Evaluation of Fibonacci Follow-up Seminar Aabenraa, 29-31 ... · - To support the practical implementation of IBSME in the classroom through workshops The Survey comprised 72 questions,

Evaluation of Fibonacci Follow-up Seminar Aabenraa, 29-31 March 2011 Yves Beernaert & Magda

E d u c o n s u l t - E v a l u a t i o n F i b o n a c c i A a b e n r a a F o l l o w - u p s e m i n a r F o l l o w - u p s e m i n a r p r o j e c t

2

Table of contents

Summary Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 3

I. Participants to the meeting ............................................................................................................ 4

II. Objectives of the Fibonacci Follow-up seminar .............................................................................. 5

III. Contents of the activities of Day 1 .............................................................................................. 6

IV. Contents of the activities of Day 2 .............................................................................................. 7

V. Contents of the activities of Day 3 .................................................................................................. 9

VI. Overall assessment of different aspects of the follow-up seminar – impact of the seminar ... 10

VII. Dissemination of the results Fibonacci Follow-up seminar ...................................................... 12

VIII. Practical organisation of the Aabenraa Follow-up seminar ...................................................... 13

IX. Conclusions and areas of concern............................................................................................ 15

X. Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 16

XI. Annexes ..................................................................................................................................... 17

Annex 1: PDF-version of the on-line Questionnaire ......................................................................... 17

Annex 2: Summative table of the scores .......................................................................................... 23

Annex 3: Responses to open questions ............................................................................................ 24


3

Summary Introduction

The Fibonacci Follow-up seminar at the University College of South Denmark in Aabenraa from the

29-31 March 2011 was the first follow-up seminar involving mainly the representatives of the RC,

TC1 and TC2 and some people who had direct links with the hosting Danish RC. There were also a

few members of the scientific committee for a smaller part of this seminar. The European

coordination team was represented by several participants as the key focus was on the

implementation and the follow-up of the Fibonacci project activities after slightly over one year of

implementation.

The link to the online evaluation was sent out on 5 April, and two reminders, one on 8 April and one

on 20 of April, were sent out later as it was very important that as many participants as possible

responded, due to the nature of this follow-up seminar which was really focusing on the

implementation of the core activities of the Fibonacci project so far.

The objectives of the seminar were indeed:

- To ensure a good follow-up of the project activities;

- To support the practical implementation of the project through workshops;

- To support the practical implementation of IBSME in the classroom through workshops

The Survey comprised 72 questions, which covered all activities covered during the Follow-up

seminar and can be broken up into 9 sections:

1) Participants to the Aabenraa Fibonacci Follow-up seminar 2) Objectives of the Fibonacci Follow-up seminar 3) Contents of the activities of Day 1 + possibility of comments 4) Contents of the activities on Day 2 + possibility of comments 5) Contents of the activities on Day 3 + possibility of comments 6) Overall assessment of different aspects of the Fibonacci Follow-up seminar 7) Dissemination of the follow-up seminar outcomes + possibility of comments 8) Practical organisation of the Fibonacci Follow-up seminar 9) Overall suggestions etc. (open question)

With the exception of the sections n°1 on the participants, n°7 on dissemination (yes/no questions),

and n° 9 on the overall suggestions, the evaluators used a five-point rating scale with “more or less

useful/more or less reached/more or less agree” as the median point and two gradations on each

side for the more positive and two for the more negative . A point-attribution system was applied

with attribution of points as follows:

Totally agree/very useful/totally reached = 5 points

Agree/useful/reached = 4 points

More or less agree / more or less useful / more or less reached = 3 points

Disagree/ not useful/ not reached = 2 points

Totally disagree/not at all useful /not at all reached = 1 points


4

The evaluators targeted an average rating of respectively 3.5. For the whole questionnaire an

average rating of 4.14 was received. Average ratings per section show that the goal of 3.50 was also

largely surpassed in all of the above-mentioned areas. Indeed, all sections received an average score

of 4.05 or higher (see summary, Annex II). Especially the section Organisation of the follow-up

seminar received a very high average rating (4.53). Nevertheless there are a small number of items

that require to be focused on as they do not reach the satisfaction threshold of 3.50.

The graphs included in each section of this report show results per section. In Annex I the questions

of the survey are added and Annex III gives the responses of respondents to the open questions.

I. Participants to the meeting

There were 69 participants to the follow-up seminar according to the signed lists of participants

made available to Educonsult. None of the e-mails bounced back. 47 questionnaires were filled in

on line. The evaluators assume that 51 participants could have responded as the European

coordination committee, the local organisers, Forfas and Educonsult did not fill in the questionnaire.

One of the Scientific committee members present did also not fill in the questionnaire. This means

that 92% of the participants filled it in. This makes the results very representative and very reliable.

As can be seen in the graph below one third of respondents were members of the Reference Centres

(RC), nearly one third were members of Twin Centres (TC1) and nearly one third were members of

the TC2. The remaining six percent were members of the scientific committee. However, most of

the scientific committee members left after the round table on Tuesday morning 29th March. This

graph shows there was a balanced participation of most of the RC and TC in the follow-up seminar.

6,4%

34,0%

29,8%

29,8%

Participants follow-up seminar

A member of the scientificcommittee

A member of an RC orReference centre

A member of a TC1

A member of a TC2

Figure 1: Participants


5

II. Objectives of the Fibonacci Follow-up seminar

The participants to the Aabenraa Fibonacci follow-up seminar were asked whether the objectives of

the follow-up seminar were fully reached, reached, more or less reached, not reached or not at all

reached.

These objectives were:

1. To ensure a good follow-up of the project activities;

2. To support the practical implementation of the project through workshops;

3. To support the practical implementation of IBSME in the classroom through workshops

As can be seen below the overall majority of respondents (absolute figures in the graph) considered

most of these objectives to be reached. Indeed 46 respondents (85%) agreed that objective 1 has

been reached or fully reached; 45 participants ( 84%) agreed that objective 2 has been reached and

42 respondents (75%) agreed that objective three has been reached. The section received an

average score of 4.08.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

To ensure a good follow up of the project activities

To support the practical implementation of the project through workshops

To support the practical implementation of IBSME in the classroom through workshops.

Objectives

Reached Fully reached

Figure 2: Objectives

The 1st objective “To ensure a good follow-up of the project activities” gets a score of 4.22. The 2nd;

objective “To support the practical implementation of the project through workshops” gets a score

of 4.13. It is only the 3rd objective “To support the practical implementation of IBSME in the

classroom through workshops” that gets a score below 4.0 namely 3.89. However it is still above the

3.5. score the evaluators target at as mentioned earlier.

When analysing the scores of objective 3 one can see that two participants consider this objective

to be insufficiently reached (see summary : Annex II). It may be also useful to notice that 9

participants give it the medium score. This means that the practical implementation of IBSME in the

classroom will still require further and more attention in future meetings or through other

information or support given to some of the partners.


6

Thus one may conclude that the objectives of the follow-up seminar have largely been reached.

These results are very important as they clearly show that there was a need for such a follow-up

seminar and that it has greatly responded to the needs of the participating RC, TC 1 and TC2.

III. Contents of the activities of Day 1

Section III refers to the activities of the first day. For this section an average score of 4.13 was

received , indicating that the overall majority of the respondents were very pleased with the

activities. Overall the parallel training sessions on IBSE and on IBME were appreciated by the

participants. The parallel workshops on the five common topics were also considered to be

interesting and useful.

Nevertheless some activities received a considerably higher score than others as can be seen in the

graph below with the highest scores being received on IBSE: inquiry about light and shadow in the

kindergarten (average score 4.78) and IBSE: case study on one topic in the primary school (4.69).

Also common topic 2: deepening specificities of scientific inquiry in natural sciences and IBME

without boundaries receive very high scores (respectively 4.62 and 4.60).

Figure 3

It is also remarkable that for these four items all the respondents agreed that these activities

contributed or greatly contributed to reaching the objectives of the conference:


7

1) training session on IBSE: Inquiry about light and shadow in kindergartens by Ana Blagotinšek,

University of Ljubljana,

2) training session on IBSE: Inquiry launching and debriefing, case study on one topic in the primary

school: the bridges by Carl Rauch, School of Engineering of Nantes,

3) training session on IBME : IBME without boundaries by Petar Kenderov and Jenny Sendova,

Institute of Mathematics and Informatics of the Bulgarian Academy of Science and

4) the workshop on common topic 2: Deepening specificities of scientific inquiry in natural sciences.

One item received only just the targeted satisfaction score (topic 5: using the external environment

of the school). It should be noticed that only four respondents filled out this item of the section.

One item does not reach the targeted satisfaction score of 3.5 (the posters’ exhibition).

In the open response section a respondent regrets that there was no explicit time on the programme

for the Exhibition of the learning resources and posters of the partners (during the breaks). Six

respondents think that it did not contribute to reaching the objectives of the conference. It is the

only item where less than half of the respondents (45%) think that the activity contributed to

reaching the objectives of the conference.

Several respondents mentioned that they regretted not being able to participate in all the

workshops and missing out on the parallel workshops. One respondent thinks that time could be

saved by avoiding the synthesis of the workshops and sessions. This respondent thinks it would be

much better to have a written synthesis of all the workshops.

Several respondents also mention that they greatly appreciated the activities on the first day

(especially the practical sessions) and that it was a great experience for them to participate in such a

beneficial meeting.

One respondent mentions that he/she still not understands what is meant by IBME. It appeared

clearly from the various discussions among participants that opinions as to what IBSME is differ.

IV. Contents of the activities of Day 2

Also the second day a number of activities received a very high score and they all reached the

targeted satisfaction rate of 3.50. The overall score for this day is 4.27. The average score of the 16

items on the agenda of that day is 4.19.

The highest scores were received by the item on the Professional development of teachers in

mathematics: Experimental mathematics and cross disciplinary approach by Dagmar Raab,

University of Bayreuth (4.89), the workshop: Professional development of teachers in science by Tina

Jarvis, University of Leicester & Petra Skiebe-Corrette, Freie University Berlin (4.75) and the

workshop: Professional development of teachers in mathematics: The Swiss approach to IBME:

dialogic learning by Peter Gallin and Mike Rohr, University of Zürich (4.61).

These three items also received the unanimous approval of all respondents. Indeed they all agreed

that these workshops contributed or contributed greatly to reaching the objectives of the


8

conference. Also the workshop: Class activities combining science and mathematics by Janet Ainley,

University of Leicester & Ida Guldager, University College South Denmark received a very high

average score (4.56) and nine out of ten respondents agreed that this workshop contributed to

reaching the objectives of the conference. The high scores given to those activities show the

importance of linking up with the concrete implementation of IBSME.

It is remarkable that the five lowest scores were received for the Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-RC2:

- class activities (3.57),

- Community Board (3.62),

- school material (3.81),

- global (systemic) strategy (3.83),

- professional development and follow up of the teachers (3.90).

This could indicate that still more attention (in terms of practical information and implementation of

the RC / TC activities) has to be devoted to the collaboration RC, TC1, TC2. It is thus not surprising

that these items receive an important number of low scores indicating that some of the respondents

thought that these activities did not contribute or did not contribute at all to reaching the objectives

of the conference.

0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00

3,57

3,62

3,81

3,83

3,90

4,08

4,11

4,12

4,23

4,27

4,34

4,35

4,56

4,61

4,75

4,89

Evaluation of day 2

Prof. development of teachers in maths: Experimental maths and cross disciplinary approach

Prof. development of teachers in science

Prof. l development of teachers in matematics: The Swiss approach to IBME

Class activities combining science and mathematics

Exchanges between the RC and their TC1 & TC2 on the implementation of the twinning

Visit of the Centre for Educational Resources in Aabenraa

Day 2: Wednesday 30 March: Implementation of the project

Testimony from RC about local strategy & organisation framework for project implementation (VU)

Testimony from one group of RC-TC1-TC2 about twinning

Introduction on the implementation of the project by Xavier Person

Testimony from RC about local strategy & organisation framework for project implementation(CT)

Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: professional development and follow up of the teachers

Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: global (systemic) strategy

Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: school material

Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: Community Board

Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: class activities

Figure 3: Evaluation day 2

In the open response section one respondent mentioned that the combinations (who with who) was

not very clearly organised and four others thought there was not enough time for these RC-TC1-TC2

sessions.


9

One of the respondents indicates that this was a problem in general as there was too much packed

into the timetable. There was not a minute between the end of the last workshops and the start of

the busses! This respondent suggests that the exchange groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2 should have been

prepared before the conference to get some more interesting information and exchange of ideas.

The external evaluators suggest that full reports of those Exchange groups RC-TC1-TC2 are sent to

all participants so that all are well informed about what has been happening within those RC-TC1-

TC2 clusters. Syntheses of those exchange groups may also prove to be useful. The report and the

syntheses of these exchange groups may be interesting and inspiring for all.

V. Contents of the activities of Day 3

As far as the activities of the third day are concerned a number of respondents indicated that they

could not be present to the very end of the conference. Several respondents suggest in the open

response section that the steering committee should take place either at the beginning or at the

middle of the conference so that the participants would be able to ask questions that could then be

tackled in the following days. Nevertheless the activities of day 3 still receive an average score of

4.12.

0,00 1,00 2,00 3,00 4,00 5,00

3,51

4,03

4,04

4,11

4,47

4,54

Evaluation of day 3

Keynote speech: Problems and Possibilities in IBSME

External evaluation of the project, 1st feedback

Steering Committee meeting

Day 3: Thursday 31 March: Greenwave, keynote, evaluation, steering committee

Synthesis of the common topics by the coordinators of the 5 topics

Greenwave Europe by Peter Brabazon, Forfas

Figure 4: Evaluation of day 3

The highest score was received for the key note speech of Jens Dolin (4.54) followed by the external

evaluation (4.47). In the open response section several respondents mentioned that they really

appreciated Jens Dolin’s view on IBSME from the point of view of research and practice. More than

nine out of ten respondents agreed that his speech contributed to reaching the objectives of the

conference. However, two respondents did not agree.

As far as the Steering Committee meeting (which received a score of 4.11) is concerned several

respondents complained about the timing. Four respondents thought that it did not contribute to

reaching the objectives of the conference. The lowest score was received for the Greenwave Project

presentation (3.51), just above the targeted satisfaction rate of 3.5. Less than half of respondents

considered that it contributed to reaching the objectives of the conference and six respondents

considered that it did not contribute to the objectives of the conference. However, the evaluators


10

point out that the objective of this presentation was mainly to inform those centres which are not

yet involved.

As far as the synthesis of the common topics is concerned three respondents considered it not

useful and not contributing to the objectives of the conference, although it still received an average

score of 4.03. In the open response section one respondent suggests replacing it by written

syntheses of the workshops.

VI. Overall assessment of different aspects of the follow-up

seminar – impact of the seminar

The respondents were asked to give an overall assessment on different aspects of the follow-up

seminar. They were asked whether they totally agreed, agreed, more or less agreed, disagreed or

totally disagreed with the following statements:

1) The programme of the Aabenraa seminar was well balanced focusing on all key aspects of

the practical implementation of the project

2) The Aabenraa seminar was organised at the right time to stimulate the further

implementation of the project activities at the level of the RC and TC

3) The programme was well balanced as to the practical implementation of IBSME in the

classroom.

4) The seminar used different work forms which stimulated attention and active involvement

of participants

5) The poster sessions during the coffee breaks were useful to get concrete information about

activities or projects of participants and others

6) The parallel a.m. workshops on Tuesday 29 March clarified key aspects of IBSE

7) The parallel p.m. workshops on Tuesday 29 March clarified key aspects of IBME

8) The parallel p.m. workshops on the 5 Fibonacci common topics have clarified arrangements

made towards the European training sessions and what is expected of my organisation

9) The RC - TC1 - TC2 - a.m. groups (Day 2) on different aspects of the implementation helped

to clarify all issues addressed: global strategy, class activities, CPD, school material and CB

10) Those RC - TC1 - TC2 - a.m. groups contributed to make visible all that has been achieved so

far between RC / TC1 and TC2

11) (Day 2)The exchange sessions between the twinned RC and TC1 & TC2 from 11 to 12.30 on

day 2 were long enough to address all issues to be discussed within the twinning

12) I have acquired information which will prove to be useful to myself , my colleagues or the

MST teachers I work with.


11

13) Everybody had ample opportunity to express oneself during the workshops

14) The cooperation between the colleagues involved in IBSE and those involed in IBME was

enhanced and strengthened.

15) The seminar has clarified my understanding of the concepts of IBSE and IBME

16) The seminar will facilitate the organisation and implementation of CPD sessions and follow-

up of teachers by my organisation. The programme of the Aabenraa follow-up seminar was

well balanced focusing on all key aspects of IBSME .

This section received an average rating of 4.05 with the highest average score received for the fact

that everybody had ample opportunity to express oneself (4.61) and the lowest score for the poster

sessions during the breaks (3.36). The latter was in fact the only item in this section that did not

receive the targeted satisfaction score of 3.5. Not less than 10 respondents thought that the poster

sessions were not useful to get concrete information about activities or projects of participants and

others and only 42% of respondents thought they were. As already explained before, this might be

due to the fact that no explicit time on the programme was dedicated to these sessions.

Although more than 9 out of 10 respondents (91%) agreed or totally agreed that they had ample

opportunity to express themselves, three respondents disagreed.

0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00

3,36

3,77

3,79

3,82

3,84

3,92

3,96

4,02

4,09

4,14

4,19

4,20

4,30

4,34

4,38

4,61

Overall assessment of the seminar

Everybody had ample opportunity to express oneself during the workshops

The parallel workshops on the 5 Fibonacci common topics have clarified arrangements

I have acquired information which will prove to be useful

The Aabenraa seminar was organised at the right time

The programme was well balanced focusing on practical implementation of the project

The parallel workshops clarified key aspects of IBSE

The seminar used different work forms which stimulated attention and active involvement

The parallel p.m. workshops on Tuesday 29 March clarified key aspects of IBME

The programme was well balanced as to practical implementation of IBSME in classroom.

The cooperation between the colleagues involved in IBSE & IBME was enhanced

The RC - TC1 - TC2 - groups helped to clarify all issues addressed:

The RC - TC1 - TC2 - groups contributed to making visible what has been achieved so far

The seminar has clarified my understanding of the concepts of IBSE and IBME

The seminar will facilitate the organisation and implementation of CPD sessions

The exchange sessions between the twinned RC and TC1 & TC2 were long enough

The poster sessions during the coffee breaks were useful

Figure 5: Overall assessment of different aspects of follow-up seminar

It is important to notice that none of the participants disagreed with the statement that the

Aabenraa seminar was organised at the right time to stimulate the further implementation of the

project activities at the level of the RC and TC. This item received an average rating of 4.3. There

were also no respondents disagreeing with the statement that the parallel a.m. workshops on


12

Tuesday 29 March clarified key aspects of IBSE. These were in fact the only two statements in this

section where nobody disagreed.

In fact these scores indicate that the follow-up seminar was organised at the right time and that it

clarified a lot of issues. More than 9 out of ten respondents (91%) also agreed that they had

acquired information which will prove to be useful to themselves, their colleagues or the MST

teachers they work with. This item received an average score of 4.34 and only one respondent

disagreed.

Nearly 9 out of ten respondents (89%) agreed that the programme of the Aabenraa seminar was

well balanced focusing on all key aspects of the practical implementation of the project and only one

respondent disagreed. This item received an average rating of 4.20.

It is not surprising that eight respondents disagree with the statement that the exchange sessions

between the twinned RC and TC1 & TC2 from 11 to 12.30 on day 2 were long enough to address all

issues to be discussed within the twinning. Indeed several respondents had already mentioned in

the open response sections that there was not enough time for these sessions. This item received an

average rating of 3.77.

Although the sessions on professional development received a high score, four respondents disagree

with the statement that the seminar will facilitate the organisation and implementation of CPD

sessions and follow-up of teachers by their organisation and only 63% agree or totally agree. The

item receives an average score of 3.79.

There are also four respondents disagreeing with the statement that the RC - TC1 - TC2 - groups

contributed to make visible all that has been achieved so far between RC / TC1 and TC2. Only 59% of

respondents agree or totally agree with this statement. The average score is 3.84.

Three respondents disagree with the statement that the seminar has clarified their understanding of

the concepts of IBSE and IBME. Although the survey is anonymous it appears from the open

response sections that there are more respondents unclear about IBME than about IBSE. The item

receives an average score of 3.82 and 66% of respondents agree or totally agree with the statement.

It can be concluded that although it is felt that the seminar came at the right time, not all issues have

been clarified and that in the future more time should be given to discussing the relation RC-TC1-

TC2.

VII. Dissemination of the results Fibonacci Follow-up seminar

The respondents were asked whether they would disseminate the outcomes of the Aabenraa follow-

up seminar. They were also asked how they would do so to assess the impact of the follow-up

seminar . They thus had to express their agreement with the five following statements. Once again

they could totally agree, agree, more or less agree, disagree or totally disagree.

1) I shall disseminate to colleagues all the documents handed out at the seminar

2) I shall give a presentation to colleagues about the key issues of the seminar


13

3) I shall write a short article about the seminar

4) I shall use some of the materials and approaches in my mathematics and science teaching

5) I shall use some of the materials and approaches in training MST teachers

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

I shall disseminate to colleagues all the documents handed out at the seminar

I shall give a presentation to colleagues about the key issues of the seminar

I shall write a short article about the seminar

I shall use some of the materials and approaches in my mathematics and science teaching

I shall use some of the materials and approaches in training MST teachers

74%

85%

39%

89%

82%

Dissemination of the seminar outcomes

No Yes

Figure 6: Dissemination

Nearly 9 out of ten respondents (89%) say that they will use some of the materials and approaches

in their mathematics and science teaching. 85% of respondents say that they will give a

presentation to colleagues about the key issues of the seminar and 82% that they will use some of

the materials and approaches in training MST teachers. Three quarters of respondents will also

disseminate to colleagues the documentation handed out at the seminar. However, when asked

whether they will write an article about the seminar only 39% think that they will do so.

VIII. Practical organisation of the Aabenraa Follow-up seminar

In the last section of the questionnaire the practical organisation of the follow-up seminar was

assessed. The participants were asked to agree (totally agree, agree, more or less agree, disagree,

totally disagree) with the following statements:

1) The Aabenraa follow-up seminar was very well organized.

2) The participants received all the information they needed well on time.

3) The seminar rooms and the facilities facilitated the work during the follow-up seminar.

4) The social programme and the meals were good opportunities to get to know other

participants better.

Virtually all participants gave the practical organisation a very high rating. The average rating for

this section is 4.53 and none of the items surveyed scores under 4.37. This means that all the

participants were satisfied or very satisfied with the practical organisation of follow-up seminar.

Three respondents disagree with the statement that the seminar rooms and its facilities facilitated

the work during the seminar and two disagree with the statement that the participants received all

information well on time. Although 96% of respondents agree or fully agree with the statement that


14

the social programme and the meals were good opportunities to get to know other participants

better, one respondent disagrees.

4,20 4,30 4,40 4,50 4,60 4,70

The seminar rooms and its facilities facilitated the work during the conference.

The participants received the information they needed well on time

The Aabenraa seminar was very well organized.

The social programme & meals were good opportunities to get to know other …

4,37

4,45

4,60

4,70

Organisation of the seminar

Figure 7: Organisation

In the open questions section a number of respondents congratulate the organisers on the

organisation of the follow-up seminar and thank Ida and Lene for their efforts.

“the organization was really successful especially the meals and snacks”

One respondent remarked that the Seminar at Aabenraa was very well organised but that late

changes to the timetable were frustrating - meant that colleagues could not attend significant

sessions.

Several respondents want more time to discuss informally. One respondent stated: “missing longer breaks for informal discussions after workshops, lunch, ... less programme is better” Generally it was considered that the organisation of the follow-up seminar was excellent. The only really negative issue about the Aabenraa follow-up seminar that was mentioned is its location. As one respondent mentioned: “Aabenraa was a difficult and expensive place to get to.” However, apart from this issue, the organization of the seminar was greatly appreciated.


15

IX. Conclusions and areas of concern

The conclusions and areas of concern are the following:

- The overall objectives of the follow-up seminar as stated in the programme have been

largely reached. This clearly shows that there was an important need for such a follow-up

seminar and that it has greatly responded to the needs of the participating RC, TC 1 and TC2.

It was thus very wise that the organisers planned this seminar in the original application.

- The fact that the follow-up seminar addressed all they key issues and topics that really

matter for the RC and TC shows that the European coordination team is fully aware of how

the Fibonacci project is being implemented and that it is in constant contact with the

partners. The programme of the seminar was really tailored to the concrete needs of the

participating RC and TC. The evaluators also appreciate that the European coordination

takes into account suggestions made at the occasion of the evaluation of the previous

Fibonacci conference.

- The follow-up seminar was organised at the right time and really addressed all major issues

and topics which the RC, TC1 and TC2 have to cope with during the implementation of their

Fibonacci activities. However, more focus and attention should still be given, according to

certain participants, to the concrete implementation of IBSME in the classroom, to the

concrete organisation and implementation of CPD sessions and follow-up of teachers and to

the practical implementation of the RC-TC1-TC2 cooperation activities. The latter element is

clearly expressed in the opinion of the participants as to the exchange groups RC-TC1-TC2.

All that has been achieved so far between RC / TC1 and TC2 could be made more visible so

that others can make use of it.

- The organisation of the follow-up seminar by the host institution was greatly appreciated by

the large majority of participants. Many participants expressed their gratitude to the

organisers in the evaluation forms. Some participants, though, would have appreciated a

less packed and dense programme and a more easily accessible venue.

- The parallel training sessions on the inquiry-based science education and on the inquiry-

based mathematics education and the parallel workshops on the 5 Fibonacci common

topics were greatly appreciated by the majority of participants. They were an opportunity to

get to grips with the concrete aspects of the implementation of IBSME. Comment on the

exchange groups RC-TC1-TC2 were given above.

The networking and socialising between participants at the follow-up seminar has been greatly

appreciated. However, the external evaluators think that efforts should be made to have a greater

interaction between the IBSE and the IBME colleagues.


16

X. Recommendations

Although recommendations to improve certain elements are mentioned here below, it should be

strongly stated that the satisfaction rate of the Aabenraa follow-up seminar was overall very high

and that it was largely appreciated by participants as to its contents, as to its work forms and as its

organisation.

Based on the detailed analysis of the information gathered in the evaluation the evaluators

recommend that in the months ahead attention is paid within the Fibonacci project to the following

elements:

- Brief reports of the Exchange groups RC-TC1-TC2 as to the local implementation of the

project in the centres, should be sent to all participants so that all are well informed about

what has been happening within those RC-TC1-TC2 twinnings over the past year. A synthesis

of those exchange groups may also prove to be useful. The reports and the syntheses of

these exchange groups may be interesting and inspiring for all in the future RC-TC1-TC2 work

and activities. These reports will make the concrete implementation of the RC-TC1-TC2

cooperation activities more visible.

- More focus and attention should still be given to the dissemination of the concrete

implementation of IBSME in the classroom. This can probably be done by disseminating

good practice which has been developed by the partners of the Fibonacci project. It can also

be done through the tutoring of the TC by the RC and through the European training

sessions. The Fibonacci website should also focus on dissemination of good practices.

- Give more focus and attention to the concrete organisation and implementation of CPD

sessions and follow-up of teachers. It would be good that e. g. information is gathered on

how CPD and follow-up of teachers is organised across the different RC and TC. Being aware

that several RC and TC are also involved in pre-service teacher education it would be good to

include next to CPD also pre-service teacher education even if it was not the explicit

objective of the Fibonacci project to focus on pre-service teacher education. The external

evaluators are willing to contribute to this.

- More time explicitly planned in the programme should be provided for the poster session.

Giving more time and attention to the poster sessions (enabling participants to exchange at

a poster session) would strengthen also the link between theory and practice and would

enable the participants to get to know other partners. If no explicit time is given to the

poster sessions, the evaluators suggest not having them any longer.


17

XI. Annexes

Annex 1: PDF-version of the on-line Questionnaire


18


19


20


21


22


23

Annex 2: Summative table of the scores

Answe r Op tio ns 1 2 3 4 5 NAAve ra g e

Sco re

To ensure a good follow up of the project activities 0 0 7 22 17 1 4,22

To support the practical implementation of the project through workshops 0 0 7 25 13 1 4,13

To support the practical implementation of IBSME in the classroom through workshops. 0 2 9 25 8 2 3,89

Average score for the objectives of the seminar 0 2 23 72 38 4 4,08

Day 1: Tuesday 29 March: Inquiry in science and mathematics 0 1 3 18 9 5 4,13

Round table with the Scientific Committee chaired by Pierre Léna with Wynne Harlen and Justin Dillon 0 5 10 15 10 5 3,75

Results of the survey on attitudes and beliefs towards mathematics and science education by Janet Ainley, University of Leicester 2 0 14 17 7 4 3,68

Exhibition of the learning resources and posters of the partners (during the breaks) 0 6 17 15 4 4 3,40

a.m. // training session on IBSE: Inquiry about light and shadow in kindergartens by Ana Blagotinšek, University of Ljubljana 0 0 0 2 7 28 4,78

a.m. // training session on IBSE: Inquiry launching and debriefing, case study on one topic in the primary school: the bridges by Carl Rauch,

School of Engineering of Nantes0 0 0 4 9 27

4,69

a.m. // training session on IBSE: Inquiry at middle school level by Katarina Kotulakova and Iveta Juricova, University of Trnava 0 0 2 7 5 24 4,21

p.m. // training session on IBME: Inquiry-based mathematics education in primary school - Learning environments for mathematical thinking and

mathematical understanding by Volker Ulm, University of Augsburg0 2 6 2 6 25

3,75

p.m. // training session on IBME :Towards new teaching in mathematics by Peter Baptist, University of Bayreuth 0 0 3 3 4 26 4,10

p.m. // training session on IBME : IBME without boundaries by Petar Kenderov and Jenny Sendova, Institute of Mathematics and Informatics of the

Bulgarian Academy of Science0 0 0 4 6 29

4,60

Synthesis of the training sessions : 3-4 important points about the inquiry-based approach 1 1 7 9 12 8 4,00

// workshop common topic 1: Deepening specificities of scientific inquiry in Maths 0 1 2 5 9 20 4,29

// workshop common topic 2: Deepening specificities of scientific inquiry in natural sciences 0 0 0 5 8 24 4,62

// workshop common topic 3: Implementing and expanding a RC 0 1 1 4 7 25 4,31

// workshop common topic 4: Cross-disciplinary approaches : Inquiry across the curriculum 0 1 1 5 6 24 4,23

// workshop common topic 5: Using the external environment of the school 0 1 1 4 0 27 3,50

Average score day 1 3 19 67 119 109 4,13

Day 2: Wednesday 30 March: Implementation of the project 0 1 4 8 13 4 4,27

Introduction on the implementation of the project by Xavier Person, ENS / La main à la pâte 1 1 7 12 16 4 4,11

Testimony from RC about their local strategy and organisation framework for the project implementation by Volker Ulm, University of Augsburg 0 0 5 21 14 4 4,23

Testimony from RC about their local strategy and organisation framework for the project implementation by Clémentine Transetti, School of

Engineering of St Etienne0 1 6 20 11 5

4,08

a.m. Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: global (systemic) strategy 1 0 7 10 6 15 3,83

a.m. Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: class activities 2 2 2 12 3 14 3,57

a.m. Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: professional development and follow up of the teachers 2 0 6 12 9 10 3,90

a.m. Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: school material 2 1 6 7 6 17 3,81

a.m. Exchange Groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2: Community Board 1 3 5 13 4 13 3,62

p.m. Twinning session : Testimony from one group of RC-TC1-TC2 about the twinning by Katarina Kotulakova, University of Trnava 1 1 5 12 14 6 4,12

p.m. Twinning session: exchanges between the RC and their TC1 & TC2 on the implementation of the twinning 1 0 3 10 17 9 4,35

p.m. // workshop: Professional development of teachers in matematics: The Swiss approach to IBME: dialogic learning by Peter Gallin and Mike

Rohr, University of Zürich0 0 0 7 11 23

4,61

p.m. // workshop: Professional development of teachers in mathematics: Experimental mathematics and cross disciplinary approach by Dagmar

Raab, University of Bayreuth0 0 0 1 8 29

4,89

p.m. // workshop: Professional development of teachers in science by Tina Jarvis, University of Leicester & Petra Skiebe-Corrette, Freie

University Berlin0 0 0 4 12 22

4,75

p.m. // workshop: Class activities combining science and mathematics by Janet Ainley, University of Leicester & Ida Guldager, University College

South Denmark0 0 1 2 6 27

4,56

Visit of the Centre for Educational Resources in Aabenraa; exchanges with the pedagogical advisers 1 1 3 10 20 7 4,34

Average score day 2 12 11 60 161 170 209 4.19

Day 3: Thursday 31 March: Greenwave, keynote, evaluation, steering committee 0 1 6 11 9 7 4,04

Greenwave Europe by Peter Brabazon, Forfas 0 6 12 10 7 6 3,51

Keynote speech: Problems and Possibilities in IBSME by Jens Dolin, University of Copenhagen, Head of the Department of Science Education,

partner of S-Team project0 2 1 9 25 6

4,54

External evaluation of the project, 1st feedback by Yves Beernaert and Magda Kirsch, Educonsult 0 0 1 16 17 9 4,47

p.m. Synthesis of the common topics by the coordinators of the 5 topics 0 3 4 12 11 10 4,03

p.m.Steering Committee meeting 1 3 2 8 14 11 4,11

Average score day 3 1 15 26 66 83 49 4.12

The programme of the Aabenraa seminar was well balanced focusing on all key aspects of the practical implementation of the project 0 1 4 25 15 1 4,20

The Aabenraa seminar was organised at the right time to stimulate the further implementation of the project activities at the level of the RC and TC 0 0 8 16 22 0 4,30

The programme was well balanced as to the practical implementation of IBSME in the classroom. 0 2 10 19 15 1 4,02

The seminar used different work forms which stimulated attention and active involvement of participants 0 0 9 20 15 1 4,14

The poster sessions during the coffee breaks were useful to get concrete information about activities or projects of participants and others 1 9 16 11 8 2 3,36

The parallel a.m. workshops on Tuesday 29 March clarified key aspects of IBSE 0 0 6 18 13 7 4,19

The parallel p.m. workshops on Tuesday 29 March clarified key aspects of IBME 0 3 7 9 16 10 4,09

The parallel p.m. workshops on the 5 Fibonacci common topics have clarified arrangements made towards the European training sessions and

what is expected of my organisation0 2 3 11 21 7

4,38

The RC - TC1 - TC2 - a.m. groups (Day 2) on different aspects of the implementation helped to clarify all issues addressed: global strategy, class

activities, CPD, school material and CB1 2 7 18 11 5

3,92

Those RC - TC1 - TC2 - a.m. groups contributed to make visible all that has been achieved so far between RC / TC1 and TC2 1 3 11 8 14 5 3,84

(Day 2)The exchange sessions between the twinned RC and TC1 & TC2 from 11 to 12.30 on day 2 were long enough to address all issues to be

discussed within the twinning3 5 4 13 14 5

3,77

I have acquired information which will prove to be useful to myself , my colleagues or the MST teachers I work with. 0 1 3 20 20 2 4,34

Everybody had ample opportunity to express oneself during the workshops 1 2 1 5 35 3 4,61

The cooperation between the colleagues involved in IBSE and those involed in IBME was enhanced and strengthened. 0 3 12 14 16 2 3,96

The seminar has clarified my understanding of the concepts of IBSE and IBME 1 2 12 18 11 2 3,82

The seminar will facilitate the organisation and implementation of CPD sessions and follow-up of teachers by my organisation. 1 3 12 15 12 2 3,79

Average score on overall assessment of seminar 9 38 125 240 258 55 4,05

The Aabenraa seminar was very well organized. 0 0 4 11 32 0 4,60

The participants received all the information they needed well on time 0 2 4 12 29 0 4,45

The seminar rooms and its facilities facilitated the work during the conference. 2 1 3 12 28 1 4,37

The social programme and the meals were good opportunities to get to know other participants better 0 1 1 9 35 1 4,70

Average score on organisational aspects of seminar 2 4 12 44 124 2 4,53


24

Annex 3: Responses to open questions

Comments in open question on Day 1

The synthesis of the training sessions should be removed in general. If there is a written synthesis in

the follow up it would be much more interesting and effective. So there could have been more time

for interactive moments with the partners and to have a detailed look at the posters.

The parallel sessions prevented me from participating in the interesting presentation of my

colleagues working in the same area. This is why I had to answer by NA in many of the cells above.

IBME is still not quite clear to me.

I had to leave after the first session so I can't really comment on the conference.

I liked the practical session most! NA for many workshops - because I was not participating at the

same time in many workgroups.

ıt was a great experience for me to participate in such a beneficial meeting.

Some explicit time for the poster sessions is advisable

I came late, so it is not possible to evaluate the first day.


Again there was too much packed into the timetable. There was not a minute between the end of

the last workshops and the start of the busses! The exchange groups of 4 RC-TC1-TC2 should have

been prepared before the conference to get some more interesting information and exchange of

ideas.

Twinning session was a little too short.

To short time for the actual twinning RC-TC1-TC2


Educational Centre in Aabenraa was interesting and fruitful in understanding how it works with

schools within a district.

Outdoor activity such as visiting the Centre for Educational Resources was an excellent idea.

Not time enough for twinning

Tina Jarvis speech, really good

The combinations (who with who) was not very clearly organized.


Again the synthesis should be removed. Periodically written information about the outcomes of the

group would be much more helpful. The Steering Committee meeting urgently should take place at

the beginning of a conference. So difficulties and unclear issues could be discussed and solved in the

following days. There were confusions about the budget, the reports, the cooperation among the

participants.

I had to leave the conference early in the morning, sorry!

I could be a good idea to have the Steering Committee meeting on the first day enabling us to ask all

the questions that arise during the following days.



25

Jens Dolin gave a real good view on the IBSME topics and implementation - point of research and

practice.

The steering Committee should be in the middle of an event, not at the end.

Jens Dolin speech , really good.

Open question on Dissemination of results of the FU seminar / Impact

I will disseminate selected materials to colleagues which seem relevant for the work.

Seminar was excellently organised.

Follow up in my TC1 will be more clear.

ı will be glad to share my experiences as soon as possible, for example ı will organize meetings which

ı will give information to other Fibonacci Teacher and also all the teachers in my school.

Our centre only works in science, and the most part of the documents handed out during the

seminar were about mathematics and IBME.

Open question inviting for General comments

Many thanks to all organizers and participants!

All the organization was really successful especially the meals and snacks.

The recreation time between the morning program and the evening events, should be longer!

Seminar at Aabenraa very well organised. Late changes to timetable frustrating - meant that

colleagues could not attend significant sessions.

Non-professional time management (missing longer breaks for informal discussions after workshops,

lunch, ... less programme is better).

Documents

Evaluation of Fibonacci Follow-up Seminar Aabenraa, 29-31 ... · - To support the practical implementation of IBSME in the classroom through workshops The Survey comprised 72 questions,