Mobility / Visits
Please choose one of the following documentation sections:
| 4.1. | SEFES Meetings | 4.1.1. | Meeting I Hamburg |
| 4.1.2. | Meeting II Kaunas | ||
| 4.1.3. | Meeting III Rzeszow | ||
| 4.1.4. | Meeting IV Reykjavik | ||
| 4.1.5. | Meeting V Rovaniemi | ||
| 4.1.6 | Meeting VI Hamburg | ||
| 4.2. | Individual Visits | 4.2.1. | Asta and Rima visit to Rzeszow |
| 4.2.2. | Rima visit to Reykjavik | ||
| 4.2.3. | Sabine visit to Rzeszow | ||
| 4.3. | Courses And Conferences | 4.3.1. | Sequals Course |
| 4.3.2. | Synevanet conference in Hall 2005 (PPT) | ||
| 4.3.3. | Synevanet conference in Talinn 2006 | ||
| 4.3.5. | Action Research (PPT) |
Meeting III - Rzeszow
SEFES MEETING SUMMARY
RZESZOW, OCTOBER 2004
New participants:
Seven new participants took part in the meeting: Eirikur and Margret from Reykjavik, Barbara from Rzeszow, Egidija from Kaunas, Liisa and Ritva from Rovaniemi, Ralph from Hamburg.
Further participants: Aga and Gosia from Rzeszow, Rima from Kaunas, Angelika and Werner from Hamburg, Ármann from Reykjavik.
First year report:
Werner presents the “three columns model” which contains a summary of our first year work.
Diary, peer-evaluation and feedback. The participants of each school give a short report of the evaluation-activities they have applied. There have been much more activities than we put on our website.
First year evaluation: What can we improve?
The project website should be used more. As we did not publish all our activities, we missed the chance to motivate and encourage each other to work on the project. Maybe the website could be a little bit more user-friendly. It takes a long time to check if there is something new. It would also be better to have a kind of frame where we easily could add a new evaluation activity.
Action research method: Rima attended a Comenius 2.2c course that was held in Lithuania in 2004. The scientific approach of this method leads to a very similar concept of evaluation compared to our own work. They recommend self-reflection, peer-evaluation and feedback methods. Although they use some different technical terms they come to similar results. This is a confirmation for our own project work.
Further presentations:
Liisa presents her school the “Rovaniemi Institute of Services”. The address of this very interesting vocational school is www.roiami.fi
There are about 83 teachers and 800 students. A hotel and a restaurant is integrated into the school.
The standard of quality management and school development is very high. They started a quality management project in 1999 with a SWOT analysis.
As school development is considered very important, the school has a staff day (students stay at home and do their homework) once or twice a year and the quality manager has got a fulltime job, he does not have to teach any more.
What does the school expect from our common SEFES project? Liisa points out the improvement of the feedback system and implementing the Basic Values.
Àrmann presents some successful experiments in the field of diaries. He uses pictures for the diary which is very time-saving and efficient as well. Blog, short writing methods, the dartboard, can add important aspects. A portfolio may be the result of this work.
Eirikur gives a report on evaluation activities at “Verslo” since 1996. Every Icelandic secondary school has to do an annual evaluation. After 5 years the methods have to be evaluated by the school itself.
Since 1997 evaluation has been done with the help of personal computers. “Verslo” focus on the results of teaching and learning.
The whole Verslo quality group is integrated into the SEFES project. Outcome so far:
-a manual for staff and teachers was published
- numerous proposals for improvement have been made
- 2-3 workgroups about specific areas will be formed.
Margret tells us about evaluation of science teaching. In 2000 screen projectors were installed. Since then all biology teaching materials have been digitalized. Many powerpoint presentations have been prepared. Was it worth it to do this and to use the screen projectors regularly? Each year different questions have been used. So it is not very easy to compare the results of the annual evaluation questionnaires.
One result: the screen projectors and new methods do not guarantee a long-lasting improvement of teaching.
For further information you may contact the persons above.
Group work on different evaluation methods:
One group each works on
-peer-evaluation
-diaries
-students feedback
This covers questions like: Are the methods too time-consuming? How often can you use this method? What is the best moment? How to start? How to prepare the students? How to prepare yourself?
In each group examples that have been carried out are discussed. As a result of the group work we decide that all SEFES members should have some more practical experience. One sentence seems to be true in the field of evaluation: less will be more.
As we want to establish a culture of self-evaluation at our schools we should avoid frustrating our colleagues. It has to be the SEFES team that tries to find the best way of evaluation and not the whole staff. And we need practical experience to be able to decide the right way and the right instruments for the implementation at our schools – this is probably the main task of the third project year.
Work planned for this year:
All schools are continuing with diary, peer-evaluation and feedback. The website is being developed further. The next meeting in March 2005 is being prepared. The third year application is being prepared and submitted.
Who is doing what?
• We are sending the presentations of our Rzeszow meeting to Ármann.
• Ármann is taking care of the improvement of our website. (add the fifth partner, password for everybody, date of last report, blog).
• Angelika and Werner are creating a frame for peer-evaluation so that it will be easier to document and publish our evaluation activities.
• Ármann is creating a form for feedback activities.
• Every SEFES member is trying to do some peer-evaluation until the next meeting. Moreover at least one more activity, either the diary or students feedback, is being carried out. The results are being published on our website.
• Werner is sending a suggestion for the third year application to all participants in December 2004.
• Reykjavik is organising the next meeting in Iceland. 2005 Mar 30th – 2005 Apr. 3rd.
• All members are publishing their experience on the project website.
• Werner is informing the members of the project about the Comenius 3 network SYNEVA (internal-external evaluation) that is going to start in January 2005.
S. Ott