Promoting teacher competence to develop a learning atmosphere in school classes that are heterogeneous especially in terms of language, culture and achievement following the principles and practice of Gestalt-pedagogy

< starting page

  1. Goals
  2. Background
  3. Progress
  4. Supporting Institutes
  5. Trainings and Teams
  6. Evaluation Reports
  7. Contacts

    6. Evaluation Reports

    Pilot project 1999/2000

    To find meaningful criteria for the individual questions we went back to the results of the evaluation of the teacher training project "Regionale Projektberatunggestaltpaedagogischer Ansatz" from 1999. Additions to these criteria were given by the scientific manager of the project, Prof. Dr. Joerg Buermann, Prof. Dr. Axel Mattenklott, the head of evaluation and Oliver Krause (scientific aid). The leaders of the regional training sessions also brought impulses for the evaluative questions. The first questioning of participants began at the start of the first training seminar in December 1999/January 2000. The second survey started in February 2000.

    The individual questionnaire took about 20 minutes to complete. The answers were kept anonymous. The participants were keenly interested in the evaluation which can be seen in the quota of returned forms: every participant returned the completed questionnaire.

    The statistical evaluation of the collected data ensued using the Statistical Program SPSS 8.0.

    A simple distribution curve, the value of the median and standard deviations were used. Through the analysis of the data, there was a significant variation in the comparison of the participating countries.

    The results of the first two questionnaires were reported at the second project-group meeting at

    Marina di Ragusa, Sicily and were brought into the further planning of the courses.

    6.1.1. National Projects

    The first questionnaire measured the degree of satisfaction of the teachers with their profession and their situation in school. The participants were also asked to evaluate their competence.

    In the second questionnaire the participants were asked for the reasons they decided to participate in the project and their concrete expectations from the training program. Also various elements of the course were evaluated.

    6.1.2. Pilot project July/August 2000 in Slovakia

  1. 6.1.2.1.Evaluation of all hitherto programs and their effects on the situation in the school (Questionnaire 3.)
  2. The third questionnaire, which was distributed to the 41 participants shortly after the welcoming to the meeting in Slovakia, referred back to the questions of the second questionnaire with some additions. The teachers were asked to judge the further development of their capabilities and the positive effects of the training on their personal growth. In addition they were asked about consequences the training programs had on changes in the classroom situation and their relations to other colleagues. In conclusion, all the previous training sessions were to be evaluated.

    Prior to the start of the project the teachers from Germany had already had the most knowledge of Gestalt pedagogical methods. They indicated that they would use hitherto lesser known methods, such as guided memory or scenic staging, more in the future. The participants from the other countries also want to use the newly learned methods in their future instruction (or are doing so already). There was only a small percentage which reported that "in no case" did they want to use the newly learned methods. So the methods taught are practical for instruction. In order to again evaluate all of the meetings, the teachers were asked to judge the competence of the leadership of the projects. With one score of "average" for a trainer, all of the other trainers were given the notes of "excellent" or "good" in their competence. Also the didactical methods and the contents of the meetings were evaluated as "good". The places of the meetings were considered by the teachers as "good", the times of the meetings were somewhat problematic for the teachers. Especially the teachers from the Czech Republic were dissatisfied with the meeting times. In general, however, they still judged the meetings as "average". The other teachers evaluated all the meetings as "excellent" or "good". This result is also comprehensible, because the teachers found that the meetings had an extremely positive effect on teacher-pupil relationships, which the respondents had already determined as of great importance. More than half of those questioned indicated that the meetings had a positive influence on the relation of the pupils to one another and their interest or participation in the instruction. The meetings had a gratifying effect also on the personal development of the participants: tolerance and self composure became more apparent and increased as well as the awareness of one's own feelings. The teachers became more sensitive for school behavioral problems and at the same time developed more self confidence. Trust in their own ideas and their own ability was greatly increased. Generally, all participants honed their own perception abilities, furthered their abilities to solve conflicts, their capabilities in talking about and listening to problems and gained in cooperation. One can speak of an increase in the general social competence. None of the participants felt that his/her relationship to colleagues had deteriorated. 11 teachers reported that the relationships amongst colleagues had improved. 50% of the Italian teachers spoke of better relationships in school.

    6.1.2.2. Evaluation of the transnational training in Slovakia

    (Fragebogen 4)

    After the 14-day seminar in Slovakia the participants, 39 women and two men, evaluated the composition of the groups and group work. They also had the possibility to compare the meeting in their own country with the group work in Slovakia. After the last rounds of the meeting they were also asked about their willingness to instruct in school classes which are intercultural in composition. Finally the teachers could answer their most important learning experience in an open question. Also it was possible to report negative impressions. All of the respondents found the mix in the groups as "excellent". The heterogeneity of the groups was not experienced as a "burden". Also the differences in the capabilities of the participants were not considered a problem. The problem with communication, with which the project leaders spent much time during the planning period, proved no difficulty. The communication between the members of the individual groups, which was asked about separately, was also "excellent". 38 participants found the atmosphere in the groups "excellent" and three as "good". The excellent atmosphere and communication was responsible for many and varied reactions of the participants amongst themselves. Generally the members of the groups got along very well with each other, which can be seen in the evaluation the members gave each other: 39 of 41 teachers reported that politeness and working together as partners in the groups was "excellent"; solely the unpunctuality of some participants seemed to disturb some of the group. The most important result: the international meeting in Slovakia pleased all participants very much. This can also be seen in the next question, in which the individual components of the meeting were evaluated. All members found the small workgroups and the independent discussions with themes "excellent". Certainly the positive atmosphere in the groups was an enabling factor. Also creative activities, body exercises, scenic staging and discussions were rated by the teachers with "excellent" or "good". There were, however, too few theoretical inputs, especially for the German and Slovakian teachers. Many felt that theoretical explanations by the leaders of the seminar were missing. In all other respects the leaders received very positive evaluations. For politeness, punctuality, reliability and openness as well as their sympathetic understanding or their humor the leaders received "excellent" to "good" notes. Two-thirds of the participants found the seminar in Slovakia better than the meetings in their own countries. This holds true for the leadership of the groups and their special abilities as well as for the didactical material. These results should not however be overestimated, since the meetings in their own countries were also rated as "good". Maybe the new composition of the groups, the heterogeneity of the participants and the relaxed atmosphere during the 14-day seminar were all responsible for the good results. In any case the questionnaires certify the results: 29 teachers found the group atmosphere at the international meeting better than in their own country; one participant was of the opposite opinion. Almost all of the teachers considered the place of the meeting, the resort of Turcianske Teplice, as very nice. Only the Austrian teachers were not completely satisfied with the decision for this setting. The duration of the meeting was "just right" for 31 participants, for eight it was too long, and for one too short. Similar seminars had been attended by 19 teachers, most of whom had already attended two or three similar courses. The 41 teachers were of a median age of 41, whereby the youngest came from the Czech Republic and the oldest from Germany. All of the involved indicated their increased readiness to instruct in interculturally formed school classes. In closing are listed the results of the open questioning:

     

    The follow-up project Comenius 3.2, Easter 2001 in Austria

    The results of the follow-up project are only in a limited way comparable with those of the pilot project, in as much as the prerequisites of the participants were very different. They had also not participated in any national preparatory courses. Therefore it was also not possible to use the questionnaires 1 and 2.

    The group was extremely heterogeneous in the following respects: origin, type of school, previous knowledge about Gestalt pedagogy, professional consciousness-raising-experience, and language abilities.

    Satisfaction of the participants with their profession and the situation in their schools and reasons for their participation (oral questioning and questioning with small cards): results similar to those of the pilot project.

    Expectations:

    1. to experience relations with people of different cultures, to learn other customs, to understand cultural backgrounds, to form contacts, to experience exchange: 5 ( the number indicates the number of times this answer was named)
    2. to receive new ideas and impetus for the work at school: 3
    3. to improve didactical competence, to better relate to the varying learning needs, to experience something about the use of Gestalt pedagogy in practical instruction: 3
    4. to increase personal competence, composure and sovereignty, to understand one's own personal background: 2
    5. to receive information about Gestalt pedagogy ( usage, methods, theory, limits of Gestalt therapy, contact possibilities in one's own country...): 6

    Apprehensions:

    too much openness: 3, not understanding: 1, boredom: 1.

     

    6.2.2. Final evaluation of the course (questionnaire 4)

    After the 14-day course in Austria all of the participants evaluated the composition of the groups and the group work. Question 9 had to be eliminated as no preparatory groups had been held. Participants were also asked whether all the meetings had an effect on their willingness to instruct in interculturally-composed classes. Finally, it was possible for the teachers to answer in an open question what had been their most important learning experience. Here too it was possible to write negative comments.

    All of those questioned found the mixed composition of the three groups "excellent". The diversity of the participants and their varied capabilities were not experienced as a burden. The problem of communication was found to be burdensome for the one person who had no German, for the others as only a slight problem or no problem at all. The communication between the participants was also "excellent". Seven participants found the atmosphere in the groups "excellent" and one "good". The extraordinary atmosphere and the communication and the fact that free time was almost always spent together as a group, provided also for a most varied stimulation of the group members amongst themselves.

    Generally the group members understood each other very well, which is also to be seen from the reciprocal evaluation of the members: seven of the eight teachers indicated that the reliability, humor, sense of partnership, politeness and the openness of the group were "excellent", with one or two opting for "good". Only the lack of punctuality seems to have irritated one participant.

    As before in Slovakia this international meeting in Austria also brought all the participants great joy. This is indicated in the next question, in which individual parts of the meeting are evaluated: the creative activities were considered "excellent" by all participants, as were also the small work groups. Certainly the atmosphere in the groups did its share in bringing about this result. Scenic staging, discussions and independent treatment of themes were rated "excellent" or "good" by the teachers. Body and linguistic exercises as well as the theoretical inputs, which--as a result of the evaluation of the pilot project--were included in a greater amount, were mainly rated "excellent" to "good"; only one to two participants found them "average". One teacher thought the questions were too general, suggesting that processes were also important.

    Otherwise the leaders of the seminar received positive notes in all regards. Reliability was up at the top receiving only notes of excellence; then followed punctuality, humor, sense of partnership, politeness, openness, dialog ability and empathy with the majority of "excellent"' and some "good" notes. One teacher would have wanted to judge the leaders individually.

    Almost everyone considered the place of the meeting, Seggau Castle by Leibnitz, the original bishop's residence in southern Styria, to be "excellent". The participants from Spain and Germany were slightly dissatisfied with this location.

    The duration of the meeting was found by six participants as exactly right, while one found it too long and one too short.

    Similar continuing educational courses had been attended by four participants, two had attended 10, one 5 and one 1 course.

    Almost all teachers indicated that they were definitely willing to teach in interculturally mixed school classes.

    Conclusion:

    The results of the evaluation show that both course types went successfully. The goal of the project group, that is the promotion of teacher capabilities according to the principles of Gestalt pedagogy bound up with the growth of a deeper human understanding for life in other countries and cultures, was attained to a high degree.

    Improvements could be attained, by fulfilling the needs and desires of the participants for more theory and didactics. Although all of the planned themes were dealt with, an intensification would be possible and desirable. The planning for the coming courses will be worked out according to these thoughts.

    A more complete description of both courses with theoretical and historical backgrounds, enlarged with reports of leaders and participants is available in the documentation, which can be ordered from the coordinator by remitting postal fees.