Promoting CLIL implementation in Europeclilprime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/QUESTIONNAIRE_REPOR… · 1 Promoting CLIL implementation in Europe: Learners' and guest partners

1

Promoting CLIL

implementation in Europe:

Learners' and guest partners' views

from the first study visit

24 - 26 November 2016

Thessaloniki, Greece

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction 5

2. Learners' questionnaires 5

3. Teachers' questionnaires 7

4. Joint Staff Training Seminar questionnaire 16

Appendix A Learners' questionnaire 20-21

Appendix B Learners' comments in questionnaires 22-25

Appendix C Quest partners' questionnaire 26-27

Appendix D Joint Staff Seminar questionnaire 28-30

3

LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

1 Means and standard deviations of the learners' answers in each statement 6

2 Means and standard deviations of the teachers' answers in each statement 7-8

3 Frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation of attendees answers 16-17

4

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page

1 Percentage of participants in the 5=point scale per question 6

2 Appropriate number of learners 8

3 I achieved learning outcomes 8

4 I Used time well 9

5 I was helpful 9

6 Created effective environment 10

7 I encouraged participation/interaction 10

8 I maintained good relationship with learners 11

9 I was well prepared 11

10 My presentation skills were good 12

11 I used adequate ICT tools 12

12 The classroom was well equipped 13

13 The students' attitudes were positive 13

5

1. Introduction

The first study visit of the ERASMUS+ project entitled ''Promoting CLIL implementation in Europe''

took place between 21-26 November 2016. In particular, four delegations from four different countries

(Czech Republic, Italy, Lithuania, and Romania) visited the coordinating organization (3rd Experimental

Primary School of Evosmos) in an attempt to reinforce cooperation among the partners, increase awareness

of different approaches to CLIL methodologies and enhance internationalisation strategies of participants. In

total twelve guest partners, three from each country, attended all the available CLIL lessons at the workplace

of the host organization delivered by the teachers of the host country during the first three days (21-23

November). After getting acquainted with the various approaches used and the learners, guest partners

delivered CLIL lessons themselves on 24th and 25th of November. To this end, twelve CLIL teaching

sessions (each one lasting about forty-five minutes) were delivered in the English language to grades 3, 4, 5

and 6 (that is 9 to 12 year old Greek learners) in the following subjects: Environmental Studies, Geography,

History, ICT, Physical Education, Religious Education, and Science. After the completion of each session

the pupils as well as the guest partners answered a brief questionnaire (provided in Appendices Α and C

respectively) to express their opinions about the lesson. Appendix B includes all the learners' further

comments on the teachers' lesson as recorded by the questionnaire of Appendix A. In total, 257 pupils’ and

12 teachers’ questionnaires were collected and analyzed. The present booklet provides a report of the

findings from the analysis of the learners' and guest partners' questionnaires described in sections 2 and 3 as

well as from the feedback provided at the Joint Staff Seminar which is described in section 4.

2. Learners’ questionnaires

The questionnaire for the pupils was distributed and completed shortly after the end of each session

and included eleven statements which were answered by a five-point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree,

2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree) (Appendix Α). Means and standard

deviations of the learners' answers to each statement are shown in Table 1, while the percentages of

participants in the five-point scale questionnaire are shown per statement in Figure 1.

6

Table 1

Means and standard deviations of the learners' answers in each statement

QUESTIONNAIRE’S STATEMENTS N M SD

1. The lesson was difficult 256 2.04 1.2

2. The lesson was boring 255 1.72 1.1

3. I liked the lesson 257 4.55 .89

4. I participated in the activities 256 4.18 .91

5. The teacher was friendly 256 4.65 .73

6. The teacher helped me 256 4.22 .99

7. The lesson was interesting 256 4.43 .91

8. I learn new things 256 4.46 .92

9. I liked how the lesson was done 256 4.50 .76

10. The English used was simple enough for me to understand 255 4.20 1.04

11. The lesson was simple enough for me to understand 254 4.09 1.01

Figure 1

Percentage of participants in the 5-point scale per question

44,9

59,6

2,3 2,3 1,6 3,5 2,3 3,5 0,8 3,5 3,5

25,8

22,7

3,1 2,3 0,8 2,0 1,6 1,6 1,6

5,1 6,7

17,2

8,6

3,1 1,8 3,5

13,3 9,8 4,3 7,0

10,2 13,4

5,1 3,9

19,8

43,2

19,1

31,6

23,4 26,6 28,5

30,2 29,5

7,0 5,1

71,6

50,5

75,0

49,6

62,9 64,1 62,1 51,0 46,9

%

strongly disagree disagree neither agree nor disagree agree strongly agree

7

The results showed that the overwhelming majority of the pupils had positive impressions and

comments about the lessons. This is attested by the fact that only 12% of the learners found the lessons

difficult and only a minority of them (8%-10%) stated that the English language used and the content were

not very easy to understand. Most importantly, the learners' positive arguments are supported by the fact that

more than 90% of them (a) liked the lessons (91,4%) and (b) declared that they participated in them

(93,7%). Furthermore, a vast majority of the learners (86,3%) found the lesson to be interesting and liked

(90,6%) the methods adopted throughout the lessons. What is more, 90,7% of the learners admitted that they

learned new things. Finally, as far as the learners' views of the guest partners' teaching is concerned, almost

all of them (94,1% ) found their new teachers to be friendly while a vast majority of them (81,2%) recorded

that they were helpful.

3. Teachers’ questionnaire

The questionnaire for the teachers included twelve statements which were answered by a five-point

Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree)

(Appendix C). Means and standard deviations of the guest partners' answers to each statement are shown in

Table 2 while the percentages of participants in the five-point scale questionnaire are shown per statement in

Figures 2-13.

Table 2

Means and standard deviations of the teachers' answers in each statement

QUESTIONNAIRE’S STATEMENTS N Min Max M SD

1. The number of learners in the classroom was the

appropriate 12 3 5 4.25 .75

2. I achieved the learning outcomes. 12 3 5 3.92 .51

3. I used time well. 12 2 5 3.75 .87

4. I was helpful 11 4 5 4.09 .30

5. I created an effective learning environment 12 3 5 4.08 .51

6. I maintained good relationship with learners 12 4 5 4.17 .39

7. I encouraged participation and interaction 12 4 5 4.42 .51

8. I was well prepared 12 4 5 4.42 .51

9. My presentation skills were good 12 3 5 3.92 .67

8

10. I used adequate ICT tools 11 3 5 4.0 .45

11. The classroom was well equipped 12 4 5 4.5 .52

12. Students’ attitude towards my lesson was positive 12 3 5 4.42 .67

neither agree nor disagree

2

agree 5

strongly agree 5

appropriate number of learners


2

agree 9

strongly agree 1

achieved learning outcomes

Figure 2

Figure 3

41.66%

41.66%

16.67%

75%

16.67% 8.33%

9

disagree 2

agree 9

strongly agree 1

used time well

strongly agree 1

was helpful

Figure 4

Figure 5

75%

16.67% 8.33%

8.33%

91.67%

agree 10

10


1

agree 9

strongly agree 2

effective learning environment

agree 7

strongly agree 5

encouraged participation/interaction

Figure 6

Figure 7

8.33%

75%

16.67%

58.33%

41.67%

11

agree 10

strongly agree 2

good relationship with learners

agree 7

strongly agree 5

was well prepared

Figure 8

Figure 9

58.33%

41.67%

83.33%

16.67%

12


3

agree 7

strongly agree

2

good presentation skills


1

agree 9

strongly agree

1

adequate ICT tools

Figure 10

Figure 11

81.82%

9.09% 9.09%

58.33%

16.67% 25%

13

agree 6

strongly agree 6

well equipped classroom


1

agree 5

strongly agree

6

positive students' attitudes

Figure 12

Figure 13

50% 50%

8.33%

50% 41.67%

14

Inspection of the twelve figures above tends to provide almost unanimous results as the dispersion of

the teachers' answers belong mainly to the strongly agree and agree points of the 5 point Likert scale. More

specifically, Figure 2 shows that 83.33% of the guest partners who delivered CLIL lessons found the number

of learners in the classes to be appropriate and one sixth (16.68%) of the respondents did not provide any

conclusive answers (neither agreed nor disagreed) to this statement. Furthermore, Figure 3 shows that

83.33% of the teachers believe they have achieved the learning outcomes while the remaining 16.67% is,

once again, not a negative answer but a neutral one (neither agreed nor disagreed). Figure 4, illustrates that

83.33% of the teachers evaluated management of time in their lessons as appropriate. However, this

category also hosts the only negative answers; indeed there are two answers, one sixth or 16.67% of

respondents, which shows a disagreement on the appropriate use of time by the teachers and which was also

evident in their comments at the end of the questionnaire. This view may, perhaps, be attributed (a) to the

fact that the teachers were acquainted with longer teaching sessions at their own schools and (b) at some

points the lessons were shorter that the scheduled 45 minute sessions as the learners were a bit late to enter

the classroom due to various reasons(changing of classrooms, morning assembly and some announcements,

seating arrangements). Still, what all teachers unanimously agree on is that they were helpful to the learners

as Figure 5 clearly illustrates. The helpful stance on the part of the teachers is also supported by the learners'

answers in their questionnaire (statement 6) where 81.2% of the learners found the teachers to be helpful.

Another considerable agreement among the teachers who delivered CLIL lessons is reflected in Figure 6

where 83.33% of the respondents agree that they created an effective learning environment (the remaining

16.67% belonging to the neither agree nor disagree point of scale). Figures 7-9 show three more cases of

complete agreement to (a) encouraging participation and interaction (Figure 7), (b) maintaining good

relationships with the learners (Figure 8) and, (c) being well prepared (Figure 9). Figure 10 reflects the

agreement of three quarters (75%) of the teachers on their successful presentation skills while 25% simply

did not provide any definite answer (neither agree nor disagree) perhaps out of modesty as the learners'

comments indicate that they liked the lesson and the way it was presented. Figure 11 features the high use of

ICT tools by the teachers, as 90.91% of them deem that they used sufficient ICT tools. Figure 12, with the

15

total agreement of all twelve teachers, supports the fact that the classroom where the lessons were delivered

was well equipped. Indeed, the lab where the lessons were delivered, as all the other classrooms of the 3rd

Experimental Primary School of Evosmos, include a PC, projector, loud speakers, magnetic whiteboards

and so on. Finally, Figure 13, successfully depicts the teachers' view of the learners' positive attitudes

towards their lessons as 91,67 % of them agree on that. This view is further supported by (a) the learners'

own evaluation of the teachers and particularly in statement 3 of their questionnaire where 91.4% of the

learners agree that they liked the lessons delivered, and (b) the learners' comments, some of which express

the wish for more lessons with the guest teachers.

Generally, the teachers' questionnaires reflect positive comments on all examined areas and

underline their enthusiasm with the learners, topic, and the host country as well as their own experience

and self confidence in delivering the CLIL lessons. Below are the comments that were provided by seven of

the twelve teachers who delivered the CLIL lessons.

“Many thanks for my new experiences!!! I love Greece! I love your school!!”

“I feel that lesson would've been much better if timing was better used/managed. Although it was quite

teacher led, input was longer than planned, the children were excited to start making their posters”

“The lesson was shortened because the students arrived late from morning assembly. However the class

teacher will continue the activity in the next period of ICT. The facilities are excellent!!!! This particular

class is really lovely to work with-they all participated well. I'm looking forward to seeing their patterns on

Edmodo! Thank you”

“Some boys were shy to cooperate with girls and were a little bit naughty. I haven't taught everything I

wanted because it was quite difficult for some pupils. I had to simplify some things. My English could have

been better”

“Everyone was listening some of them were thinking and speaking aloud, they volunteered well. This class is

definitely the best ever!!Nobody was difficult”

“I loved the kids!!!! I just wish I could have had more time”

“I wish I had more time!!”

16

4. Joint Staff Training Seminar questionnaire

On the 26th of November, a joint staff training seminar was organized by the host organization (3rd

Experimental Primary School of Evosmos) at the premises of the New Building of the Faculty of

Philosophy, at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in Greece, with the aim of (a) acquainting all the

participants with the practice of CLIL teaching in each country and (b) disseminating that knowledge to a

wider audience that included State School consultants, pre-service and in-service teachers, and the academic

community (members of staff at the Aristotle University). The Joint Staff Training Seminar included six

major presentations: (a) CLIL in Greece: the case of the 3rd Experimental Primary School of Evosmos,

presented by Dr Ioanna Ziaka, (b) CLIL implementation in the Italian context, and from an International

school perspective, presented by Joanne Gillespie, (c) Early Foreign Language Learning and CLIL in Saules

Gojus, presented by Erikas Juchnevicius, (d) Cambridge School of Constanta- Unity in Diversity, presented

by Doina Verdes and Oana Manta, (e) CLIL in the Czech Republic, presented by Lenka Skočdopolová and

Václav Kruntorád and (f) CLIL: From Europe to Greece, presented by Associate Professor Marina

Mattheoudakis. A questionnaire was handed out to the all the registered and present attendees.

The questionnaire included nine statements about the content and the quality of the presentations and

discussions of the seminar. Not all registered participants answered the questionnaire. In total, 41

questionnaires were filled in by secondary and primary school teachers (public and private), university

students, visiting partners, representatives of the Regional Directorate of Central Macedonia, to mention a

few. The answers were collected with a five-point Likert scale (Appendix D) and their frequencies and

percentages are shown in Table 3.

Table 3

Frequencies, percentages, mean and standard deviation of answers to each statement of the

questionnaire

STATEMENTS

Strongly

agree

(5)

Agree

(4)

Neither

agree nor

disagreed

(3)

Disagree

(2)

Strongly

disagreed

(1) M SD

1. The event helped me

increase my

understanding of CLIL

implementation

18

43.9%

22

53.7%

1

2.4%

4.41 .55

17

2. The event enriched my

perspective on CLIL

learning and teaching

20

48.8%

19

46.3%

2

4.9%

444 .59

3. I am going to use ideas

and information

presented at this event

in my context

21

51.2%

17

41.5%

3

7.3%

4.44 .63

4. The information

presented at the event

is of relevance to

policymakers in my

country

8

19.5%

10

24.4%

16

39%

6

14.6%

1

2.4%

3.44 1

5. The length of speeches

was adequate

16

39%

22

53.7%

2

4.9%

1

2.4% 4.29 .68

6. The time allocated for

discussion was

adequate

8

19.5%

22

53.7%

7

17.1%

4

9.8% 3.83 86

Excellent

(5)

Very Good

(4)

Good

(3)

Satisfactory

(2)

Poor

(1)

7. Please rate the quality

of the presentations

you attended during the

event:

“CLIL in Greece: the

case of the 3rd

experimental primary

school of Evosmos”.

26

63.4%

12

29.3%

1

2.4%

4.64 .54

CLIL Implementation

in the Italian context

and from an

International school

perspective.

15

36.6%

20

48.8%

3

7.3%

1

2.4%

4.26 .72

“Early Foreign

Language Learning and

CLIL in Saules Gojus".

27

65.9%

9

22%

1

2.4%

4.70 .52

“Cambridge School Of

Constanta- Unity in

Diversity”.

15

36.6%

11

26.8%

10

24.4%

4

9.8%

3.93 1

“CLIL in the Czech

Republic”.

13

31.7%

14

34.1%

9

22%

4

9.8%

3.9 .98

“CLIL: From Europe to

Greece”.

34

82.9%

4

9.8%

4.89 .31


of the discussions held

during each session

7

17.1%

19

46.3%

13

31.7%

2

4.9%

3.76 79


of the event as a whole

19

46.3%

18

43.9%

2

4.9%

1

2.4%

4.38 70

18

In general, the attendees of the Joint Staff Training seminar agreed to a large extent (more than 90%)

that (a) the event aided their comprehension of how to implement CLIL (97.6%), (b) the event

enriched their views in CLIL learning and teaching (95.1), (c) the event has provided them with

ideas and information that will be used in their context (92,7%), and (d) the length of the speeches

was adequate (92.7%). Furthermore, 73.2% of the audience found the time allocated to discussion of

the topics adequate while a considerable percentage (17.1%) of the rest of the audience opted for the

neither agree nor disagree answer. However, a 9.8% of the audience would wish for more time being

dedicated to discussion and this underlines the extended interest on the part of the audience for more

information and discussion that was not met with the total time of discussion (two fifteen minute

sessions). This is also why statement eight of the questionnaire concerning the quality of the

discussions was deemed very positive (excellent or very good) by 64.3% of the audience while about

one third of the attendees (31.7%) expressed a moderate opinion by characterizing it as being good.

Statement number four referred to the relevance of the information presented at the event to

policymakers of the other countries and it is the only one with answers from all five points of the

scale. This may be attributable to the different type of CLIL implementation in each country

(shower, semi, full, etc) as well as to some form of resistance of certain policymakers to great

changes.

The statements referring to the quality of the five presentations should also be considered positive as

none of the presentations was characterised as poor by any of the respondents. There is, however, a

variation in the declared quality of each presentation. Thus, the first one concerning the CLIL

implementation in the Greek context was deemed as excellent or very good by a total of 92.7%, the

second one concerning the Italian context was deemed as excellent or very good by a total of

85,4%, the third one concerning the Lithuanian context was deemed as excellent or very good by a

total of 87.9%, the fourth one concerning the Romanian context was deemed as excellent or very

good by a total of 63.4%, the fifth one concerning the Czech Republic context was deemed as

excellent or very good by a total of 65.8%, and the comprehensive talk by Associate Professor

19

Marina Mattheoudakis concerning the CLIL from Europe to Greece was deemed as excellent or very

good by a total of 92.7%. The differentiation of the percentages concerning the presentations might

reflect a different interest in the topics by the attendees. For instance, some presentations included

videos and sample teaching sessions from the schools while others were more theoretical. What is

more, some of the presentations referred to different types of CLIL implementation in their country's

context (e.g showers, semi-CLIL and so on) and this may have influenced some of the attendees who

might have considered them as less informative. Thus, the Romanian and the Czech Republic's

presentations should not be mistakenly considered as receiving less positive feedback as they also

have a considerable percentage (24.4% and 22% respectively) at the good point of the scale,

something which greatly increases the total positive (from good to excellent) appeal. Viewed from

the good to excellent points, all presentations are around 90% (95.1%, 92.7%, 90.3%,87.8%, 87.8%,

92.7%) fact that mirrors the beneficial impact of all the presentations and their appeal to all the

attendees.

To conclude, the quality of the event was characterised as being very good and excellent by 95,1%

with no negative characterisation whatsoever. Below are the comments provided by some of the

attendees of the event.

More projects & events like this please!! Keep disseminating. We need it!!!

Thank you! It's great! Marina’s presentation SUPER!!!!

A great opportunity to share ideas enthusiasm & techniques. Let’s hope we will be able to

adopt our choices by incorporating some of the ideas into our teaching

Inspiring! !!

Very helpful!

Very interesting presentations on CLIL, raising prospective teachers' awareness as regards

the re-evaluation of traditional teaching methods& integration more interactive exercises &

authentic teaching aids, helpful presentation getting to see how CLIL functions in FLL & SL

classrooms across Europe, Thank you for all the great ideas related to classroom activities &

materials.

20

Appendix A

Learners' questionnaire

21

22

APPENDIX B

Learners' comments in the questionnaires (per subject)

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES C1

1. I liked the lesson very much but it was a little difficult

2. I did not like that we did not get many Romanian flags but I liked everything. I would like that Miss to teach us

again.

3. I liked the lesson because of the questions and the little flags. I would like it simpler.

4. I liked the little book she gave us. Generally, I liked everything

5. I liked everything

6. I liked it very much and mainly all the new things I learned.

7. The teacher was very good and I liked the lesson. I liked it more than the usual lesson.

8. I liked the little flags and that the teacher was friendly.

9. I liked the lesson it was interesting.

10. I liked that she gave us little flags for the correct answers and that we learned about Romania.

11. I was enthusiastic to learn about Romania. I didn't know anything about it.

12. I liked everything but I didn't understand the English very well. The lesson was perfect.

13. I liked what was said.

14. I liked the colourful printed book.

15. The lesson was very good.

16. I liked the lesson because I learned something about another country.

17. I didn't like that we talked only about Romania.

18. I liked everything

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES C2

1. I didn't like it and I didn't understand the English.

2. I liked it very much because the teacher talked to me nicely and I learned new things.

3. I liked that I learned new things.

4. I liked it very much.

5. I didn't like what we did on the board. I liked what we did with the animals.

6. I liked it because I learned new things.

7. I didn't understand some animals.

8. I liked it because I learned many new things.

9. The lesson was perfect.

10. I liked everything except that when we were holding the cards.

11. I liked that we had a flag.


13. The teacher could talk a little Greek so that I could understand.

14. I liked that we talked about animals.

15. I liked everything. It was perfect.

16. I liked everything. It was fantastic.

17. It was very nice.

18. I liked everything.


20. It was perfect.

21. I liked that I learned things about Lithuania.

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES D2

1. I liked that they gave us many things

2. I liked that They gave us masks and certificates

3. I like English but I don't like too much English

4. I liked the videos and the games very much.

5. I liked the video about the butterflies.

HISTORY C1

1. I liked it because we drew.

2. I liked the activities.

3. I don't like English.

4. The lesson was fantastic because we did crafts

5. I liked that we did a lot of activities and had fun.

23

6. I liked that we glued a lot of nice things.

7. We lost five minutes and then two more but it was worth it. Still, we spent most of the time talking about

mythology and cartoon heroes.

8. I liked it because we did some collage.

9. It was quite easy for me.

10. I liked the lesson very much.

11. I liked it very much because we did the collage.

12. The best lesson so far.

13. I liked that we drew and had fun.

14. I don't have anything to write.

15. I liked the lesson and the teacher was very good and beautiful. I liked the drawing most of all.


17. I liked it very much especially the drawing .

18. I liked it because I made things.


HISTORY C2

1. I liked the teacher because he was helping and nice to us.

2. I didn't like the photocopy we had to do but I liked the video we watched.

3. I liked that we did activities.

4. I liked that we did activities and that the teacher was helpful. I like History.



7. I liked the lesson because we learned many new things with a new teacher and in another classroom.

8. I liked the game and that I won.

9. I liked that we cut and glued.

10. I liked the bingo game.

11. I liked it very much because we played a game.

12. I liked everything because they were interesting

13. I didn't like it.

14. I didn't like the video but I liked all the rest.


16. I liked that the lesson was in groups.

17. I liked it very much and I would like to do it again.

18. The lesson was a little difficult but it was funny.

19. What I liked very much was that I learned about Czech myths.

HISTORY D2

1. I liked that I participated and said words they found interesting.

2. I liked that I learned how the celebrate in Lithuania.

3. I liked it very much.

4. I liked the teacher and the food very much.

5. I liked that they showed me some real things.

6. I liked the teacher and the food very much.

7. I liked all the lesson.

8. I liked the song.

9. I liked that they gave us some food.

10. I liked that we tasted some food.

11. I liked the food.

PHYSICAL EDUCATION D2

1. I liked all the lesson except for the twisting because I got dizzy

2. I liked all the things and I liked the dance a lot.

3. I liked that we danced a different dance.

GEOGRAPHY E1

1. I liked the lesson very much and also that the teacher gave me the flags of Romania and Greece.

2. I liked that she showed us a nice and interesting PowerPoint about Romania and that I learned things I didn't know.

3. I liked that we talked about animals, plants and volcanoes. I liked the photocopies and the similarities and

differences between Greece and Romania.

24

4. I liked that we made questions and what we did on the board.

5. I liked what we learned about Romania. Also the teacher spoke comprehensible English and this helped me a lot.

The lesson was simple and entertaining.

6. I liked the puzzle and that we learned new things about Romania.

7. Everything was amazing. That we learned new things about Romania and that we talked about our similarities and

differences

8. I liked the puzzle, the flags we made, the true or false, the video we watched and that we learned so many things

about Romania

9. I liked that we learned new things about Romania, the true or false and that we answered without knowing anything

about it.

10. I liked the method of the lesson.

11. I liked that the teacher was so good and friendly. The puzzle at the beginning was perfect.

12. I would like to know more about their city.

13. I liked the activities and the photocopies very much and all the things we learned.

14. The teacher was friendly and good.

15. I liked the puzzle about Romania.

16. I liked it the way it was.

17. I liked the teacher very much. I would like to do it again. I also liked the PowerPoint about Romania

18. I liked the puzzle and the quiz.

19. I liked the activities.

20. I liked the puzzle, the true and false and the little flags.

21. I learned a lot of things about a new country.

22. The teacher was perfect and I didn't know all these things about Romania.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION E1

1. I liked that we learned new things about Christmas in the Czech Republic.

2. The lesson was very nice because we learned new things.

3. I liked that we learned how Christmas is celebrated in the Czech republic.

4. I didn't like that we didn't play any game.

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION E2

1. I liked it very much because it was easy, nice and the teacher was very good. It was a very nice lesson.

2. I liked that we drew in small groups. I didn't like that we didn't have much time.

3. It was the best lesson.

4. I liked the group activities.

5. Everything was super,

6. I liked that we talked about the religions.

7. I liked the drawing we did and the PowerPoint. I learned many things.

8. Everything was perfect.

9. Everything was perfect. I wouldn't change anything.

10. I liked what we drew very much.

11. Everything was perfect.

ICT ST2

1. I liked that despite the problems we had with our codes and were all very friendly and helpful.

2. I liked that we played on the computers.

3. The English was a little difficult because it contained new words but generally it was nice.

4. They spoke very nice and clear English. I enjoyed the lesson. I wish they could stay more.

5. I liked the lesson. It was simple enough. I liked everything.

6. I liked the teacher who was very funny and the interesting programme.

7. I didn't like that it was a ready task. We just copied and added to it without trying a lot. Miss Jo was very friendly

and it was a great lesson.

8. I liked that the teachers were friendly and explained everything until we could understand it. I also liked that we

learned by playing on the computer.

9. The teacher was very fresh and very good. The only thing I didn't like was the programme because it was too long.

10. I liked the lesson. Miss Jo was very funny but she had a sore throat. I liked that I played with Scratch but I was

frustrated because the programme wouldn't run. The lesson was good.

11. I liked that they were close and helped us a lot. I liked the lesson, it was very nice.

12. It was great. Perhaps, one of the best experience in this school. We could have gone to the yard and play with the

teachers to show them our school.

13. I didn't understand much because it was difficult, too much English. I liked that the teachers tried to make the

lesson comprehensible.

25

14. I wish the teachers would stay longer and teach us more.

15. I liked that we had some teachers from other countries.

16. I liked the teacher that taught us very much because I did some ICT instead of something else.

17. I liked that we played on the computer. I didn't like that I couldn't understand some things.

SCIENCE ST2

1. I liked that we drew and learned new things.

2. It had too many difficult words.

3. I liked the lesson. I wish they could stay more.

4. I liked that we learned things by playing on the computer and that the teachers were friendly.

5. It was simple enough.

6. I liked the teacher's work.

7. The teacher was very good.

8. It was very nice and interesting.

9. It was very nice.

10. The lesson was nice and funny.

11. It was a little boring but nice.

12. I liked the lesson.

13. It was entertaining and I liked the last activity very much.

14. I liked the teacher and that we drew.

26

Appendix C

Quest partners' questionnaire

- What is your gender?

MALE FEMALE

- What is your age?

under 25 25-29 30-35 36-40 41-45 46-50 50+

- What is the highest level of formal education that you have completed?

University degree

Masters of Arts (MA) or Science (Msc)

Doctor of Philosophy (Phd)

Other (please state which) ___________________________________________________

- How long have you been working as a teacher?

1st year 1-2 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+

- Have you ever worked as a CLIL teacher? YES NO

- If YES for how long and what was the content? _________________________________________

What was the name of the subject you taught? ___________________________

What was the grade of the class you taught? ___________________________

1. The number of learners in the classroom was the appropriate.

2. I achieved the learning outcomes.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

SUBJECT AND TEACHING

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Neither agree nor disagree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree


PARTICIPANT'S QUESTIONNAIRE

These questions concern you, your education and teaching experience. In responding to the questions please mark the appropriate box with an X.

These questions concern the subject you taught and the assessment of your teaching.

Strongly agree

27

3. I used time well.

4. I was helpful.

5. I created an effective learning environment.

6. I maintained good relationship with learners.

7. I encouraged participation and interaction.

8. I was well prepared.

9. My presentation skills were good.

10. I used adequate ICT tools.

11. The classroom was well equipped.

12. Students’ attitude towards my lesson was positive

FURTHER FEEDBACK

Disagree Strongly disagree


Strongly agree

Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree


Strongly agree

Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree


Strongly agree

Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree


Strongly agree

Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree


Strongly agree

Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree


Strongly agree

Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree


Strongly agree

Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree


Strongly agree

Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree


Strongly agree

Agree Disagree

Strongly disagree


_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________

________________________________

Please add any other comments concerning the subject, learners, facilities, teaching etc.

Strongly agree

Agree

28

Appendix D

Joint Staff Seminar questionnaire

Joint Staff Training Seminar

''Promoting CLIL implementation in Europe'' ERASMUS+ project

Thessaloniki, Greece, 26 November 2016

EVALUATION FORM

Dear Participant,

We hope that you have found the Joint Staff Training Seminar organised by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

and the 3rd Experimental Primary School of Evosmos informative and useful.

We would be most grateful if you could provide us with your valuable feedback.

1. The event helped me increase my understanding of CLIL implementation

Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor

disagree


2. The event enriched my perspective on CLIL learning and teaching


disagree


Institution/Authority: ______________________________________________

29

3. I am going to use ideas and information presented at this event in my context


disagree


4. The information presented at the event is of relevance to policymakers in my country


disagree


5. The length of speeches was adequate


disagree


6. The time allocated for discussion was adequate


disagree


7. Please rate the quality of the presentations you attended during the event

Excellent Very

good

Good Satisfactory Poor

“CLIL in Greece: the case of the 3rd experimental

primary school of Evosmos”.

CLIL Implementation in the Italian context and from an

International school perspective.

“Early Foreign Language Learning and CLIL in Saules

Gojus".

“Cambridge School Of Constanta- Unity in Diversity”.

“CLIL in the Czech Republic”.

“CLIL: From Europe to Greece”.

8. Please rate the quality of the discussions held during each session

Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Poor

30

9. Please rate the quality of the event as a whole

Excellent Very Good Good Satisfactory Poor

Comments:

Please feel free to provide further comments / suggestions on the event as a whole:

Thank you for taking the time to fill out this questionnaire.

Documents

Promoting CLIL implementation in Europeclilprime.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/QUESTIONNAIRE_REPOR… · 1 Promoting CLIL implementation in Europe: Learners' and guest partners