans follow but different from Year ISpaniards feel least distracted. (question 1)



32

Spaniards feel least distracted. (question 1)

Again like in the younger age group it is much common practice for Germanstudents to take notes during the lessons, this time followed by the Italians.It is least common with Spaniards (c.f. explanation in previous section 2).This is in part confirming attitudes of previous years (Germany).

Checking notes after lessons is very similar in all three schools – scoringaround the average. Compared to Year I and II this value is lower. (question3)

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

kamenz

narva

Distribution of Results (age group >14)



33

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

4 5 6 7 8

roma

valladolid




TIME MANAGEMENT (questions 4-8)

When it comes to starting their studies always at the same time Germany scores lowest. Thereason here is that German students have very individual timetables when entering courses at 16.Except for Estonia the value is quite similar to Germany`s for Italy and Spain. (question 4)Only Germany confirms results of previous years.

In contrast to results of year II that a weekly plan is not one of the most important aspects for



34

In contrast to results of year II that a weekly plan is not one of the most important aspects forstudents in Italy and Estonia – they this time score higher. German students are in lowest position.All in all students of age 16 and older show they are accustomed to their timetables and run theirtime management according to it. (question 6)

Organising their time is most common with Estonians and almost not at all with Italians. (question 5)This differs to results from Year I and II.

The afternoon is the most usual start for doing work for school. Least common in Spain. (question 7)

Many Students at three schools tend to get 8 hours sleep. The values are very close. Spanishvalues indicate that those students get remarkably less sleep than their counterparts. (question 8)

1.5

2 .0

2 .5

3 .0

k am enz

narva




35

0.0

0 .5

1 .0

9 10 11 12

rom a

va llado lid




LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (questions 9-12)

In all four schools students say at an average they have a work place free fromdistractions. But Estonia is above average. (question 9)



36

Three national groups say more often they work at a quiet place. But Spain scoresremarkably lowest here. (question 10)

It is not surprising that the highest value is scored for all three schools on the issuethat students work alone and say they have everything they need before they begin.(question 11 and 12) But Spain scores lowest which fits with answer 10.Results confirm similar situations for all 3 years.

The questions on learning environment all confirm the results both in respect to theamount and unity.

1.5

2.0

2.5

kamenz




37

0.0

0.5

1.0

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

narva

roma

valladolid




STUDY TECHNIQUES (questions 13-18)Students at that age indicated almost in unison their familiarity with their textbooks – except forSpain. But the value reached shows still some good reserves for improvement. (question 13)Results confirm similar attitudes for all 3 years.

Contextual understanding is common practice in three of four schools (question 14). Again as in



38

Contextual understanding is common practice in three of four schools (question 14). Again as inYear I and II the technique of looking for key expressions when studying a text is slightly lessdeveloped. The new findings confirm data of all 3 years and those of a previous project. (question15)

Using other sources of information seems to be most common with German students. (question16) This result confirms Year II.

Underlining a text again is by far most common for Italian students confirming the data of theyounger age group and the data of Year I and II. (question 17)

No big difference exists between three out of four national groups of students when establishingexisting links with different subjects. And again – as with the data of the younger students –Germans score lowest compared to the other two schools.Results confirm similar attitudes for all 3 years.




TESTS (questions 19-20)

Students of three out of four schools place a great importance on revisingthe main areas in question before sitting a test. It is most common withItalian and German students followed by the Estonians. The score is one of



39

Italian and German students followed by the Estonians. The score is one ofthe highest. (question 19)Results confirm findings of all 3 years.

In contrast to this to prepare a list of expected questions and answer themis for little importance for students at all four schools even though it is mostcommon in Italy. The reason may be that the methodology of the tests aimsat more complex abilities and knowledge for that age group and studentsfeel it harder to match this with that strategy of preparation. (question 20)



Section 2 - BObserving lessons



40

Observing lessons

School Development ProjectThe Teacher and the Classroom

Year IIITeacher Mobility - Teacher Questionnaire

Procedure

The visiting teacher observes lessons in their hosting school andevaluates the observations on the three main areas:



41

• teaching methods

• learning situations

• learning material and other resources



ProcedureIt should be taken into consideration:

• The sample is small.

• The teachers could not always attend lessons in their own subjects



42

• The teachers could not always attend lessons in their own subjectsdue to different curricula of the three schools.

• The observation is “coincidental” as the visits take place at differentstages in the plan of the year of each school.

• The observation is limited to one week.



Date…………………… Name of visiting teacher: …………………..…………………….……

School: …………………………..………………………………………...Class:…..…..….……

Number of student: F …….. M……… Group □ Class □

Name of teacher visited: ………………………………………………………………………………

Subject: ………………………………………………………………

Type of lesson:

frontal/interactive group work laboratory checking - test

Describe the characteristics of teaching and learning in your hosting school, and the ways in whichthe practices support the values and goals of this school.

Please enter the number that best reflects the situation in your hosting class:

3 = completely; 2 = to some degree, but not all the time; 1 = very little; 0 = not all; N = notapplicable.



43

Area of observa tion Quality indicator Number

1 Teaching methods promote students attainment andadvancement

2 Teaching methods involve working in cross disciplinaryteaching teams

Teachingmethods

3 Teachers make use of a variety of techniques to meetdifferent learner needs and styles

4 Learning situations motivate students to engage

5 Students learn both individually and collectively

6 There is equal attention to all students based on thelearning needs

Learningsituations

7 A variety of learning materials and sources are availableto students

8 Students have access to the library regularly

9 Students are encouraged to seek learning opportunitiesin non traditional settings that go beyond the classroom

10 Students are encouraged to learn from their peersLearning material

andother resources

11 A variety of media resources is provided to enhance thelearning situations

Note : To be filled in per each lesson

T e a c h i n g m e t h o d s p r o m o t e s t u d e n t s a t t a i n m e n ta n d a d v a n c e m e n t

1

T e a c h i n g m e t h o d s i n v o l v e w o r k i n g i n c r o s sd i s c i p l i n a r y t e a c h i n g t e a m s

2

T e a c h e r s m a k e u s e o f a v a r i e t y o f t e c h n i q u e s t om e e t d i f f e r e n t l e a r n e r n e e d s a n d s t y l e s 3

L e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s m o t i v a t e s t u d e n t s t oe n g a g e 4

S t u d e n t s l e a r n b o t h i n d i v i d u a l l y a n dc o l l e c t i v e l y 5

T h e r e i s e q u a l a t t e n t i o n t o a l l s t u d e n t s b a s e d o n

A r e a o f o b s e r v a t i o n Q u a l i t y i n d i c a t o r

T e a c h i n g m e t h o d s

L e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s



44

T h e r e i s e q u a l a t t e n t i o n t o a l l s t u d e n t s b a s e d o nt h e l e a r n i n g n e e d s

6

A v a r i e t y o f l e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l s a n d s o u r c e s a r ea v a i l a b l e t o s t u d e n t s

7

S t u d e n t s h a v e a c c e s s t o t h e l i b r a r y r e g u l a r l y 8

S t u d e n t s a r e e n c o u r a g e d t o s e e k l e a r n i n go p p o r t u n i t i e s i n n o n t r a d i t i o n a l s e t t i n g s t h a t g ob e y o n d t h e c l a s s r o o m

9

S t u d e n t s a r e e n c o u r a g e d t o l e a r n f r o m t h e i rp e e r s

1 0

A v a r i e t y o f m e d i a r e s o u r c e s i s p r o v i d e d t oe n h a n c e t h e l e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s

1 1

L e a r n i n g m a t e r i a l a n do t h e r r e s o u r c e s

L e a r n i n g s i t u a t i o n s

Distribution of Results – TeacherMobility

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

ITALY

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

ITALY

GERMANY

SPAIN

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

ITALY

Distribution of Results – Teacher Mobility



46

0,0

0,5

1,0

Teaching methods Learning situations Learning material and otherresources

ITALY

GERMANY

SPAIN


1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

ITALY

GERMANY

SPAIN



47

1 - Teaching methods promote students attainment and advancement

2 - Teaching methods involve working in cross disciplinary teaching teams

3 - Teachers make use of a variety of techniques to meet different learner needs and styles

0,0

0,5

1,0

1 2 3

SPAIN


1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

ITALY

GERMANYSPAIN



48

4 -Learning situations motivate students to engage

5 - Students learn both individually and collectively

6 - There is equal attention to all students based on the learning needs

7 - A variety of learning materials and sources are available to students

0,0

0,5

1,0

4 5 6 7



Distribution of Results

Year II teams of visiting teachers evaluated the 3 areas of observation like this:

It seems as if visiting teachers observed with “more critical eyes” compared to Year I.Nevertheless, similarities in the data are:Evaluations follow the score pattern of Year 1 leaving “Learning situation” with the highest average

score, followed by the other 2 areas of observation.As to the question of learning materials and resources the scored results of all three schools are most

closely together.



49

closely together.

Teaching methods in terms of:• making use of a variety of techniques to meet different learner needs• promoting students’ attainment• working in cross disciplinary teaching teams

are most frequently applied in Kamenz, followed by Valladolid and Rome.

Learning situations observations indicate the same pattern with Kamenz scoring highest followed byValladolid and Rome.

Results confirm findings of Year I and II


1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

ITALY

GERMANY

SPAIN



50

8 - Students have access to the library regularly

9 - Learning opportunities in non traditional settings

10 - Students are encouraged to learn from their peers

11 - A variety of media resources is provided to enhance the learning situations

0,0

0,5

8 9 10 11



Distribution of Results

Students` motivation, individual and collective learning as well as teachers`attention to learner needs seem to take a greater impetus in the lessons atall three schools observed. Whereas the area for teaching methods seems



51

to be more subtle to observe and consequently shows the limits of this 1-week-project.Again both Kamenz and Valladolid score high and are very close in theirresults.



The project may also show its limits against a more extended time observation of say 4or more weeks in the area of learning material and other resources. It is hard for ateam of visiting teachers to assess in 1 week:

• how students are encouraged to seek learning opportunities in settings beyond theclassroom



52

• how students are encouraged to seek learning opportunities in settings beyond theclassroom

• how students are encouraged to learn from their peers.

So the bulk of assessment refers to:

• regular access to the library

• learning material

• and media resources.

Again the differences between two of the three schools are very small.


Year III

.

Section 2 - C

Teacher Questionnaire on Their Work at



53

Teacher Questionnaire on Their Work atSchool

School Development ProjectThe Teacher and the ClassroomYear III Teacher Questionnaire

TEACHER ___________________ SCHOOL_______________________

TEACHER - LESSONSIndicate how many minutes is one period at yourschool.

45` 50` 55` 60`

How many lessons do you have to teach per week? 15-17 18-20 21-23 24-26

How many hours per week do you have to be atschool (teaching lessons included)

16-20 21-25 26-30 >30

Do you work full time? yes no

Do you work at another school as well? yes no

TEACHER – PROFESSIONAL PROBLEMSHow would you classify the importance of theseproblems (from 1 – 4 according to importance)

1 2 3 4

a) problems with parents

b) problems with colleagues



54

c) problems with school management

d) problems with students

e) problems with the technical staff

Which area of support do you think shou ld bedeveloped more? (from 1 – 4 according toimportance)

1 2 3 4

a) psycho-pedagogical issues

b) legal issues

c) technical issues

d) cooperation with police

e) parental collaboration

f) school management

g) collaboration with colleagues

TEACHER – MEETINGSDo you think that the number of staff meetings issufficient?

yes no

Should there be more staff meetings? yes no

Do you think that the number of departmentmeetings is sufficient?

yes no


Year IIITeacher Questionnaire

.

It has to be considered that:• the sample is small



55

• the tutors have not been chosen according to statisticalprinciples

• the types of schools range from gymnasium / lyceum totechnical schools

• not all the information in the questionnaires can beprocessed under a statistic point of view

Distribution of Results – Teacher Questionnaire

Table 1



56

45

55 55

K AME NZ R O ME VALLAD O LID


Table 2

60%

80%

100%



57

0%

20%

40%

60%

21 - 25 26 - 30 21 - 25 26 - 30 21 - 25 26 - 30

KAMENZ ROME VALLADOLID


Table 3

0,6

0,8

1



58

0

0,2

0,4

0,6

16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 > 30

KAMENZ

ROME

VALLADOLID


Table 4



59

YES NO NO



Table 5



60

YES NO YES NO YES NO



Table 6



61



Distribution of Results – TeacherQuestionnaire

Table 7

60%

80%

100%



62

0%

20%

40%




Year IIITeacher QuestionnaireDistribution of Results

Teacher Questionnaire

In the course of the project two different questionnaires were used.After Years I and II the first questionnaire which referred to thetasks and position of the tutor was replaced by another one whichis presented here. The reason for this replacement was that after



63

is presented here. The reason for this replacement was that afterthe first two years all relevant data of all project schools hd beencollected and so the idea of studying the situation of teachers ingeneral was focussed on. This new questionnaire refers to theteacher`s work load and ways of evaluations and in-service trainingexisting at his/her school.



.Teacher Questionnaire – Table 1-3Table 1: In Italy and Spain teachers hold 55 minute periods and in Kamenz 45

minute periods are commonplace.Table 2: In Italy and Spain teachers have both a fixed amount of lessons

between 21-25 periods. In Kamenz this can differ and depends on the



64

between 21-25 periods. In Kamenz this can differ and depends on thedemand at school. Therefore more indiviual agreements may exist.

Table 3: The situation varifies in respect to hours spent at school by teachers.But the majority of teachers indicates the number between 21-25hours. Whereas all Italian teachers say so, both in Spain andGermany this is true only partly. Some teachers in Spain spendfewer hours at school (16-20) and some teachers in Kamenz saythey spend more (26-30).



.Teacher Questionnaire – Table 4-6

Table 4: Evaluations at school seem to be common practicein Kamenz only. Neither Valladolid nor Rome has such a



65

in Kamenz only. Neither Valladolid nor Rome has such away of assessing the work of teachers.

Table 5: Teachers of 3 schools agree identically in saying thatthey think their teachning can be improved.

Table 6: Teachers of all 3 schools agree identically in saying thatif fellow teachers observe their lessons this might have apositive effect on their future teaching.



.

Teacher Questionnaire - Table 7

Table 7: This question relates to the possibility that observing



66

Table 7: This question relates to the possibility that observinglessons is not only done by fellow teachers but by individualswho hold other positions like instructors, head of departmentsand the school management etc. Since there is no evaluationin Spain and Italy teachers from both schools unanimouslyagree about the positive aspect of such a possibility. This looksdifferent in Kamenz where the majority of teachers agrees aswell but some also indaicate the doubt if such a process ishelpful for them.


Year III

.

Section 3



67

Student Mobility

0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6

Distribution of Results – Student MobilityTable 1



68

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

<1 1- 2 3 - 4 >4 <1 1- 2 3 - 4 >4 <1 1- 2 3 - 4 >4

ITALY GERMANY SPAIN


The Teacher and the ClassroomStudent Mobility – Free time questionnaire

.Student Mobility - Table 1

Table 1 Sports: There is an identically high number of Italian and Germanstudents who indicate they do not go for sports at all.



69

students who indicate they do not go for sports at all.In the sections of 1 – 2 times per week and 3-4 times all 3 schools scorealmost identically.By far a great number of Spanish students goes in for sport 4 times perweek or more. Italians and Germans show identical patterns in the factthat the higher the frequence the lower the number of students.

0,1

0,2

0,2

0,3

0,3

0,4

Distribution of Results – Student Mobility

Table 2



70

0,0

0,1

0,1

<1 1- 2 3 - 4 >4 <1 1- 2 3 - 4 >4 <1 1- 2 3 - 4 >4

ITALY GERMANY SPAIN


Year IIIStudent Mobility - Free time Questionnaire

.Student Mobility – Table 2

The following answers refer to the use of the Internet for school purposes:

The majority of students at all 3 schools uses the Internet between



71

The majority of students at all 3 schools uses the Internet between1or 2 hours per day for school purposes.

Italian and German students have a very similar habit of using itfor less than 1 hour per day.

Students in Spain tend to use it more in the time section of 3-4hours per day.

But for all 3 schools the value of more than 4 hours is naturallythe lowest even though Germany scores highest here.

0,3

0,4

0,5

Distribution of Results – Student Mobility

Table 3



72

0,0

0,1

0,2

ITALY GERMANY SPAIN




No Internet at all: This time this category has relevance. Whereas in theprevious years no values were indicated, this question now is answeredwith „yes“ both by Italian and German students.



73

Spain is the exception and the value shows that the students asked allhave somehow acces and make use of the Internet.


0,3

0,4

0,5

0,6



74

0,0

0,1

0,2

0,3

0 1- 2 3 - 4 >4 0 1- 2 3 - 4 >4 0 1- 2 3 - 4 >4

ITALY GERMANY SPAIN




How many books per month do young people read?:

Different from Year II the largest group of students indicates they read nobook at all per month (last year 1 book).



75

book at all per month (last year 1 book).

Between 1 – 2 books is the second highest value in all 3 schools.

In category 3-4 or even more books per month Spain scoreshighest and both Italy and Germany have no score in the lastcategory.


0,3

0,4

0,5



76

0,0

0,1

0,2

0 1- 2 3 - 4 >4 0 1- 2 3 - 4 >4 0 1- 2 3 - 4 >4

ITALY GERMANY SPAIN




How many hours per day do students watch TV?

Most frequently students indicated the first two categories, i.e. 0 time or 1– 2 times. The first category (= no time) which is the highest value in all 3schools should perhaps be considered with some caution. But again



77

– 2 times. The first category (= no time) which is the highest value in all 3schools should perhaps be considered with some caution. But againsome truth is this score as well as it is very similar for all 3 schools alike.

It is no surprise that students in all 3 schools score second highest withcategory 2 (1-2hours per day). This reflects habitual attitudes too.

Fewer and fewer students watch 3-4 or even more hours per day.Various other freetime activities (c.f. other tables of this survey) andschool (homework, assignments etc.) may set a limit as well.


0,3

0,4

0,5

ITALY



78

0,0

0,1

0,2

localnational

sportbusiness

crosswords

free of charge

others

not at al l

ITALYGERMANYSPAIN



.Student Mobilty – Table 6What daily newspapers/magazines do young people of our schools read?Local newspapers: On an average this is the second most typical type ofnewspaper read by students from all 3 schools.National newspapers: Italian students prefer to read national newspapers(identical with last year) . This is definitely logical as Rome is the capital andnational newspapers devote much of their space to the capital of a country too.Sports papers: On average this segment is the most frequently read by students



79

Sports papers: On average this segment is the most frequently read by studentsfrom all 3 schools.Business newspapers: This score the lowest value (identical with last year). Butsome Spanish and German students indicate they read such type of paper(identical with last year).Crosswords: This type of paper is almost equally popular with students from Italyand Germany but very few Spaniards seem to like this.Free of charge: Remarkably popular with Italian students (identical with last year).Others: This category is scored high by German and Italian students (specialmagazines). By far few students from Spain read such papers.No paper or magazine: This value scored is very similar in all 3 schools and thesecond lowest (after business papers).


0,30,40,50,60,70,80,9

ITALYGERMANY



80

0,00,10,20,3

vocational training/work

university/college

work with parents

going abroad for 1 year

GERMANYSPAIN




This is what students plan for the future?:Vocational Training: Most Italian students want to start vocationaltraining after leaving school. This is only logical as they all attend atechnical school which ideally prepares them for a career in the field oftechnology or business (identical with last year). Also a considerably



81

technology or business (identical with last year). Also a considerablylower number of German and Spanish students say they want to take upsome vocational training.University/college: A very high number of German and Spanish studentswant to go on to university or college. Still many Italian students think thisas well (identical with last year).A few Germans and fewer Italians say they could think of working at theirparents´ firm or business. No value for Spain here.Mostly Germans, followed by Italians and Spaniards at a much lowerlevel think of going abroad for 1 year (identical German attitude with lastyear).


Year III

.

Section 4

Student Exchange



82

Student Exchange


Year IIIStudent Exchange

.

A financial support by national authorities does not exist for mostof the participating schools – except for Kamenz which can applyfor additional support by the Saxon government.



83

The Comenius – School Development Project only provides asmall amount of money for two students per participating school.So most if not all of the financial costs have to be covered by thefamilies of students. In Year III an exchange between Narva andKamenz took place. About 23 students from both schools tookpart in it by staying at the hosting school joining lessons, visitingmuseums and going on educational excursions.

The Teacher and the ClassroomYear III

.

Section 5Continuing Partnership



84

Continuing PartnershipArrangements

The Teacher and the ClassroomYear III

Continuing Partnership Arrangements

.

The valuable links established among the schools, the individualteachers and the students involved in the project will progress in



85

various fields.

A new joint school project is envisaged which involves teams ofstudents and teachers collaborating on the theme “Changes inEurope – Chance and Challenge for the Young Generation” (LifelongLearning).

Documents

School Year 2007/08 - Startseite / Gotthold-Ephraim ...lessgym-kamenz.de/files/comenius0708.pdf · School Year 2007/08 G. ... • Each visiting teacher submits the questionnaire to