Grete Oline Hole, Bergen University College, Norway SW-VirCamp Consortium Meeting 03.rd of September 2010 – Liejapa; Latvia WP 2-3: Evaluation Report from the Pilot course

Final Report Pilot Course: today Outline of the report Data-sources Some examples from the findings Input/ comment to the content…? Conclusion/ end of this session.

Structure of the Report (i) Background – Brief outline of the project – Timeline: showing deliverables and ”mile-stones” – (Pedagogical view - and consequences) – Data-sources Report results – Fact and figures – Outcomes (CP, study programme (Weekly program, Tasks,..) – Students: intake/examinations/grades Process Evaluation –What happened during the course: reported

the Evaluation Report Pilot Course (ii) Product Evaluation – What was created during the course – (overlap Results, here tell a little more about them) Target group Evaluation – Student voices – Teachers voices – Others: External evaluator, Media Staff, Project Leader, Head Teacher… Conclusion & recommendation  way forward

Data- sources Written – Objectives in the application – Minutes WP2 meeting (12: 4 F2F, 8 Viterio) – Curriculum Plan (expected outcomes etc) & Task and Assignments Surveys – 3 students surveys – Partners Midway surveys – (Meeting Surveys) 4 Teacher Group interview – Febr 2009; Jan 2010; April 2010 (Vitero); Sept 2010 Expectations/ outcomes – Students’ from survey’s – Teachers’ written reflections January 2009 – Grades etc Teacher Blog – January -May 2010 WP Reports & summaries External Report Presentations – Head-teachers summary (interviewed 2 teachers, uses students reflections from Task 2….)

Data Sources: Background Brief outline of the project Timeline: showing deliverables and ”mile-stones” (Pedagogical view - and consequences) Data-sources Written : Objectives in application; Minutes from meetings (12), ( 4 F2F, 8 Vitero....?) Surveys: 3 students, 1 partners/teachers, 2 meetings 4 teachers group discussion Teacher Blog Head teachers summary (intervje 2 teachers, 6 student reflections) Others...?

Process

Teacher: first group interview “Yes! It was wonderful to see. It really gave me some ideas for the content, for the curriculum; so I thought: “this is good, to do it like this” “It is not only me as a teacher who make the construction of the knowledge... I do this together with the students. How can I trigger them to take part in the whole process? Not to ask about specific things related to the content of the module, but give them the challenge of themselves bringing in the ideas How can the students be triggered to be a part of the construction of knowledge?”.

Teacher: second group interview “Yes; - it is interesting how much we learn from this planning and making the course. It is really a learning area…Like this with the reading-list we have been working with: we all bring in literature, we share it, and we discuss it- so it is really a ‘co-construction area’”.

Teacher: second group interview “It is challenging; --This about being a producer, -of the learning material and of knowledge, is demanding. We are not only consuming things others have made, but we are producing both the course, and the learning material.” “And I will say; this work through the project has made me a better teacher! I have read a lot of theories, read many different things- and I have learnt a lot about community work since we started”.

From the second group interview “ …. Maybe we should have a blog were we ask ourselves very critically: “How do we learn during this course?”

The teacher blog 21 postings and 18 comments from 6 teachers during the course

Product:

Planned outcomes (stated in the application) Did student reach the wanted competencies? Did teacher reach the wanted outcomes? – And is this usefull for their own University? Did International collaboration among teachers increase… Did we get more collaboration between HEI: Teachers and students? WP3: Did technicans and teachers collaborate in makin learning material?.. – Impact at work at Home Universities

Weekly programmes and tasks A Curriculum Plan A Reading list A clear and structrured program over 17 weeks 22 students: 1 A, 9 B, 10 C, 2 D (~ 76% of students reported their ordinary marks to be ”average or below”)

A virtual classrom with “Social Presence” The teachers present themselves with pictures, video or a short written presentation The students do the same. By including pictures and stories – the experience of precens in a common classroom increase.

Virtual Learning Material – The Virtual Book

Target groups views: Presentation of some results from the evaluations

The Students 51 students from 9 countries applied 7 teachers participates– sharing the students in 3 groups Severe drop out: 1 March 35 are still in the course April 24 students in the course June 22 students has delivered their final exam, two has applied for delayed exam Only a minor group of students knew anything about CW before they started with this course BA students from 2 – 3 year, some MA students and professional social workers.

Reflections from 6 students; Positive experiences The cooperation among students; learn from each other, eye-opener, good discussions, broadening views, perspectives and values The structure of the course has been good, for one it was good to make the time-plan from the beginning Good to relate community to their own communities and also to make the practice visual by use of the Park New theories; bottom-up, appreciative inquiry and project work as examples The knowledge has increase (enormously) Empowering clients and human rights (one of the practicians says this become a good tool in her reg.job) Another way of thinking To get to develope a project plan gave good experiences

Reflections from 6 students: One interesting comment One student says she has become better in listening to others and more aware of others perspective The course have opend my eyes for different litterture than I usually read for my courses. It have learnt me to see people as people, we are all different but also all alike, we are all human beings. One thing that has been an eyeopener are that I have been really sceptical to things like on line dating becourse I was a beliver of meeting people in real life to get to know them. I know now that this isn´t true. On line you are forced to be more personal becourse you can´t hide behind a fasad.

Reflections from 6 students: Problems Hard to organise meetings Complicated to work or be on internship beside the course The English skills among teachers and fellow students Lack of feed-back, the triggers didn´t trigg, to small groups according to the group-work in exam (one student) Another student says it is to many internet tools (in the survey, most of the respondents (16% agreed, 47% neutral, 28% disagreed)

Overall impression from teachers: Found the collaboration useful – Appreciate the close collaboration among partners Expanded knowledge of CW – New literature – Good examples, new cases, E-teacher competencies – Knowledge from course very useful also in campus- teaching – Colleagues also interested in these ways of teaching

Reflections from 2 teachers; Positive experiences: - Input from the students has been very good - The group work has been good in most of the groups, challenging in some ways - The tasks has been good, motivated and inspired the students - It was a good strategy to start with a task about the students own communities - The project work has been important, good that it was related to the Park and that the students did their own choices of target group etc - The reading list has been good as well as the screen lectures - The project plan has been essential in the course

Reflections from 2 teachers; Not so good The work load are much to heavy ( the proportion between input (workload) and output (examined studs) are unbalanced There is a need of a more clear evaluation guide The assessor guide needs to be improved, the content of the tasks should be integrated in the guide Number of drop-outs

Reflections from 2 teachers; Improvements Lot of activities around the triggers, but this is not seen in the assignments. Seems like the triggers live their own life Photovoice, AI and triggers should be integrated better in the tasks Use peer assessment in 10 % of the tasks? The project plan was a good task, but it didn´t work well with the sheet The preparation due to the role-play

Conclusion- and the way furhter....