Questionnaire (Evaluation)

Category: Project Results Published: Friday, 20 April 2018 Written by Super User


During our last meeting in England we planned to put a Questionnaire together and ask the opinion of the participating schools' staff and pupils together with their families about our project and its results.

The English Team compiled the Questionnaire on the base of our ideas and sent it  out to the schools.

A lot of participants were asked and their opinions were collected and summarized by the Erasmus Teams. You can read these summaries as well below.

Finally the English Team evaluated the summaries and compiled the overall  evaluation of our project.

The Questionnaire:

Erasmus Project Evaluation 2018 (pdf)

Overall summary of our project evaluation:

(Based on the summary given by the participating schools)  

Evaulation of Erasmus Project

Evaluation of the project country by country:

1 Have the aims of the project been addressed?

SPAIN: Overall, we feel that the main aims of the project have been addressed successfully. Each mobility was used to work on the website, address concerns about the project and the future of the project. General communication was good among the teams which always helps as well.

GREECE: In the first question they all agreed that the programme was addressed to everyone clearly and in details and they all were satisfied.

TURKEY: All the participants of the evaluation questionnaire were agree that the aims of the project have been addressed. The method which has been improved in the project during the two years in all participant countries and it has been realized that it is a very useful method to start teaching a new language. On the other hand, after visiting the partner countries all the participants learnt about different languages, cultures, traditions, monuments and cuisines.

LITHUANIA: The aims of the project were fully achieved. Teachers from six different countries shared the best methods of teaching foreign language to the beginners (both English and their native ones – Greek, Turkish, Lithuanian, Spanish, Hungarian). We had an opportunity to become acquainted with different cultures and traditions. Job shadowing was great experience, as we could compare the teaching styles and requirements in schools of other countries and compare them with ours.

ENGLAND: The teaching and learning shared in each country has been so informative to our teaching of a second language. We have learnt so much and can now adopt the use of cognates into our MFL teaching. We have also, through the project, forged a stronger link with our secondary setting who also use cognates in the initial teaching of a second and third language to their students.

The cultural awareness of other countries has been seen first-hand and also fostered through the learning in our school of the participating countries which was then further enhanced when they visited us.

HUNGARY: Providing a teaching material for teachers - the aim of the project was thoroughly thought over and figured out. We have developed an innovative teaching method as an answer to raised questions and needs.

Nowadays, due to globalization, English is the main means of communication. To teach it effectively from the beginning is a high, top issue. Every country tried this new ININPRO language teaching method in each other’s schools. It seemed to be not so difficult, but successful. We think it’s a good start for teaching a simple vocabulary. Students enjoyed the lessons, they had fun and felt successful, because they learnt a lot in a very short time. The efficiency of teaching languages is significant for all countries nowadays. The realisation of the aim of the project was unique, but achievable and useful and it could provide several opportunities to implement a wide variety of meaningful programmes.

2 What has the impact of this project been on the children from your school?

SPAIN: The impact of the project with regards to the children has been the ability for them to see that many many people speak English (even if they are not native English speakers), this was very noticeable for them when we hosted the other schools. As well, thanks to visuals we created in the main entrance to our school, our students have had the chance to learn about some European countries that they were not familiar with before. In addition, the cookbook activity that Bushy Hill Junior School organized was a great linking activity for our school as our entire student body was able to participate in choosing a recipe to represent our school (school wide voting was held) and being able to see the recipes offered by the other countries was a huge hit with our students as well.

GREECE: Concerning the impact of the project to the pupils of our school, they were all really motivated, interacted in many ways and it was a good chance for them to look for information about the countries involved in the programme and present it in their classes. Through the ININPRO method they had the opportunity to learn new words in other languages.

TURKEY: The children in our school are now aware of different languages, different cultures and they started to learn English in ININPRO Method. And all the students have become more motivated after their involvement in the Project.

LITHUANIA: Children got better knowledge of the European Union and about the culture of the countries – project partners. They developed their unfamiliar foreign language (Greek) skills, have stronger motivation in learning English. We hope they have learnt tolerance regarding different cultures, and are more motivated to learn different foreign languages.

ENGLAND: Our children have loved the experience of learning about the other countries and researching the language and cultural differences because it had a real purpose. They were so excited to then share their new knowledge and ask questions of the adults when they visited. They equally loved being able to, in a short space of time, speak another language – true language learning and enthusiasm for languages was spread through our school.

HUNGARY: There were direct and indirect influences. Firstly, who were involved directly, the project made a great impact on them. Secondly, who were not involved could also feel its impact, mostly it was inspiring and method enriching for teachers. Teachers who do not use English every day had also a great possibility to speak and communicate with teachers from other countries. In this way English was not only the aim, but the means of language to use.

Children met teachers from all over Europe. They got the opportunity to practise speaking English, asking questions about different countries, cultures. There were projects in the schools about other countries. So children could really use the language as a tool to acquire new information. Every time foreigners appear in lessons it increases children’s motivation and decreases inhibitions. Children were all very excited to have guests, they showed interest in other people and they were enthusiastic about trying out themselves. Children had the opportunity to bring their background knowledge to the surface. They took the initiative many times and they could experience to be open-minded and open-hearted. More intrinsic children stayed attentive, but hopefully absorbed knowledge. Children faced new challenges closer to being in a native country. Their competences in accepting others have definitely developed, their personalities have enriched. We were not taking about subjects, but the topics covered were across the curriculum.

During the two-year-project more and more students realised that English language is not the aim, but the means of communication and it makes sense to use it to learn more about life. Moreover they met new languages from the participating countries as ININPRO was tried out with all the languages of all the countries. Students took part in the preparation time joyfully, in the open-lessons they were friendly, active and cooperative.

3 How has the project influenced the teaching in your school?

SPAIN: With regards to the teachers, it is possible to say that the ones who were able to travel had the chance to expand their horizons with regards to different educational and teaching systems in other European countries which is something that is highly valued in our school. As well, during the time of the project, our school organized bi-monthly meetings to share information about the projects, the teachers who visited other countries gave presentations on what they learned in the different schools to reach a wider audience and we hope to continue working with some of the schools in the future.

GREECE: The results from question 3 showed that pupils realized the importance of learning a foreign language for the communication but also for the satisfaction of just knowing it.

TURKEY: Most of the teachers in our school started to use different techniques instead of the traditional techniques after the lesson observations in project visits. The observations in different partner countries widened the teachers’ teaching perspective a lot.

LITHUANIA: Our teachers tried new teaching methods and got understanding of partner countries’ educational system, improved their digital skills and English language skills, were motivated to work in a multi-disciplinary team. While teaching they can apply the new skills they gained during this two years’ period. The teacher’s self-esteem improved after participating at the mobility visits.

ENGLAND: It has helped us to question how we teach a second language and to celebrate and involved our EAL children in celebrating their languages. Due to the project a child in of our classes has taught her peers a German poem and useful phrases. This then encouraged a further pupil to teach us Slovak.

HUNGARY: We’ve seen lots of different ideas, teaching technics in other partners’ schools. This program also gave us the opportunity to meet other countries’ teachers and discuss different methods. So, we hope we could apply lots of new things in our lessons. On the other hand, when teachers travelled abroad and needed suppliers for that time, other teachers (suppliers) were in a difficult situation to provide that teaching quality that normally teachers give. And they did not hide it, they put it into words. We realised more that teaching other fields than our own can be an increadibly great task, if we are not skilled for it. In Hungary the case is that teachers supply each other as their time allows them and their deputies tell them to do. They do not get paid for it, it’s in their job description and it makes their life a bit busier.

Changing teachers’ experiences on language teaching in different countires motivated other teachers taking part in the programme as well. The timetable of the school was not disturbed, but the excitement of students and teachers, so that of the whole school was observably grown.

Mostly language teachers were active and teachers in lower-primary could take part in the project more efficiently.

The changing of experiences with language teaching in different countires (portugal, lithuanian….) motivated teachers in the project.

We could not recognize negative effects, teachers even could accompanie others to different interesting programmes. Experiences gained during the project have been interiorizált????????, getting to know the structure and the culture of school systems of different nations has been constructive and motivating for teachers. Normally weekdays were busier, moving and exciting.

4 How has the project influenced the wider community around your school?

SPAIN: It's not possible at this time to evaluate the impact the project has had on the community however, it was probably not a lot.

GREECE: As far as the fourth question is concerned, the parents of our pupils were informed about the aims and the targets of the project through short video presentations and because of their children’s participation in actions concerning the project. They were really satisfied, embraced the idea of Erasmus programmes in general, helped in any way they could (especially when Greece was the hosting country)and wished for programmes like these to be continued.

TURKEY: The community around our school was included in our Project work in a way so they were aware of what was being done.This made them to think learning a new language is really important.

LITHUANIA: New teaching methods have been introduced into our school, tolerance and openness have increased. During the project meeting in Klaipeda at the conference our colleagues shared the best examples of their teaching methods with Lithuanian teachers of English and colleagues from the partner schools.

ENGLAND: Due to the conference held when the project visited us, we have formed a link with a local primary school with a view to enhancing our MFL teaching. We have also formed a link with our secondary school KS3 lead and Head of Languages and with a private boy’s school to look at their languages outreach service.

HUNGARY: We were happy to make lots of families take part in the programme. In these busy days of families it’s not always easy. Lots of families were involved in the program in each country. So, this program gave the opportunity to meet different people, to get acquainted with different cultures better.

Also we teachers had a new kind of co-operation between families of our school. Those who were involved in the project could get a greater insight in language teaching methods and the efforts have been made toward quality development of their own countries. In this way we could realize again some deficiencies.

Parents were mostly mobilized. It was useful for team building. The wider community can be enriched with more skillful language speakers therefore more active, open-minded and ready-to-keep-in-touch youngsters.

Through students parents were able to be activated and they got interested in the project in this way and they supported their kids.

The challenge raised by the project became starting point of many talks in local and wider community as well.

5 Explain any barriers / obstacles your school has experience over the last two years.

SPAIN: The biggest obstacle that our school faced was trying to include as many people as possible in the project. Many teachers wanted to participate on the mobilities, however it is not possible to include everyone so that was a difficulty that we faced.

GREECE: At the beginning of the programme we discussed the obstacles that we might experience during these two years’ time but we found ways to overcome these and even enrich our school’s facilities with electro-technical equipment.

TURKEY: The Project team had a difficulty in finding a teacher who can speak English. We, as teachers, have seen the benefits of the Project a lot. We have decided to take part in new projects to improve, widen our opinions, teaching techniques, activities to enhance our students’ learning and awareness and influence our community in a better, innovative way.

LITHUANIA: We didn’t face any obstacles during this two years’ period.

ENGLAND: Time is always a barrier in schools – allowing time for staff to meet, discuss and implement new strategies or approaches.

HUNGARY: Language barrier – not everyone speaks (or at least understands) the common English language. Respect to the host country – not everyone wanted to take part in the organized programmes.

From the deputy headmasters’ point of view, the organization of substitution of missing, travelling colleagues required a logistically complicated task.

There were some problems between cultures, customs, characters and personalities. But these could be over-bridged due to our flexibility. According to some teachers’ opinion, there were no substantive problems. It was good to see the co-operation of students, teachers and parents.

Some teachers think if all project leaders in all countries had taken part with real thoughtfulness, it would have led to more effectiveness.

6 What are your schools next steps?

SPAIN: Looking towards the future, we hope to continue working with the English school in particular and to organize, starting this school year, some activities between the student bodies to help better establish the bond between the two schools.

GREECE: And, for the last question everyone agreed that the Erasmus programmes offer a very nice experience to everyone who is involved and every school should look forward to participating in programmes of the same value and importance.

LITHUANIA: Our teachers will use the final products of the project (tutorial films, methodology files, teaching materials) in their lessons; the school will carry on applying CLIL foreign language teaching method (we have been teaching German for beginners alongside with Maths, Geography and IT).

ENGLAND: Meet with Secondary setting for MFL transition, meet with own school leaders to look at how better to organise the teaching of MFL in our school and include more multilingualism in our school curriculum and community.

HUNGARY: Using the new method in English lessons and other lessons as well. We can put many gained experiences into practise in our own schools. Keep in touch with the schools, where we could build good relationships.

Applying for a new project – with already known partners or maybe with some other partners. Our school is open to continue, but we need to get familiar with the intentions of the other nations’ schools. We would like to keep in touch with the participants and build longer-term relationships.














Hits: 314