Promoting CLIL implementation in Europe21 I used adequate ICT tools. 12 ... The second study visit...

Promoting CLIL

implementation in Europe:

Learners' and guest partners' views

from the second study visit

03 - 08 April 2017

Constanta, Romania

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 5

2. Learners' questionnaires 5

3. Teachers' questionnaires 8

4. Joint Staff Training Seminar questionnaire 16

Appendix A Learners' questionnaire 20-21

Appendix B Learners' comments in questionnaires 22-24

Appendix C Quest partners' questionnaire 25-26

Appendix D Joint Staff Seminar questionnaire 27-29

2

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1 Means and standard deviations of the learners' answers in each statement 6

2 Means and standard deviations of the teachers' answers in each statement 8-9

3 Frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation of attendees answers 16-17

3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

Students’ answers

1

The lesson was difficult. 6

2

The lesson was boring. 6

3

I liked the lesson. 6

4

I participated in the activities. 6

5

The teacher was friendly. 7

6

The teacher helped me. 7

7

The lesson was interesting. 7

8

I learned new things. 7

9

I like how the lesson was done. 7

10

The English was simple enough for me to understand. 7

11

The lesson was simple enough for me to understand. 7

Teachers’ answers

12 Appropriate number of learners. 9

13 I achieved learning outcomes. 9

14 I used time well. 9

15 I was helpful. 10

16 Created effective environment. 10

17 I maintained good relationship with learners. 10

18 I encouraged participation/interaction. 11

19 I was well prepared. 11

20 My presentation skills were good. 11

21 I used adequate ICT tools. 12

22 The classroom was well equipped. 12

23 The students' attitudes were positive. 12

4

1. Introduction

The second study visit of the ERASMUS+ project entitled ''Promoting CLIL implementation in

Europe'' took place between 3-8 April 2017. In particular, four delegations from four different countries

(Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, and Greece) visited the Romanian organization (FIEC –Educational

Center Theoretical High school) in an attempt to reinforce cooperation among the partners, apply different

CLIL methodologies, assess project development and establish the . In total 14 guest partners, (4 from

Greece, 4 from Lithuania, 3 from the Czech Republic, and 3 from Italy) attended the 15 available CLIL

lessons at the workplace of the Romanian host organization delivered by the teachers of the host country

during the first three days (3-5 April). After getting acquainted with the various approaches used and the

learners, guest partners delivered CLIL lessons themselves on 6th and 7th of April. To this end, 13 CLIL

teaching sessions (each one lasting 50 minutes) were delivered in the English language to grades 1 to 6 (that

is 6 to 12 years old Romanian learners) in the following subjects: Mathematics and Environment

exploration, Geography, Arts, History, Personal Development, Biology, and Civics. After the completion of

each session the pupils as well as the guest partners answered a brief questionnaire (provided in Appendices

Α and C respectively) to express their opinions about the lesson. Appendix B includes all the learners'

further comments on the teachers' lesson as recorded by the questionnaire of Appendix A. In total, 289

pupils’ and 17 teachers’ questionnaires were collected and analyzed. The present booklet provides a report

of the findings from the analysis of the learners' and teachers' questionnaires described in sections 2 and 3 as

well as from the feedback provided at the Joint Staff Seminar which is described in section 4.

2. Learners’ questionnaires

The questionnaire for the pupils was distributed and completed shortly after the end of each session

and included eleven statements which were answered by a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree,

2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree) (Appendix Α). Means and standard

deviations of the learners' answers to each statement are shown in Table 1, while the percentages of

participants in the five-point scale questionnaire are shown per statement in Figure 1 -11.

5

Table 1

Means and standard deviations of the learners' answers in each statement

QUESTIONNAIRE’S STATEMENTS N M SD

1. The lesson was difficult 289 1.77 0.99

2. The lesson was boring 267 1.63 1.07

3. I liked the lesson 283 4.57 0.84

4. I participated in the activities 284 4.42 0.74

5. The teacher was friendly 273 4.79 0.53

6. The teacher helped me 286 3.98 1.07

7. The lesson was interesting 289 4.59 0.76

8. I learn new things 286 4.37 0.89

9. I liked how the lesson was done 261 4.58 0.66

10. The English used was simple enough for me to understand 285 4.72 0.56

11. The lesson was simple enough for me to understand 285 4.68 0.63

Percentage of participants in the 5-point scale per question

6

Figure 1 Figure2

Figure 3 Figure 4

7

Figure 5

Figure 8

Figure 6

Figure 7

Figure 9 Figure 10

Figure 11

The results showed that the overwhelming majority of the pupils had positive impressions and

comments about the lessons. This is attested by the fact that only 5,9 % of the learners found the lessons

difficult or strongly difficult and only a minority of them (less than 2 %) stated that the English language

used and the content were not very easy to understand. Most importantly, the learners' positive arguments

are supported by the fact that more than 93% of them liked the lessons and 94,6 % of them declared that they

participated in the activities. Furthermore, a vast majority of the learners (93%) found the lesson to be

interesting and liked (93,5%) the methods adopted throughout the lessons. What is more, 88,1% of the

learners admitted that they learned new things. Finally, as far as the learners' views of the teachers’

(Romanian and guest partners) teaching is concerned, almost all of them (96,7% ) found their new teachers

to be friendly while the majority of them (75,6%) recorded that they were helpful.

3. Teachers’ questionnaire

The questionnaire for the teachers included twelve statements which were answered by a five-point

Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree)

(Appendix C). Means and standard deviations of the teachers' answers to each statement are shown in Table

2 while the percentages of participants in the five-point scale questionnaire are shown per statement in

Figures 12-23.

Table 2

Means and standard deviations of the teachers' answers in each statement

QUESTIONNAIRE’S STATEMENTS N Min Max M SD

1. The number of learners in the classroom was the 17 3 5 4.52 0.62

appropriate

2. I achieved the learning outcomes. 17 3 5 4.11 0.60

3. I used time well. 17 2 5 3.88 0.85

4. I was helpful 17 4 5 4.52 0.51

5. I created an effective learning environment 17 4 5 4.35 0.49

6. I maintained good relationship with learners 17 4 5 4.64 0.49

7. I encouraged participation and interaction 17 4 5 4.76 0.43

8. I was well prepared 17 4 5 4.58 0.50

9. My presentation skills were good 17 3 5 4.17 0.52

8

10. I used adequate ICT tools 17 1 5 4.17 1.33

11. The classroom was well equipped 17 2 5 4.23 0.83

12. Students’ attitude towards my lesson was positive 17 4 5 4.64 0.49

9

Inspection of the twelve figures above tends to provide almost unanimous results as the dispersion of

the teachers' answers belong mainly to the strongly agree and agree points of the 5 point Likert scale.

More specifically, Figure 12 shows that 94.1 % of the guest partners who delivered CLIL lessons

found the number of learners in the classes to be appropriate and only 5.9% of the respondents were

undecided whether they agreed or disagreed to this statement. Furthermore, Figure 13 shows that 88.2 % of

the teachers believe they have achieved the learning outcomes while the remaining 11.8% represents the

teachers who neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Figure 14, illustrates that 82.3% of the

teachers evaluated management of time in their lessons as appropriate. 5.9% of respondents evaluated their

time usage to be neither well nor bad. Some teachers (11.8%) showed a disagreement on the appropriate use

of time during their lessons, thing that was also reflected in their comments at the end of the questionnaire,

proposing suggestions for improvement in their future lessons. This results can be attributed (a) to the fact

that the teachers were not perfectly acquainted with the subject level of the students, (b) at some points the

lessons start was delayed due to the learners being a bit late to enter the classroom due to various reasons

(changing of classrooms and some announcements and (c) there were some equipment difficulties due to

problems of soft compatibility. All teachers unanimously agree that they were helpful to the learners as

Figure 5 clearly illustrates. The helpful stance on the part of the teachers is also supported by the learners'

answers in their questionnaire (statement 6) where 75.6% of the learners found the teachers to be helpful.

Another total agreement among the teachers who delivered CLIL lessons is reflected in Figure 16 where all

the respondents agree that they created an effective learning environment. Figures 17-19 show three more

cases of complete agreement to (a) encouraging participation and interaction (Figure 17), (b) maintaining

good relationships with the learners (Figure 18) and, (c) being well prepared (Figure 19). Figure 20 reflects

the agreement of the majority (94.1%) of the teachers on their successful presentation skills while 5.9%

simply did not provide any definite answer (neither agree nor disagree) perhaps out of modesty as the

learners' comments indicate that they liked the lesson and the way it was presented. Figure 21 features the

high use of ICT tools by the teachers, as 82.3% of them deem that they used adequate ICT tools, while 5.9%

of them neither agreed nor disagreed. The remaining 11.8% strongly disagreed with the statement, but

13

probably, as one of the teachers’ further comments reflected, the ICT tools were not necessary in the

dynamic of the lesson. Figure 22, shows the agreement of the majority of teachers ( 88.3% ) and supports the

fact that the classrooms where the lessons were delivered were well equipped. The lab where most lessons

were delivered, includes a smart board, a PC, a projector, loud speakers, magnetic whiteboards and so on.

The other classroom, where the rest of the lessons took place, is similarly equipped, having, like the rest of

the classrooms in Educational Center Theoretical High school of Constanta, a PC, a plasma display panel, a

projector, loud speakers, magnetic whiteboards, different panels etc.. Finally, Figure 23, successfully depicts

the unanimous teachers' view of the learners' positive attitudes towards their lessons as 100 % of them agree

on that. This view is further supported by (a) the learners' own evaluation of the teachers and particularly in

statement 3 of their questionnaire where 93.7% of the learners agree that they liked the lessons delivered,

and (b) the learners' comments, some of which express the wish for more lessons of this type or more

lessons with the guest teachers.

Overall, the questionnaires reflect a positive view of the teachers regarding all the aspects

examined. The teachers were enthusiastic about the learners and topics, and enjoyed the experience of

teaching CLIL lessons. Below are the comments that were provided by eight of the teachers who delivered

CLIL lessons during the period of 3-7th

of April.

“The learners were very “awake” for their age. I could deepen and enlarge the aims, for example 3D/2D -

>1D. As it was a demonstration lesson, I have “cuttet” some creative steps as there was not enough time

(drawing the profile and cutting it out). I think my main goals have been reached. I enjoyed this encounter

between the learners, me and Picasso. Thank you!”

“It was a very interesting experience. I teach in English for the first time so I am very happy and I believe

this is the magic of CLIL.”

“Troubles with computer cause problem with time management. Time of my lesson was shorter. My lesson

start at 12:15 and finished at 12:45.”

14

“I did not need ICT tools as the lesson focused on experiencing things. I enjoyed seeing the students making

connections between their daily behavior and how the brain works.”

“ I missed one of my objectives because of lack of time - my fault. Paragraph development was never

accomplished –we ended up with sentences containing information about Greece.”

“I feel that my lesson went well especially with pace. I will remember to explain how to measure before the

actual activity next time. The class I had was fantastic and showed enthusiasm . Behaviour was well

managed.”

”The learners were very helpful and efficient. We started later because we wanted for the camera to be fixed

so we started 10 minutes later and I had to skip one activity (the questionnaires).”

“Next time more detailed discussion with the subject teacher about what I’m going to teach, especially the

subject level and things the pupils are going to use.”

“The lesson was prepared in such a way that I could cut it at natural breaks if the time allowed was not

enough - I could be reactive with students’ pace and not make them feel rushed. The students are very

knowledgeable and well-prepared with developed note taking skills. I could have spent less time on the first

EQ, to complete the lesson, but I think they enjoyed showing their knowledge and extending their

understanding.”

4. Joint Staff Training Seminar questionnaire

On the 8th of April, a joint staff training seminar was organized by the host organization

(Educational Center Theoretical High school – Cambridge School of Constanta) at the premises of the

Umberto Eco amphitheatre of the Faculty of Letters, at the Ovidius University of Constanta, in

Romania, with the aim of :

(a) acquainting all the participants with the progress and peculiarities of CLIL teaching in each

partner school and

(b) disseminating that knowledge to a wider audience that included pre-service and in-service

teachers.

The Joint Staff Training Seminar included five major presentations:

15

(a) CLIL: project expectations and initial insights from Greek learners, presented by Dr Ioanna

Ziaka & Varvara Koutalakidou.

(b) CLIL: challenges and opportunities - Lithuanian experience, presented by Erikas Juchnevicius.

(c) CLIL: Aims of, and experiences with, Skype lessons, in the context of the project, presented by

Katingo Vatis.

(d) CLIL implementation at ZŠ a MŠ Doberská through CLIL showers presented by Václav

Kruntorád.

(e) Strengths and weaknesses of CLIL in Educational Center Theoretical High school, presented by

Marchidanu Anamaria .

A questionnaire was handed out to the all the attendees. The questionnaire included nine statements

about the content and the quality of the presentations and discussions of the seminar. Not all registered

participants answered the questionnaire. In total, 24 questionnaires were filled in by attendees (secondary

and primary school teachers, university students, visiting partners, teachers of the Ovidius University-

Constanta). The answers were collected with a five-point Likert scale (Appendix D) and their frequencies

and percentages are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation of answers to each statement of

the questionnaire

Neither

Strongly agree nor Strongly

STATEMENTS agree Agree disagreed Disagree disagreed M SD

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

1. The event helped me

increase my 10 14 4.41 .50

understanding of CLIL 41.66% 58.33%

implementation

16

2. The event enriched my

perspective on CLIL

learning and teaching 3. I am going to use ideas

and information

presented at this event

in my context 4. The information

presented at the

event is of relevance

to policymakers in

my country 5. The length of speeches

was adequate 6. The time allocated

for discussion was

adequate

7. Please rate the quality

of the presentations

you attended during the

event:

“CLIL: project

expectations and

initial insights from

Greek learners”. “Strengths and weak-

nesses of CLIL in

E.C.T.H-Cambridge

School of Constanta”

“CLIL: Aims of, and

experiences with, Skype

lessons, in the context of

the project ". “CLIL: challenges

and opportunities –

Lithuanian experi-

ence”.

“CLIL implementation

at ZŠ a MŠ Doberská

through CLIL showers” 8. Please rate the quality

of the discussions held

during each session 9. Please rate the quality

of the event as a whole

8 13 3 4.20 .65

33.33% 54.16% 12.5%

10 14 4.41 .50

41.66% 58.33%

7 7 8 2 3.79 .97

29.16% 29.16% 33.33% 8.33%

9 15 4.37 .49 37.5% 62.5%

10 12 1 4.39 .58 43.47% 52.17% 4.34%

Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Poor

(5) (4) (3) (2) (1)

21 3 4.87 .33

87.5% 12.5%

18 3 3 4.62 .71

75% 12.5% 12.5%

18 4 2 4.66 .53

75% 16.66% 8.33%

18 4 4.81 .39

81.81% 18.18%

15 5 3 1 4.41 .88

62.5% 20.83% 12.5% 4.16%

12 11 1 4.45 .58

50% 45.83% 4.16%

14 7 3 4.45 .72

58.33% 29.16% 12.5%

17

The attendees of the Joint Staff Training seminar agreed that (a) the event aided their

comprehension of how to implement CLIL (100%), (b) the event enriched their views in CLIL

learning and teaching (87.5%), (c) the event has provided them with ideas and information that will

be used in their context (100%), and (d) the length of the speeches was adequate (100%).

Furthermore, 95.66% of the audience found the time allocated to discussion of the topics adequate

while a small percentage (4.34%) of the rest of the audience opted for the neither agree nor disagree

answer. This is congruent also with statement eight of the questionnaire concerning the quality of the

discussions, which was deemed very positive (excellent or very good) by 95.83% of the audience

while only 4.16% of the attendees expressed a moderate opinion by characterizing it as being good.

Statement number four had the most scattered answers and it referred to the relevance of the

information presented at the event to policymakers of the participants’ countries. These answers

probably reflect a lack of openness of certain policymakers to significant changes related to the

educational approach and syllabi. The answer related to the quality of the five presentations can be

also considered positive as none of the presentations was characterized as poor by any of the

respondents, and only one responded considered one of the presentation to be satisfactory. There

were, however, some differences in the declared quality of each presentation. Thus, the presentation

referring to “CLIL: project expectations and initial insights from Greek learners” was deemed as

excellent or very good unanimously. The presentation concerning the “Strengths and weaknesses of

CLIL in Cambridge School of Constanta” –Romania was deemed as excellent or very good by a total

of 87,5%,whereas 12.5% of the responders saw it as good. The presentation of the Italian partner

concerning “CLIL: Aims of, and experiences with, Skype lessons, in the context of the project “ was

deemed as excellent or very good by a total of 91.66%, and the remaining 8.33% saw is as good. All

the audience considered the presentation “CLIL: challenges and opportunities – Lithuanian

experience” to be excellent or very good (100%). The Czech partner’s presentation, “CLIL

implementation at ZŠ a MŠ Doberská through CLIL showers”, was appreciated as excellent or very

good by a total of 83.33%, while 12.5% of the attendees considered it good and other 4.16% saw it

as satisfactory.

18

The small differences in the percentages concerning the presentations might reflect a different

interest in the topics by the attendees, different formats of the presentation. For instance, some

presentations included videos with the feedback of the students involved in skype lessons while

others included more statistical data. Moreover, some of the presentations referred to concrete

aspects of CLIL implementation in the schools (e.g showers, strengths and weaknesses of CLIL)

while others included overall, holistic information about the project and this may have influenced the

preferences and answers of the attendees. Overall, though, the attendees considered that the

presentations were either excellent or very good, as all of the presentations added more than 80% on

these two options.

Last but not least, the quality of the event as a whole was characterised as being very good and

excellent by 87,5% with no negative characterisation whatsoever and having 12.5% attendees who

neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement. Below are the comments provided by some of the

attendees of the event.

I felt we were able to really understand each context in a deeper way. Issues were discussed

and faced in a productive way. The statistical aspect of the Greek presentation was very

helpful to see how to proceed.

This was my first attendance to a seminar of this kind. I feel enthusiastic, pleasantly

surprised, interested; this experiment provides me with a real perspective. Useful, pleasant,

relaxing, a real exchange of good practices, socializing.

Spread of ideas of the project? Where were the listeners? No one outside the project

participated much in discussions. We have a “product” to give, but our “brand” was not

advertised. Academic staff?

It has been a very good experience and I feel more confident as my understanding of CLIL

has been enriched. It was great to see how differently we all approach CLIL in our schools.

The discussions were very interesting and helpful.

19

Appendix A

Learners' questionnaire

20

APPENDIX B

Learners' comments in the questionnaires (per subject)

Mathematics and environment exploration –Grade 2

1. I liked the lesson.

2. Miss you are the best.

3. Love the lesson!

4. I didn’t have enough time to cut my ribbon.

5. It was very nice. I like miss Katingo.

Arts - Grade 2

1. The best lesson!

2. The lesson was fun.

3. I love this lesson.

4. I loved this lesson.

5. I like the lesson.

6. 7. I liked the lesson.

Personal Development – Grade 2

1. I love the Miss.

2. 3. Love lesson!

4.

Geography - Grade5A

1. This lesson was really interesting. Thank you for teaching us!

Geography – Grade6A 1. I liked that at the end we were given rewards (candy).

Geography – Grade 4B

1. I liked everything, the power point and how the teacher spoke to me.

2. I like that in order to learn, we did really nice activities.

3. I liked that these people helped us and the fact that we did an wonderful project with my colleagues.

4. It was awesome.

5. I’ve liked all of it.

6. I like the hour because it was really nice.

Civics – Grade 4A

1. I liked that the teacher explained very clearly and this made me understand easier the lesson. The teacher gave us some exercises that were very nice. I liked also that the teacher was very friendly.

2. The teacher is kind to us. The lesson was interesting. I like it very much.

3. I liked all the hour because it was very, very interesting.

4. I liked that we made both Science and Civics.

5. I liked that the teacher put us in teams.

6. I liked that we had fun activities.

7. I like that we had activities and we had so much fun, we made presentations and worked in teams.

8. I didn’t like a part of the lesson because it was boring, but I liked the lesson activities. I liked the teacher and

the Greek teachers.

9. I liked really much this hour. I participated in a lot of fun activities. I understood what Miss told us.

10. The teacher (very rarely, but sometimes) didn’t use proper English. She gave us a little amount of time for

activities and not everyone was able to participate. The rest is ok!

11. I liked the lesson because we had the chance to say how we started learning something and now we are very

good at doing those things.

Arts - Grade 2 1. I drew my best and I liked this lesson.

2.Miss, please search the game overmatch and tell me what you think about it , I’m homework monitor.

22

3. I love you Miss and I want you to continue.

4. I don’t understand very good how you speak.

5. I liked the lesson very much.

6. I love this lesson.

7. Love the lesson!

Mathematics and environment exploration –Grade 2 1. Miss is very good.

2.Ema, Ares, Leo, Darkan did not include me in the activities.

3.I t was the best lesson. I enjoyed the lesson very much. Miss is beautiful.

4.This lesson was fun.

5. Miss was beautiful.

6. I feel free.

7. Hello! Hello! The clue in the game I gave you for you to know me is in the Homework monitor.

8. I love my Miss.

9. I didn’t want homework!

History – Grade 4A

1. I liked the lesson. I like my team.

2. We all liked that we had many activities and we all read.

3. I loved the activities that were done and the lesson was taught like a game.

4. I liked the lesson really much.

5. It was the best lesson.

6. I liked the activities that we made.

7.I liked that in the lesson we worked in teams to find out the name of our topic and we had a power point

presentation. The best part was that we had a crossword and finding a proverb.

8. She sometimes (very rarely, but sometimes) didn’t speak correctly ( “Are you agree?”) The rest was very nice! 9. I learned new things and it was interesting. 10. I liked the class. That’s all for me to say.

Mathematics and environment exploration –Grade 1 1. I liked the lesson because it was fun. 2. I liked my teacher and team.

3. I liked the video of the Sun.

4. The teacher was good.


1. I liked our teacher and it was very fun.

2.The teacher very very rarely spoke incorrectly. The rest was very nice!

3. I liked that we had activities.

4.I liked the lesson because the teacher was from Greece and we studies new things and we saw a map and a

smart computer.

5. I liked all the lesson very much.

6.I liked the activities. I liked the experience of a Greek teacher teaching.

7. The lesson was interesting and I learned new things.

8. I like the teacher –is a very kind teacher.

Geography – Grade 4B

1. I was wonderful. I loved this hour. I learned a lot of new things.

2.I think that the lesson was very good and I liked it.

3. I liked the teacher and how the activities occurred. It was a great hour! 4. I like what the color of the flag meant.

5. I liked the capital and the castles from there.

6. It was very interesting and I liked it.

7. I liked everything.

8. I liked the teacher.

23

Geography – Grade 6A

1.I liked that the teacher asked every student.

History – Grade 4A 1. I liked how the teacher explained me the lesson.

2.It was interesting.

3.I liked that Miss showed us power points.

History – Grade 6 B

1. I liked the lesson because we have done activities.

2. I liked the lesson because the teacher was calm and funny.

Mathematics and environment exploration –Grade 1

1. I liked it because we talked about planets.

Arts –Grade 1

1. I liked it because we did Easter eggs.

2. Funny eggs.

Arts –Grade 3A

1.No, nothing else (to add). I just liked the lesson. 2. I liked when I put the fluffy balls. 3.We had lots of fun and my butterfly was funny. I even made a little pet. 4. I liked it because this was the biggest craft that I have done. 5. I really liked the hour. 6. I liked how Miss explained. 7. We paint too much. 8. I liked that this lesson was fun and relaxing. It was one of the most fun lessons. I also liked that our teacher helped us to understand what to do in the lesson. 9. I liked that we had to be creative. 10. The lesson was fun. 11. I didn’t like the lesson. I LOVED THE LESSON.

Civics– Grade 6A

1.I liked that the teacher played with us.

2. I think that the teacher gave us too much information at once and much of it was too hard for us to understand.

3.The teacher explained very good. 4. I know more things and the lesson was interesting.

5. I liked the lesson because the teacher was from Greece and we learned new things about Greece.

6. I liked the lesson.

7. I like that we made a poster.


- No further comments.

Geography – Grade 5B 1. I really liked that Miss presented PPTs.

2. I like the lesson

3.I liked how the teacher explained the lesson.

24

Appendix C

PARTICIPANT'S QUESTIONNAIRE

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

These questions concern you, your education and teaching experience. In responding to the questions please mark the appropriate box with an X.

- What is your gender?

MALE FEMALE

- What is your age?

under 25 25-29 30-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 50+

- What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?

University degree

Masters of Arts (MA) or Science (Msc)

Doctor of Philosophy (Phd)

Other (please state which) ___________________________________________________

- How long have you been working as a teacher?

1st year 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+

- Have you ever worked as a CLIL teacher? YES NO - If YES for how long and what was the content? _________________________________________

SUBJECT AND TEACHING

These questions concern the subject you taught and the assessment of your teaching.

What was the name of the subject you taught? ___________________________ What was the grade of the class you taught? ___________________________

1. The number of learners in the classroom was the appropriate.

Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree agree nor disagree

2. I achieved the learning outcomes.

Strongly

Strongly

Agree Neither Disagree agree agree nor disagree

25

3. I used time well.


4. I was helpful.

Strongly Agree Neither Disagree Strongly agree agree nor disagree 5. I created an effective learning environment.


6. I maintained good relationship with learners.


7. I encouraged participation and interaction.


8. I was well prepared.


9. My presentation skills were good.


10. I used adequate ICT tools.


11. The classroom was well equipped.


12. Students’ attitude towards my lesson was positive


FURTHER FEEDBACK

Please add any other comments concerning the subject, learners, facilities, teaching etc.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

26

Appendix D

Joint Staff Seminar questionnaire

Joint Staff Training Seminar

''Promoting CLIL implementation in Europe'' ERASMUS+ project

Constanta, Romania, 8th

April 2017

EVALUATION FORM

Dear Participant,

We hope that you have found the Joint Staff Training Seminar organised by the Educational Center T.H.-

Cambridge School of Constanta informative and useful.

We would be most grateful if you could provide us with your valuable feedback.

Institution/Authority: ______________________________________________

1. The event helped me increase my understanding of CLIL implementation

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor Disagree Strongly disagree disagree

2. The event enriched my perspective on CLIL learning and teaching


27

3. I am going to use ideas and information presented at this event in my context


4. The information presented at the event is of relevance to policymakers in my country


5. The length of speeches was adequate


6. The time allocated for discussion was adequate


7. Please rate the quality of the presentations you attended during the event

Excellent Very Good Satisfactory Poor

good

Strengths and weaknesses of CLIL in Cambridge School of

Constanta - Romania. CLIL: Project expectations and initial insights from Greek

learners- Greece. CLIL Implementation at ZS a MS Doberska through CLIL

showers – Czech Republic.

CLIL: Aims of, and experiences with Skype lessons, in the context of the project –Italy.

CLIL: Challenges and opportunities. Lithuanian experience- Lithuania

8. Please rate the quality of the discussions held during each session


28

9. Please rate the quality of the event as a whole


Comments:

Please feel free to provide further comments / suggestions on the event as a whole:

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire.

29

Promoting CLIL implementation in Europe21 I used adequate ICT tools. 12 ... The second study visit...

Documents

Transcript of Promoting CLIL implementation in Europe21 I used adequate ICT tools. 12 ... The second study visit...