1. Purpose and Structure of the Data

The Pre-Test dataset is significantly more extensive (50 columns) and is designed to assess:

• Teachers’ initial knowledge about the eTwinning project
• Their expectations, confidence, and anticipated challenges
• Their digital competence and use of English

In contrast, the Post-Test dataset is shorter (10 columns) and focuses on:

• Experience after the project
• Perceived improvement
• Satisfaction and outcomes

👉 In short:

• Pre-Test = expectations, baseline knowledge, and readiness
• Post-Test = results, perceptions, and impact

2. Data Completeness and Quality

• The Pre-Test shows a relatively high level of missing values (~28%)
• The Post-Test dataset is fully complete (0% missing data)

This suggests:

• Initial responses may have been more complex or optional
• Final responses were clearer, more focused, and easier to complete

3. Focus of Questions

Pre-Test Focus

The pre-test includes detailed questions about:

• Understanding of eTwinning objectives
• Knowledge of partner countries
• Expected student outcomes
• Anticipated challenges
• Confidence in English communication
• Use of digital tools

This reflects a diagnostic and predictive approach.

Post-Test Focus

The post-test shifts toward:

• Enjoyment and engagement
• Cultural learning
• Skill development
• Improvement in English
• Ease of collaboration
• Usefulness of digital tools

This reflects an evaluative and reflective approach.

4. Evolution in Learning and Perception

Although the datasets are small (5 responses each), we can identify clear trends:

a. From Expectations to Outcomes

• Pre-test: Teachers express what they expect students to gain
• Post-test: Teachers report actual skills gained (e.g., communication, cultural awareness)

b. English Language Confidence

• Pre-test: Focus on initial confidence and anticipated challenges
• Post-test: Measures improvement and current confidence

👉 This allows tracking progress in language competence

c. Digital Tools Usage

• Pre-test: Teachers report tools they are comfortable using
• Post-test: Teachers identify tools they found most useful

Example:

• Tools like Canva, Genially, and Padlet appear frequently in the post-test

👉 This shows a shift from familiarity → practical effectiveness

d. Collaboration Experience

• Pre-test: Concerns about managing international collaboration
• Post-test: Evaluation of how easy collaboration actually was

👉 Indicates whether initial concerns were confirmed or reduced

5. Key Insights

1. Clear Learning Progression

The structure of both tests allows a before–after comparison, showing:

• Growth in skills
• Increased confidence
• Positive learning outcomes

2. Improved Engagement and Clarity

• Post-test responses are more complete and focused
• Suggests higher engagement after participation

3. Strong Emphasis on Soft Skills

The project appears to enhance:

• Intercultural awareness
• Communication skills
• Digital competence

4. Alignment Between Goals and Results

The expectations set in the pre-test (collaboration, English use, digital tools) are directly reflected in post-test outcomes.

6. Limitations

• Very small sample size (n = 5) → results are not statistically generalizable
• Pre- and post-test datasets are not directly aligned question-by-question, making precise quantitative comparison difficult
• Analysis is mainly qualitative and descriptive

7. Conclusion

The comparison shows a well-structured evaluation design:

• The Pre-Test successfully captures teachers’ initial mindset, skills, and expectations
• The Post-Test effectively measures the impact of the project

Overall, the data suggests that the “Passport to Europe” project:

• Improved teachers’ and students’ English confidence
• Enhanced digital tool usage
• Fostered positive international collaboration experiences