Pre-project teacher evaluation

https://forms.gle/cJii7xE3RhsgmGx46

Pre-project teacher evaluation results:

Post-project teacher evaluation

https://forms.gle/xDpw3mQSeEa9uLAv8

This is the form to evaluate the  project; (post project evaluation)

Here are the results of the post project teacher evaluation:

Summary and reccomendations based on the mentors' evaluation

Summary and recommendations based on teacher/coordinators’ feedback

- each participating school had 1 mentor, except for the Croatian (founder) school that had 2.

- Croatia, Latvia, Romania, and Spain participated with 1 school, while France and Turkiye with 2.

- 7 mentors were female and 2 male.

- the mentors had varying teaching experience, fro. 5 – 10 years to over 30 years.

- most mentors were English teachers (7 of 9), 1 Biology teacher and 1 History teacher, while some of the English teachers also teach another subject.

- the majority of mentors (over 65%) taught high-school students during the school year 2023 – 2024, while around 35% of them also taught middle school.

- 55,6% of the mentors said that the project met their expectations entirely, 2 said that it had surpassed their expectations, while 2 said it met their expectations to a degree.

- 77,8% of the mentors said that their students improved their competencies (new technologies, English language, time management, responsibility, collaboration skills ..), whereas 22,2% of mentors said that they did quite a lot.

- 66,7% of mentors said that they had that their students had enough time for all the activities, while 33,3% of them said they did in most cases.

- 44,4% of mentors rated their students’ motivation in the project with 5/5, 22,2% of them rated it 4/5, whereas 33,3% rated it 3/5.

- when asked to what extent they thought their students improved their intercultural sensitivity, 33,3% of mentors rated it with 5/5, 55,6% rated it 4/5, whereas 11,1% rated it ¾.

- when asked to what extent they thought the project helped their students become aware of the importance of sustainability, 11,1% of mentors rated it with “it made them highly aware”, 33,3% rated it 5/5, whereas 55,6% rated it 4/5.

- when asked to what extent they thought the project helped their students realize their own responsibility in making their local community a better place for all its members, 55,6% of mentors rated it with 5/5, 33,3% with 4/5, while only 11,1% (1 teacher) rated it with 2/5.

- 66,7% of mentors believe that their students improved their self-esteem during the project, while 33,35 believe they somewhat did.

- 88,9% of mentors believe that the activities were creative, while 11,1% (1 mentor) thinks that they weren’t.

- the mentors think that most activities were useful for their students.

- as to their own participation in the project, 33,3% of mentors gave themselves a 5/5, 55,6% a 4/5, while 11,1% gave themselves a 3/5.

- when asked how satisfied they were about the participation of other mentors, 66,7% rated them with 5/5, while 33,3% with a 4/5.

- 77,8% of partners believe that all partners were equally involved, while 22,2% believe that they weren’t.

- 77,8% of mentors say they would participate in another eTwinning project the following year, while 22,2% are not sure.

- RECOMMENDATIONS

• - As much as 33,3% of mentors rated their students’ motivation in the project with 3/5, which should be taken into account and work on including the students more while designing the activities in order to boost their motivation.
• - Since the majority of mentors (around 65%) believe that their students’ intercultural sensitivity could have improved even more during the project, we conclude that even more activities with mixed international students communicating should be included next time.
• - Even though only 11,1% (1 mentor) thought their students’ awareness of their own personal responsibility in making their local community a better place for all its members deserved only 2/5 (the reason might be because this teacher did not have enough time to engage their students in the community as they wanted to), next time more activities involving students into their local community should be introduced.
• - Some recommendations from the mentors from the survey:
  •        - Not over-controlling the students.
  •        - Not include students who are quite younger that the rest because they aren’t able to keep up with the activities and their English is far less advanced.
  •        - A better communication tool for students should be used due to Twinspace being far too inconvenient for them and unreliable (Padlet was OK, but also quite limiting, while Tricider was the worst). Finding a suitable communication tool is vital because it's very hard for students to communicate with each other in this way.
  •        - A common schedule should be better planned.