promoting clil implementation in europepromoting clil implementation in europe: learners' and...

1

Promoting CLIL

implementation in Europe:

Learners' and guest partners' views

21 - 26 November 2016

Thessaloniki, Greece

2

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 fifth partner (3rd Experimental Primary School

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

approached 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 a number of CLIL lessons, 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, 256 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. Pupils’ questionnaires

The learners' questionnaires were distributed and filled in shortly after the end of each session. These

questionnaires 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.

3

Table 1

Means and standard deviations of the 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 0,83,5 3,5

25,8

22,7

3,1 2,3 0,8 2,0 1,6 1,61,6

5,1 6,7

17,2

8,6

3,1 1,8 3,5

13,39,8 4,3 7,0

10,213,4

5,13,9

19,8

43,2

19,1

31,6

23,426,6 28,5

30,229,5

7,0 5,1

71,6

50,5

75,0

49,6

62,9 64,1 62,151,0 46,9

%

strongly disagree disagree neither agree nor disagree agree strongly agree

4

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 English language and the lessons’ content were

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

more than 90% of them (a) liked the lessons (91,4%) and (b) declared that participated in them (93,7%).

Furthermore, a vast majority of the learners (86,3%) found the lesson to be interesting and hugely 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%) agreed

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 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

5

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

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

agree5

strongly agree5

appropriate number of learners


2

agree9

strongly agree1

achieved learning outcomes

Figure 2

Figure 3

41.66%

41.66%

16.67%

75%

16.67% 8.33%

6

disagree2

agree9

strongly agree1

used time well

strongly agree1

was helpful

Figure 4

Figure 5

75%

16.67% 8.33%

8.33%

91.67%

agree 10

7


1

agree9

strongly agree2

effective learning environment

agree7

strongly agree5

encouraged participation/interaction

Figure 6

Figure 7

8.33%

75%

16.67%

58.33%

41.67%

8

agree10

strongly agree2

good relationship with learners

agree7

strongly agree5

was well prepared

Figure 8

Figure 9

58.33%

41.67%

83.33%

16.67%

9


3

agree7

strongly agree

2

good presentation skills


1

agree9

strongly agree

1

adequate ICT tools

Figure 10

Figure 11

81.82%

9.09% 9.09%

58.33%

16.67% 25%

10

agree6

strongly agree6

well equipped classroom


1

agree5

strongly agree

6

positive students' attitudes

Figure 12

Figure 13

50% 50%

8.33%

50% 41.67%

11

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 and

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 merely a neutral one (neither agreed nor disagreed). Figure 4,

illustrates that once again 83.33% of the teachers agree on something and in this case on the appropriate

management of time in their lessons. However, this statement also mirrors the only negative answers; indeed

there are also two answers (one sixth or 16.67% of the respondents) which show 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) that at some points the lessons were shorter that the

scheduled 45 minute sessions as the learners were a bit late 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 agree that the teachers were 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 presentations 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 how it

was presented. Figure 11 features the high use of ICT tools by the teachers as 90,91% of them deem that

12

they utilised sufficient ICT tools which may also explain the learners' high interest in the lessons underlined

by the results of their questionnaires and comments. Figure 12 with the 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

visiting 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”

“Everything was listening some of them was thinking and speaking aloud their volunteering very well. This

class is definitely the best ever!!Nobody difficult”

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

“I wish I had more time!!”

13

4. Joint Staff Training Seminar questionnaire

On the 26th of November, at the premises of the New Building of the Faculty of Philosophy, at the

Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in Greece, a joint staff training seminar was organized by the two host

members (Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and the 3rd Experimental Primary School of Evosmos) with

the aim of (a) acquainting all the participating members with the practice of CLIL teaching in each country

and (b) disseminating that knowledge to a wider audience that included State School consultants, fellow and

other teachers, and the academic community (other Professors and students). 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 Eurupe to Greece, presented by Associate

Professor Marina Mattheoudakis. At the end of the seminar 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. In total, 41 questionnaires were filled in by secondary and primary schools’

teachers (public and private), university students, visiting partners, representatives of the Regional Director

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

14

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

15

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%) expressing 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

16

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 teachings from the schools while other 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%)

something that mirrors the beneficial impact of all the presentations and their appeal to all the

attendants who could have been more should there not be a bus strike that day preventing most of the

students and teachers from coming to the event.

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.

17

Appendix A

Learners' questionnaire

19

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.

20

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.

21

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.

22

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.

23

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

24

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

25

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: ______________________________________________

26

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

27

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.

promoting clil implementation in europepromoting clil implementation in europe: learners' and...

Documents