Combined Swot - Snapshot Evaluation Chart

COMBINED SWOT - SNAPSHOT EVALUATION CHART

TARGET
/ STRENGTHS
(+)
/ How do we know?
Method/Tool / WEAKNESSES
(-)
/ How do we know?
Method/Tool
/ What are we going to do? ()

Pupils
/ Fluency, better oral and writing performance in foreign languages
Better knowledge and insight about the topic
Better skills in gathering material doing research, making reports, learner autonomy
Are good hosts,able to work in teams and to communicate and discuss in a proper way
Prove solidarity, mutual trust, self-confidence, open mindedness for other cultures and points of view
Better, faster, more confidence in the use of ICTequipment for research, contacts, presentations
Assume responsibilities, problem solving, decision taking, time management, collaborative skills,
Awareness of own identity in local and European context, of human rights, citizenship / Questionnaire,
Observation
Written and oral presentation
Measurement of level of participation
Document analysis
Presentation to an audience
Literary criticism / Lack of time for all the preparations
Not enough students and teachers were involved in the projects
Not enough publicity for the projects
Need to improve the communication between teachers and students / Questionnaires
Measurement of level of participation
Document analysis
Presentation to an audience / Involve more students and teachers to work and share responsibilities in the projects
Improve communication between students, teachers and staff
Increase the dissemination and publicity of the projects especially in mass media
Teachers
/ Feeling of appreciation and being appreciated
Prove motivation in assuming responsibilities, in working in teams, in supporting the pupils, in sharing experiences
Prove solidarity,mutual trust, self-confidence, open mindedness for other cultures and poins of view
Share new methods of teaching, learning and evaluating
Bring new materials about the culture and civilization in Europe / Questionnaire,
Observation
Written and oral presentation
Measurement of level of participation
Document analysis
Presentation to an audience
Literary criticism / The objectives of the projects weren’t understood very well by the teachers not involved in the projects
Lack of time for all the activities in school
Not enough publicity for the project activities and dissemination / Questionnaires
Measurement of level of participation
Document analysis
Presentation to an audience / Disseminate project objectives, activities and outcomes more and better especially through local and public media
Involve more students and teachers in sharing work and experiences in the projects
School manager
/ Is strongly involved in supporting and promoting the activities and events in the projects
Proves great confidence in the project teams and appreciation for their work / Questionnaire
Presentation to an audience / Not enough room for presenting the projects to a larger number of students, teachers and community members / Questionnaire
Presentation to an audience / Supporting the existing projects and implementing new ones
Involving more teachers so that the gained experience can be turned into fruitful outcomes
European projects
/ Strong commitment to the project by each partner
Good and on-going communication and support amongst partners and with the local Inspectorate, National Agencies and the European Commission
Good management and leadership qualities demonstrated by project coordinator
Sustained evaluation of the project and its impact at local and European level
Good dissemination of the project outcomes
Integration of project activities into the institution’s development plan and into the curriculum or work area
Quality of project materials and products
Effective exchange of cultural experience amongst partners
Effective promotion of the European dimension
especially through the past 2 years participation to the “European Classes” programme, Alden Biesen, Belgium / e-mails, ANS
documents about project activities and meetings,
Some final products are used as teaching materials in partner schools (UK- European Studies course, Italy -Cooking course –“Romanian traditional food”)
Optional course in English (“Building Bridges”)
Engagement in new partnership projects
Activity and financial reports to all involved Evaluation report of the EU Commission representative,
Mr. Martin Whittle,(May, 15th 2003)
Comenius Week (November 2003) – EU Commission evaluator, Mrs. Alison Crabb’s words:”I haven’t found Comenius projects, I’ve found a ComeniusSchool” / Some countries had difficulties in getting the financial support from their agencies (Bulgaria),
Others had some problems in organizing the project meetings in their schools (Ireland)
Lack of coordination in the timing of the renewal application forms which led to one year of non participation of Italy / e-mails and project documents / Better focus on co-ordinating activities with the partners
Improved communication with the National Agencies for our project partners
OPPORTUNITIES
/ THREATS

On going fruitful partnership with local authority and community
Promoting a favourable image of the school and country in Europe through project activities and meetings
Better chance for both teachers and students to improve their language skills and knowledge about other European cultures
Better understanding of European structures and citizenship / Old fashioned mentalities and attitudes opposing positive change in school development and evalution if project objectives and goals are not well defined and disseminated