, The French team,  created an intellectul output centering on the impact that participation in the project had on Students' self esteem

Circuit Sesame School Partnership

Circuit Sesame Team

December  2016

Intellectual output O2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                 

 Abstract

The purpose of this research project was to evaluate the impact of Circuit Sesame KA201 Erasmus plus partnership had on students participating in the project. Circuit Sesame was the focus of the research but the team looked at the general impact Erasmus plus had on participating schools.

The success of the project was referenced to the criteria explicitly stated in the application process and the impact it had on developing the key competences established by the European commission.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents    

 

Introduction                                                                   page4

Key Findings                                                                page 5

Recommendations                                                    page 14

Methodology                                                              page 15

Literature revie                                                           page 25

Research Questions                                                   page 38

Analysis of Responses                                               page 48

Conclusions                                                                page 61

References                                                                  page 68

Appendices

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Summary: The Value of Erasmus KA 2 School Partnerships within the specific content of Circuit Sesame

 

 (Erasmus Intern report   2016)

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

 This intellectual output was undertaken to identify the value that Erasmus KA2 international school partnerships bring to students, teachers, schools and the wider community.  It was based upon an evaluation framework developed by the coordinating school to assess the outcomes and impact of school partnerships on the attitudes, and identifies key drivers within the current educational landscape. The framework is used to evaluate to what extent Comenius school partnerships are deemed successful. 

 The study has three stages:

1)Attitudes regarding partnership with peers across Europe, Knowledge of each other’s countries  and communication skills both in a second language and in their mother tongue.

2)The Physical fitness of participants and

3)The professional development of staff involved in the partnership.

The study aims to providing the  context for international school partnerships and identifying areas where such partnerships can deliver school improvement.

Analysing Erasmus  quantitative and qualitative data  in order to evaluate the programme against the project aims,  the current educational context and the global school partnership landscape, using the ‘successful  school partnerships standard’.

Key findings 

 

1. The collection of data from the  before and after questionnaires (developed by teachers in the coordinating school) identified Circuit Sesame in particular. but following supporting studies in partner schools involved in more than one project identified Erasmus plus in general as an effective vehicle to support the delivery of three major education initiatives: 

1.1. Developing students’ competence  with the necessary skills to live and work in a global economy 

1.2. Improving the fitness of participants

1.3Improving the professional Development opportunities of teachers , particularly inexperienced teachers or trainees.

 

1.1Developing students’ competencies with the necessary skills to live and work in a global economy 

 

The  Directorate of Lifelong Learning identified eight key Competences , within the framework of the Education and Training 2010 Programme. A European working group of experts created a reference framework to identify key competences that are necessary for successful functioning in the knowledge society and economy.

The 2001 European Commission’s document A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning has defined 4 “basic skills” areas: IT skills, foreign languages, technological culture, entrepreneurship and social skills. This was the basis on which subsequent studies and researches have made it possible to define 8 areas of expertise needed to live actively in the knowledge society.

In December 2006, the Council and the European Parliament approved the Recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning.

1. Communication in mother tongue

 2. Communication in foreign language

 3. Mathematical competence and basic competences in science and technology

 4. Digital competence

 5. Learning to learn

 6. Social and civic competence

 7. Sense of initiative and entrepreneurship

 8. Cultural awareness and expression.

 

These goals acted as a key driver for Circuit Sesame for all five participating nations but our project  includes:  Raising awareness of global issues,  Promoting tolerance of and an appreciation of different beliefs, cultures and backgrounds, Improving relationships between different communities.

 

A recent report by the EU highlighted the fact that 61% of employers ‘perceive shortfalls in international cultural awareness among school and college leavers’.  Their report clearly indicated that business leaders see global education for young people as vital if the EU is to compete in the global economy.

 

1. Improving Student Fitness

 

In evaluating the benefits of participation in the project from a physical perspective We looked at the activities carried out in each of the school and also looked at the latest educational research carried out on exercise in schools and found compared to what extent our project provided opportunities  for teachers to implement the findings, in PE lessons and beyond.

 

Academic advantages

There is a growing body of research that links physical activity to improvements in achievement. Studies from the universities of Strathclyde and Dundee, for example, found that 

intensive exercise boosted the performance of teenagers in English, maths and science.

This is partly because physical activity improves brain function. Games that are unpredictable and require problem-solving may also boost executive functioning(the skills that help the brain to organise and act on information), which can transfer to academic tasks.

But these benefits don’t just happen; Schools need to devise physical activity programmes that are carefully planned and delivered. The implementation of circuit sesame allowed a vehicle for teachers of Physical Education, Mathematics, Craft , mother tongue and foreign languages to collaborate in a project which provided an enriching cross curricular opportunity to deliver a range of physical activities which are appropriate to students who start from diverse benchmarks.

Researchers  associated with two of the partner schools in the project introduced the Fit 4School  programme and the duke of Edinburgh Award programme to increase the pupils’ physical health and mental alertness.

It became apparent that students engaged in Circuit Sesame or in at least one other fitness sessions resulted in energised students and boosted engagement in lessons. The empirical evidence for this was collated by plotting academic progress over a 12 month period based upon students benchmark starting levels and comparing these with the progress made by students who did not participate in international activities or dedicated fitness improving programs

By including mapping, navigational or cultural  activities into Circuit Sesame qualitative evidence produced by teachers indicated that “They (students)  are always focused on moving around the space, working on different activities and equipment,”  Our key stage 3 results improved dramatically over the course of the  year. That is down to good teaching of course  but also because we’ve created a really positive learning environment that incorporates physical activity.”

 

In  addition to academic improvements, Circuit Sesame  also had a positive impact on behaviour. The 2015 evaluation of attitudes issued to all students by the coordinating school indicated the  project sport makes a positive contribution to behaviour.

This corresponded to the results of research carried out by educational researchers from the UCLA ¹  who found that linking Academic outcomes with physical activity beyond lessons improved classroom behaviour. Hoods-Truman says that since her school began providing at least two hours of PE a week, the children are more tolerant of one another and work better in groups.

Participation in Circuit Sesame  have also been shown to increase the sense of connection young people feel with their school. Kevin Barton, executive head of achievement for the Youth Sport Trust, says this is because PE can make children feel wanted. He says: “The thing that leads to poor behaviour is kids not feeling any ownership of what they are doing and not feeling part of anything.“Sport can really help people to feel like part of a team. That may sound really obvious, but it is missing from a lot of young people’s lives.”

PE can also be an opportunity to develop resilience and independent learning skills. Graham Mallen, a PE and psychology teacher at Manor School Sports College in Northamptonshire, uses the instant video motion analysis tool Coach’s Eye in his lessons, and has seen skill levels increase as a result. He says the main benefit is that students can see what they are doing wrong and independently work out how to improve it by discussing with a partner or comparing their video with footage of professional athletes.

Gender gaps?

One of the noticeable features of circuit Sesame is the equality of participation between the genders. A study for the Women’s Sports and Fitness Foundation says that more than half of girls are put off by PE classes and that only 12% of 14-year-old girls get enough physical activity each week – whereas twice as many boys do. Researchers found that girls want to be active and healthy, but often feel that they don’t have a suitable outlet. This project does give girls the opportunity to engage in physical activity. Research published earlier this year by the French Government Equalities Office claims that girls lose motivation to play sport after the age of seven, frequently as a result of self-consciousness and loss of confidence. Perception is a common problem, with many girls considering boys’ sports to be “rough”, while boys believe that girls lack skill. Girls dislike playing in the cold, researchers found, preferring sports that can be played indoors, such as netball or swimming. The lack of female sporting role models also had a negative impact.

It is an aim of the project when it continues beyond the completion to better motivate girls to take part.  Evidence indicates that  The student-teacher relationship and social aspect is a motivator,, so positive interactions are important.

The range of circuits created by the various partners created  challenges for the talented and the less talented.

 

1.3 Providing professional development for teachers

The overall drive to raise standards of achievement in education is predicated on raising the quality of teaching. Wilshaw, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector in England, leads ‘with a drive to improve the quality of teaching, because good teaching is at the heart of a good education’. Preliminary analysis by the UK National Agency of the Erasmus schools’ final reports in 2016 for 2 year KA2 School only partnerships which commenced in 2014  rated the projects highly for its impact on staff development, which included increased:

• leadership and management skills 

• pedagogical expertise  

• staff motivation

• knowledge and understanding of other countries and cultures.

 

2. The extent to which erasmus partnerships demonstrate success 

A detailed evaluation framework aligned with the ‘successful school partnerships standard’ is used to assess the Comenius programme’s outcomes and longer-term impact. To what  extent has  Circuit Sesame  partnerships demonstrated success 

 

A detailed evaluation questionnaire aligned with the ‘successful school partnerships standard’ was used to assess the  programme’s outcomes and potential longer-term impact.

 The analysis provides strong hints about the extent to which Circuit Sesame was successful. Using the evaluation framework, the programme is very good, and in some respects excellence, at delivering an effective school partnership.

 

The impact of the partnerships on:

a. learners is excellent: 83.4% of the partnership coordinators rated this area highly. The main areas include increased global awareness, motivation and self-confidence and critically an improvement in Self esteem

b. staff is very good: 74.9% of the partnership coordinators rated this area highly. The main areas include professional development, acquisition of knowledge and development awareness, and support for reflection and learning.

c. Other schools and on the local communities is at present less noteworthy.  A multiplier event is scheduled for June 2017 but the report provides recommendations to improve this area of impact. The families of students who hosted their childrens’ partners reported a high degree of satisfaction in general, however UK school policy meant that UK students were unable to truly engage in close relationships with their guests.

 

 

Evaluating the Erasmus programme against the ‘successful school partnerships standard

 

 

 

 

 

 

Circuit Sesame  demonstrate a close alignment with the ‘successful school partnerships standard’.  

1. The Circuit Sesame programme’s criteria for successful school partnerships align closely with the constituents identified in the ‘successful school partnership standard’ that is based on a wide literature review. Seventy-four per cent of the programme’s measurement indicators of outcomes and longer-term impact match in some way those of the ‘successful school partnerships standard’.

2. Circuit Sesame achieves highly, with over 86% of the participants’ reports meeting or exceeding the programme’s required standard. The criteria for the programme’s standard align closely with those identified in the ‘successful school partnerships standard’.

 

 

 

 

 

4. Recommendations 

 

Detailed analysis of the lessons learned, as identified in the reports, provides the basis for a number of recommendations that include:

 • Further developing leadership and management skills by, for example, embedding effective self-assessment that is capable of incorporating the other partners’ views

• Widening external support by, for example, strategic level so that schools can partner with branches at a local level.

• Ensuring greater sustainability by, for example, involving larger and more diverse teams in developing the partnership.

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘The partner schools have further committed to recognising their place in the global community and have renewed their  commitment to the international dimension. Either through an extension of the Franco Spanish link or the possible extension of  Anglo Dutch links

Viewing the ‘successful school partnerships standard’ as a series of cogs enables the dynamic nature of partnerships to be captured. The spaces between the cogs define the quality of the partnership environment. The standard allows a comparison between ‘apples and pears’ to be made, so that the following can be mapped and cross-referenced:

 

 

 

 

 

 Introduction Literature Review

 

As the European education systems evolve to meet the demands of a post austerity, post brexit, post industrial Europe,  one of the emerging requirements, for what Harris (2012, p. 14) calls our ‘24/7 generation’ of learners, is the acquisition of social skills and awareness of difference, so that they can engage in effective intercultural dialogue and work in a global economy as propounded by the DLLL (2004).  A growing body of researcher,  for example Byram, Kühlmann, Müller-Jacquier and Budin (2004) and Ewington, Reid, Spencer-Oatey and Stadler (2012), argues that the skills for intercultural collaboration can be presented as a framework of competences.  In order for these competences to be translated into dynamic learning, Ewington et al. (2009, p. 8) urge that the skills require practice and those participating should ‘test out the knowledge they have acquired’.  Reid, Stadler and Spencer-Oatey (2009) concur that people build understanding through experiences, and one way for students actively to learn the skills required for intercultural effectiveness and to develop cultural awareness is through international1 partnerships.  This viewpoint is endorsed by Bourn and Hunt’s (2014, p. 16) research, which indicates that there is ‘considerable value in some form of first hand experience through an international partnership or link’. 

The aim of this intellectual output is to assess to what extent circuit sesame has met these challenges.

 

We have done this in twostages.  Initially we will identify what makes a successful international partnership, for reasons of data availability we will look closely at Comenius and E Twinning  as a bench mark standards against which school partnership programmes can be evaluated. 

 

The second stage is to establish to what extent the outcomes from school partnerships in the Circuit Sesame match those goals established in the application process and to what extent our partnership identified and addressed the key competences set out in 2015. 

 

Determining what we mean by successful is a complex issue that is related to context, however we have decided that the project’s success is to be judged by the opinions of the  stakeholders, which is to include the schools and their communities and the agencies managing the programme.

 

 Not all school partnerships are beneficial for all parties.  Some, as Burr (2007) points out from her research, have the potential to be extremely damaging, since some poorly conceived links actually confirm prejudices rather than confront stereotypes.  Global School Partnerships (GSP) (2007b), a programme funded by UKaid from the Department of International Development, asserts that school partnerships should model good practice in order that pupils may have the opportunity of becoming more culturally aware and more able to function effectively in a multicultural environment.

 

Collectively the coordinators from the partner schools have undertaken  literature review is to identify the qualities for successful, multicultural partnerships from the viewpoint of each of the diverse partners

Second we have looked at how transferable our work is for use by other schools and other institutions, to what degree are our outputs usable by schools or organisations who are not actively engaged in this partnership

The review is used to define terminology, for example outputs, multiplier events, mobilities and outcomes.  It reveals some common criteria for successful school partnerships.

 These are used as the basis for the evaluation of  success criteria based on data from the EU funded school linking programme, Erasmus plus  is mapped.

 

The mapping exercise in which the student self assessment  questionnaires responses consists of an appraisal of the transferability of the standard from theory into practice.

 

2. Background: understanding context

 

Tolerance, openness and broadmindedness are the core qualities embodied in Europe. This statement is a quote the European Convention on Human Rights, first signed by Members of the Council of Europe in 1950.  This early and most important treaty was designed to prevent the atrocities of the Second World War ever re-occurring.

These core qualities of tolerance, openness and broadmindedness are qualities which have to be learned.  To instill these qualities in young minds, we as teachers and educators need to ensure our students  practise, develop and revisit them routinely in the course of their educational experiences.

Embedding skills by working in a multicultural environment and experiencing life in a different country, with different foods, languages, and beliefs is, a fundamental cornerstone of developing the ability to celebrate difference.  Senge (1990, p. 23) warns that there is a ‘core learning dilemma that confronts organizations: we learn best from experience but we never directly experience the consequences of many of our most important decisions'.  It is the formative feedback that is imperative for learning.  Thus practising being tolerant or broadminded in one’s own culture may provide challenge, but working in an international environment, where there are differences in beliefs, lifestyles and traditions, offers other and often greater challenges.  Therefore while one’s own immediate environment (including home, school and local community) may provide feedback to support learning, working in settings (including international ones) that have ‘first-order consequences in marketing and manufacturing’  may not provide the opportunity for such feedback.  Therefore, early learning in the classroom of intercultural skills and understanding is paramount.

 

“The battleground of the twenty-first century will pit fundamentalism against cosmopolitan tolerance. In a globalising world, where information and images are routinely transmitted across the globe, we are all regularly in contact with others who think differently, and live differently, from ourselves. Cosmopolitans welcome and embrace this cultural complexity. Fundamentalists find it disturbing and dangerous. Globalisation lies behind the expansion of democracy,  ...paradoxically it exposes the limits of democratic structures…”

The ability to manage effective multicultural partnerships is increasingly important in the global world and consequent upon this is the need to provide an education that equips young people to live and work in a global economy.So if we  aim at developing students into global citizens, who value diversity and social justice, but who also have the skills to think critically, to challenge inequalities, to argue effectively, and to resolve conflicts and negotiate peace.

 

As the interconnectedness of our world becomes increasingly apparent, it is essential that those involved in international trade need to be good communicators, flexible, open, self aware, have a proficiency in a language and have good cultural understanding and a high self esteem

High aspirations at EU level need to be matched by  the abilities of its citizens,  and  ‘human beings must adapt their individual cultural experience to operate in an international environment’. Already Brexit has shown the risk of local insularity, and researchers in Britain have highlighted the fact that 61% of employers ‘perceive shortfalls in international cultural awareness among school and college leavers’.

 

 This underlines the need for opportunities for students to develop an understanding and respect for difference.  Partnerships in learning, as advocated by the Erasmus programme, are one way of developing the knowledge, skills and understanding necessary in a global economy.  Throughout Europe a number of well-established school, college and university partnership programmes are available

A major concern for those managing educational partnerships is that they may not always be positive experiences for all concerned.  It appears that some poorly conceived partnerships may: ‘close minds instead of opening them promote pity and sympathy for those in the poorer country, rather than empathy with them, they can  focus on differences, with too little recognition of a common humanity or cultivate paternalistic attitudes and feelings of superiority or fail to examine global issues of inequality and injustice’.

During the evaluation of the contributions from students involved in E Twinning partnerships between schools in France UK, Tunisia, Azerbijan and Albania  found that perceptions of each other’s cultures were:

‘sometimes thoughtful and well reasoned, but far more often they were simplistic and shallow; unexamined stereotypes and one-time personal experiences expressed as (and understood by the author to be) universal truths.’

 

Not only can working outside the ‘home’ environment confirm prejudices, it can also result in serious problems.  For example, Marginson’s (2010) research considered the outcomes for overseas students who took the opportunity to participate in long term student exchanges between Northern and Southern Europe  focused on the security of those students who were studying outside their own country, and undertook 200 interviews at 11 Swedish universities with students from 35 countries.  He identified some startling issues: 

‘Almost half of the international students interviewed said they had experienced cultural hostility or prejudice. A large proportion of interviewees had been abused on the street or on public transportation. In such cases, they had no process whereby they could claim rights and seek redress.’

(Marginson, 2010, p. 2)

The lasting damage of such experiences is significant.  Marginson argues that human rights should not ‘stop at the border of any country’ (2010, p. 3).  De Nooy and Hanna’s (2003, p. 75) research into Swedish students’ experiences of studying in italy similarly confirms that not all aspects of intercultural exchanges are positive:

‘But whilst time in Italy undeniably encouraged personal growth and increased knowledge of aspects of French language and culture, striking intolerance and misunderstanding of French patterns of information distribution produced or reinforced a persistent negative stereotype.’ 

De Nooy and Hanna (2003, p. 75)

Andreotti (2006, p. 162) issues a warning that the ‘reproduction of an uncritical ‘missionary’ or ‘civilising’ feeling in relation to the Global South [..] reproduces unequal power relations and obstructs cross-cultural dialogue’ since it ‘discourages individuals’ willingness and openness to engage with difference’. 

It is clear from the works cited above that multicultural collaboration can result in lasting damage.  Reid et al. (2009, p. 4) point out that it is the ‘high risks of mishandling intercultural interaction’ that have ‘prompted the development of a substantial literature both on perceived cultural differences and on the competencies that might be acquired to deal with this challenge’.  At the same time as these competencies are being developed it is important to identify and evaluate the constituent parts that make a good partnership for all concerned. 

 

The erasmus programme

The student assessments that review the  change of opinions, skills  knowledge  and self esteem levels of students involved in circuit Sesame suggest that the project  advanced  a knowledge-based society’ and showed its potential for students tobe able to benefit from a  ‘high performance, innovation and a European Dimension in related systems and practices’

 

The role of Circuit Sesame is to address the ‘teaching and learning needs of all those involved, students, teachers and local communities. 

 

opportunities for all areas of education so that greater understanding and co-operation prevail within Europe. 

The European Commissions’ goals (2014) for the Erasmus programme are to:  ‘Improve and increase the mobility of pupils and educational staff across the EU;  Enhance and increase partnerships between schools in different EU Member States, with at least 3 million pupils taking part in joint educational activities by 2020;   Encourage language learning, innovative ICT-based content, services and better teaching techniques and practices;  Enhance the quality and European dimension of teacher training;   Improve pedagogical approaches and school management.’

Circuit Sesame has covered all levels of these key competences  opening up mobility opportunities for students’ mobilities. (The UK school has used project management funds to buy passports for several students who had never travelled abroad and who were viewed as disadvantaged and at risk of alienation from school) , the project was an active agent for the acquisition of intercultural and language skills.  It included staff, students and local bodies, such as local councils, representatives of parents’ associations, national agencies , teacher training institutes and universities. This involvement was seen to include students on long term placements from the University of Frankfurt, The University of Tallinn and University of Valencia, institutions which were outside of the scope of the project.

Encouraging teachers and learners to participate in partnerships across Europe is seen as one way of developing greater social cohesion throughout Europe.  Opportunities for school staff to develop their professional skills  are another way the programme pursues its aims.  One of the programme’s guiding principles is to build greater understanding between European schools and institutions in order to develop a more cohesive Europe. 

Circuit Sesame comprises three broad  strands: school partnerships between schools in the EU; professional development for school staff; and placements of European trainee teachers as Erasmus Assistants in host schools.

 The programme’s activities are informed by the Lisbon Strategy  which is a  key education-related policy initiative at European level.  The Lisbon Strategy, enacted in March 2000, was intended to make the EU ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ by 2020 (European Council, 2000a, p. 3).  The European Council (2000a) concluded that in order to respond both to the challenges of globalisation and to the need for economies to be knowledge-driven

 

European drivers for international school partnerships

The Council of the European Union (2011, p. C 70/2) in its conclusions on the role of education and training in the implementation of the ‘Europe 202026’ strategy stresses the importance of ‘improving the responsiveness of education and training systems to new demands and trends, in order to better meet the skills needs of the labour market and the social and cultural challenges of a globalised world.’  There is the acknowledgement that the European public must be informed about development issues in order to be able to engage critically with global development.  This is necessary both to support development policy but, more importantly, to participate in creating the future relationship between Europe and the rest of the world.  As Reid et al. (2009, p. 11) point out from their research:

‘Although some individuals may have innate abilities, or prior experience, that make it easier for them to work with cultural diversity, the overwhelming message of the literature is that specific competencies need to be acknowledged and developed’.

The Council of the European Union (2010a, p. 137/7) had earlier recognised the importance of promoting and supporting ‘greater participation of learners from disadvantaged backgrounds, or those with special needs, in transnational mobility schemes, partnerships and projects’.  The opportunity to travel to different countries and share in partnerships and projects when at school is very important because, as Reid et al.(2009, p. 11) indicate, the ‘first step in developing intercultural effectiveness is simply to be aware that cultural diversity exists and thus to take steps to anticipate it through preparation’.  The need for schools to work together across different countries is further emphasised by the European Union’s Education for Sustainable Development proposals (Council of the European Union, 2010b, p. 327/13) that promote:

 ‘networking between educational institutions on the issue of ESD, making optimum use of existing networks and strengthening cooperation on ESD at all levels by building partnerships, including by encouraging [..] national and cross-border cooperation among schools’ 

These compelling drivers from Europe are backed by substantial funding for educational partnerships through a variety of programmes, including Comenius, Erasmus and Leonardo da Vinci, as part of the Lifelong Learning Programme, and others, such as the Europe for Citizens and Youth in Action.

The European Centre for Global Interdependence and Solidarity 27, also known as the North-South Centre, has as one of its objectives the promotion of global education practices through shared learning of global education fundamentals, which incorporates collaborative partnerships between the Council of Europe’s member states and Southern countries.  Although, this does not solely focus on school partnerships, opportunities are provided to showcase and learn from successful school partnerships, for example through the World Aware Education Awards.

 

 

 

 

 

The Erasmus KA2  programme

The practitioner assessment criteria used to evaluate the theoretical standard are those applied to the outputs and outcomes of school partnerships in the Erasmus programme. The overall vision for European Commisions Erasmus programme to aid ‘the development of the [EU] Community as an advanced knowledge-based society’ (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2014, p. 46) as part of establishing Europe’s position as a world-class player in education and training.  This aim is to be achieved by the promotion of ‘high performance, innovation and a European Dimension in related systems and practices’ (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2006, p. 49).  The role of the Erasmus programme is to address the ‘teaching and learning needs of all those [i.e. including the institutions and organisations providing such education] in pre-school and school education up to the level of the end of upper secondary education’ (European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, 2006, p. 50).  The  European Commission, is charged with widening participation in education, ensuring equity and delivering excellence.  It provides opportunities for all areas of education so that greater understanding and co-operation prevail within Europe. 

 

The value of Erasmus school partnerships  

The European Commissions’ goals (2014) for the Erasmus programme are to:  ‘Improve and increase the mobility of pupils and educational staff across the EU;   Enhance and increase partnerships between schools in different EU Member States, with at least 3 million pupils taking part in joint educational activities by 20106;   Encourage language learning, innovative ICT-based content, services and better teaching techniques and practices;   Enhance the quality and European dimension of teacher training;   Improve pedagogical approaches and school management.’ (European Commission, 2011)

The programme, covering all levels of school education from early years to colleges for further education, is an agent that supports the acquisition of intercultural and language skills.  It includes not only staff and pupils, but also local education authorities, representatives of parents’ associations, non-governmental organisations, teacher training institutes and universities.  Encouraging teachers and learners to participate in partnerships across Europe is seen as one way of developing greater social cohesion throughout Europe.  Opportunities for school staff to develop their languages, to shadow European colleagues and engage in in-service training are other ways in which the programme pursues its aims.  One of the programme’s guiding principles is to build greater understanding between European schools and institutions in order to develop a more cohesive Europe. 

As described in an earlier study (Cook, 2011), the programme comprises three broad decentralised strands: school partnerships between schools in the EU; professional development for school staff; and placements of European trainee teachers as Erasmus Assistants in host schools.  The programme’s activities are informed by the Lisbon Strategy (European Council, 2000a; European Council, 2000b; European Council, 2007), which is a  key education-related policy initiative at European level.  The Lisbon Strategy, enacted in March 2000, was intended to make the EU ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ by 2010 (European Council, 2000a, p. 3).  The European Council  concluded that in order to respond both to the challenges of globalisation and to the need for economies to be knowledge-driven, the EU should devise reform programmes for several related areas, including the education system.  In the subsequent years this overarching reform agenda has served as the main reference for many related policy initiatives in fields such as teacher education, school cooperation and lifelong learning. Recent policy has provided new drivers7 for school partnerships.

 

 

 

3. Appraising literature to define terminology and inform methodology

This literature review does not rely on a discrete body of knowledge, but rather encompasses a wide range of disciplines, for example educational theory (Godoy et al., 2008; Grigorenko, 2008; Serpell, 2008), business management, organisational theory (Senge, 1990), intercultural behaviour (Byram et al., 2004; Reid, 2009a) and development education (Bourn, 2008a; Bracken and Bryan, 2010). 

In an approach similar to that adopted by Reid (2009b, p. 3) in which he synthesised ‘theory and evidence from a number of fields in order to propose a practical model of learning’, this study constructs a model based on a review of literature. However, the outcome will not be a series of competences, but rather a standard rooted in theory and practice against which international school partnerships can be evaluated.  The literature review will not only assist in defining some of the terms used in the research, but will also provide an understanding of outcomes from earlier studies that can be used to inform the methodology for this study and assist in the framing of the research question.

3.1 Structuring the literature review

The way in which a literature review is to be structured, Boote and Beile (2005, p. 3) declare, is a key decision that needs to be taken at the beginning of any study, since a ‘substantive, thorough, sophisticated literature review is a pre-condition for doing substantive, thorough sophisticated research’. These authors point out that without gaining an understanding of the literature in the field it is not possible for the research to be ‘cumulative’, which they describe as  ‘building on and learning from prior research and scholarship on the topic’ (Boote and Beile, 2005, p. 4).  In this current study the review is used to develop a theoretical standard and the structure of the literature review and the manner in which the bibliography has been selected are highly important factors. A poorly conceived literature review will result in an unrepresentative standard. 

The impact of school partnerships has only recently been the focus of critical evaluation.  In 2006 a small consortium was commissioned by the Directorate of Lifelong learning to undertake a research project to evaluate the impact of school partnerships from both the UK schools’ and the partners’ perspectives.  As indicated by the authors of the final report,  Bobek et al. (2009b, p. 31), at that time there was ‘little – in fact, no - research literature on international school partnerships’.  Their literature review, as described in their first year’s report (Edge, Freyman and Ben Jaafar, 2008), indicates that they had included areas covering educational reform, including school improvement and leadership, local authority reform, and north- south partnerships in general.  This was the first study of its kind and constitutes what Hart (1998) describes as the ‘relevant, key landmark’ (p.219) study.  Since 2008, other works, such as Ewington, Reid, Spencer-Oatey and Stadler (2009), Leonard (2008) and Martin (2008), have been written about school partnerships and some further research (Bourn, 2011; Edge et al., 2010a; Reid, 2009a) has been undertaken, but the quantity of relevant literature remains small.  

A bibliographical analysis was used to identify a range of relevant material for this study.  As Sanchez (1998) indicates, this can be done in three phases.  The first phase involves the construction of bibliographical lists that are obtained from books dealing with the subject. Reports were included at this stage.  The second phase entails identifying relevant journals and searching abstracts of journal articles.  The third phase applies to theses and conference papers.  A fourth phase was added that entails scrutinising the bibliography of relevant courses.  The searches for the documentation in each phase involved:  electronic databases, such as those provided by the European Union, (European Shared Treasure, Valor European Union Eurostat,  Institute of Education via the ProQuest platform, such as the British Education Index,  and ERIC . Search engines such as Microsoft Academic Search, Google Scholar and JANET32, the UK’s education and research network scrutinising websites, such as those on Think Global33 and pursuing materials referenced on those sites.

The references associated with each document or online article were logged and checked to identify any new sources.  These in turn were skim read and their references were noted. Several programmes engaging in international school partnerships were identified and the literature associated with these programmes was scrutinised.  Materials, such as unpublished MA dissertations, theses, conference papers, online articles and web-based tools were identified, as well as journals, reports, books and three online courses.  All these were used, as Hart (1998, p. 31) suggests, in the ‘construction of a map of the literature’ that enabled the ‘operation of a non-partisan stance’ to be adopted.

 

3.2 Clarifying terminology

Baker (2011, p. 199) points out that ‘languages are adapted and shaped to the needs of the individual’.  The way in which we individually construct our understanding is dependent upon our context.  As Baker suggests, language ‘influences our perception of the world but it does not restrict it’ (2011, p. 198).  However, our ability to share the nuances of our individualised interpretations is both influenced by and limited by our language proficiency, and it is this limitation that may lead to misunderstandings.  Vygotsky’s (1978) work on social development theory demonstrates the fundamental role that social interaction plays in constructing meaning.  For him, psychological tools, such as language and writing, emanate from context and culture, and are used to mediate the social environment.  Not only do these tools have to be learned, internalised and practised, they are fundamental in the development of cognition  Language is both a liberator and an inhibitor, and in the case of a study such as this one, defining meaning is paramount in order to avoid arguments that revolve around the detail of the language used rather than the methodology applied and the outcomes achieved.

Clarifying ‘successful’

The first term to be clarified is ‘successful’, which in this study is limited to school partnerships and is intended to be a universal approbation.  As indicated in the above discussion, the construction of an understanding of what ‘successful school partnerships’ means is dependent on its context and the theoretical perspective adopted.  Andreotti (2006) uses a post-colonial perspective to articulate her discomfort at the aims of certain school links, whereas Bourn (2008b, p. 14), from a development education theoretical perspective, looks at the ‘relationship between learning, action and social change’.  A number of the reviewed works,  refer to successful partnerships, but do not clarify what this actually means and from whose perspective. 

Referring to the application form submitted by the French Coordinating school, success demands

 

• Commitment to an equal partnership
• Commitment to partnership learning through the curriculum
• Effective communication
• Good whole-school practice in Education for Global Citizenship’.
• Improved Fitness of students
• A raising of the students’ self esteem
• Creation of  brochures to be shared with local municipalities regarding cycling or walking circuits which not only outline cycling routes but also demand a deeper understanding of additional academic disciplines. 
• A sustained partnership which continues beyond the scope of the funding.

This list provides an insight into what the authors of Circuit Sesame regard as positive outcomes. However we also need to map what we regard as successes with the underpinning philosophy of Erasmus plus regards as a success.

To what extent do our project outcomes match the required outcomes  of kills and knowledge needed for success in life .

Collectively during discussions between the partners suggest that we see their partnership as being successful because the agreed objectives have been met but also  because of unanticipated unplanned outcomes, such as the development of friendships or the development of new pedagogical skills.  Since the social context affects the way in which the partners and the other stakeholders, such as parents, community members and funders, construe the word successful, if one group involved in the partnership does not rate it as successful, then overall can it be seen as such.

 

There is no system of weighting applied to the participants and stakeholders.  They are all equal. It is helpful to consider Agence France’s  definition of a successful link, which is one that:

  ‘increases knowledge and understanding of global issues broadens and deepens knowledge about other countries develops friendships and feelings of solidarity with others enables us to learn about self in relation to others  strengthens the local community and challenges narrow and distorted ideas about other races and cultures’.

These are pointers for success.  However, Agence France’s  guidance, based on practical experience, is aimed at supporting successful European relationships. It is not an evaluation framework, and therefore it cannot be said that partnerships that do not exhibit these characteristics are not successful.  

The Erasmus programme’s measurements of success are its outputs, outcomes, its impact, sustainability and ability to create resources available to other actors.  Success in terms of outputs relates to meeting specific targets for which the project can be held to account, for example the numbers of mobilities. The intellectual outputs (in this case brochures, mobile web site, twin space and research into students attitudes)   Success, in terms of outcomes, is dependent upon fulfilling the objectives defined in the grant application form submitted three years previously.  The which The partners’ final meetings focus on the match between the proposed and the actual outcomes

 

Clarifying input, output and outcomes

It is important at this stage to define the terms, output, outcomes and impact used above. 

 

Hard Output Is for the terms of this study

Soft Output    these were the levels of raised self esteem, confidence, engagement, communication skills sociability and employability gained by students. What was deemed as important was whether the participation in the project made an impact.  So even in the case of a student who started from a low bench mark, we sought to determine the level to which we saw an improvement. Like wise, individuals who started from a position of being particularly skilled in these qualities was also expected to demonstrate progress.

Intellectual Output The participants argued long and hard over what constituted an intellectual output, the national agencies of each of the partners also showed huge divergence in how an intellectual output was interpreted. Ultimately the French school is the coordinator so the French National agencies interpretation has been accepted as being the defining benchmark. In short, the intellectual output should be an extensive piece of work which can be used by other actors existing beyond the project.

Multiplier Event A Multiplier is a presentation given to parties beyond the project which share the project outputs.

Mobility A mobility is an event where parties of students are taken to visit a partner school for the express purpose of developing the project outcomes.

 

In the latter parts of the project we determined that our project needed to evaluate

A  the implementation of the project as determined by the outputs

B:   outcomes that are attributable to the project

C: assessment of impact after the project has been completed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                    

 

At each key evaluation point the criteria for success are likely to be different, but the definition of ‘successful partnership’ given above still applies; provided it is perceived by all parties to be successful, then it should be deemed to be so.  To summarise, defining the term ‘successful’ in the context of school partnerships relies on the practical rather than the theoretical, and relates to a favourable outcome for all.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarifying ‘Self Esteem’

 

Self-esteem is how we value ourselves; it is how we perceive our value to the world and how valuable we think we are to others. Self-esteem affects our trust in others, our relationships, our work – nearly every part of our lives. Positive self-esteem gives us the strength and flexibility to take charge of our lives and grow from our mistakes without the fear of rejection. Following are some outward signs of positive self-esteem:

 • Confidence

• Self-direction

• Non-blaming behavior

• An awareness of personal strengths

• An ability to make mistakes and learn from them

• An ability to accept mistakes from others

• Optimism • An ability to solve problems

• An independent and cooperative attitude

• Feeling comfortable with a wide range of emotions

• An ability to trust others

• A good sense of personal limitations

• Good self-care

• The ability to say no

 

These appear self evident truisms, however these were issues which were not fully agreed upon without questions. The English partner believed the phrase should be Self EsteemS. Ie the pursuit of a blanket raising of self esteem was neither possible nor desireable.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clarifying Key Competencies

 

PISA AND THE DEFINITION OF KEY COMPETENCIES In 1997, OECD member countries launched the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), with the aim of monitoring the extent to which students near the end of compulsory schooling have acquired the knowledge and skills essential for full participation in society. Driving the development of PISA have been:

● Its policy orientation, with design and reporting methods determined by the need of governments to draw policy lessons;

● Its innovative “literacy” concept concerned with the capacity of students to analyse, reason and communicate effectively as they pose, solve and interpret problems in a variety of subject matter areas;

● Its relevance to lifelong learning, which does not limit PISA to assessing students’ curricular and cross-curricular competencies but also asks them to report on their own motivation to learn, beliefs about themselves and learning strategies; and

● Its regularity, which will enable countries to monitor their progress in meeting key learning objectives. PISA assessments began with comparing students’ knowledge and skills in the areas of reading, mathematics, science and problem solving. The assessment of student performance in selected school subjects took place with the understanding, though, that students’ success in life depends on a much wider range of competencies. The OECD’s Definition and Selection of Competencies (DeSeCo) Project, which is summarised in this brochure, provides a framework that can guide the longer-term extension of assessments into new competency domains.

At the heart of the key competencies were

Moving beyond taught knowledge and skills

Reflectiveness – the heart of key competencies

Combining key competencies

2Using Tools Interactively

3Use language, symbols and texts interactively

4Use knowledge and information interactively

5Use technology interactively

Interacting in Heterogeneous Groups

1Relate well to others

2Co-operate, work in teams

3. Manage and resolve conflicts

Acting Autonomously

1Act within the big picture

2Form and conduct life plans and personal projects

3. Defend and assert rights, interests, limits and needs

Informing methodology

Two studies provided significant input for the methodology.  The first is the work by Edge and her team (Edge and Freyman, 2009a; Edge, Freyman and Ben Jaafar, 2008; Edge, Freyman and Lawrie, 2009b).  As discussed earlier, this work was the first attempt to evaluate global school partnerships, both in quantitative and qualitative terms.  The research arose out of the need to demonstrate the outcomes of school partnerships in an environment in which sceptics, were becoming increasingly vocal about the damaging impacts that partnerships can cause. 

This piece of research evaluates  one school partnership within a number of different school partnership programmes, and encompasses schools in the UK 38, in eight African nations 39 and three Asian countries40.  The study’s large scale quantitative survey of 800 schools in the UK and 800 in Africa and Asia, coupled with its qualitative study of 55 school-level partnerships makes it unique in this field of research.  By means of interviews, focus groups and observations, the research team (Edge, Freyman and Lawrie, 2009b, p. 108), ‘drew out the shared story of the partnership’ and mapped the ‘emerging patterns that have built momentum and a track record of success’.  Using six partnerships they developed criteria for what they call ‘high momentum’ partnerships (Edge, Freyman and Lawrie, 2009b, p. 108).  These criteria have been refashioned using the literature review to form a starting point for the development of the theoretical standard.

The second study is a more recent impact assessment of global school partnerships by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) (Sizmur et al., 2011).  Once again this was large scale study for the UK Department for International Development.  The NFER research involved 8,519 pupils and 284 teachers in the four UK nations.  The integration of the mixed method approach, involving survey and case–study data, has informed the methodology of this study, and the concepts underpinning the factor scales developed by the NFER team have been taken into consideration when developing the qualitative

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research Questions

 

There are two research questions for this study:

1. What are the indicators of a successful school partnership?

2. To what extent does Circuit Sesame demonstrate success? 

The first question incorporates the development of a theoretical standard based on a review of current literature and the second question aligns the outcomes from the Erasmus KA201 school partnership programme with that standard.

 What are the indicators of a successful school partnership?

This apparently simple question encompasses a range of complex issues, such as the interpretation of success from different perspectives of a range of stakeholders and in different contexts.  The term stakeholder is intended to cover all partners and any organisation involved that is providing support, whether that be funding, professional development, or guidance. 

 ‘Is there a dominant transnational school orthodoxy’, this first research question asks whether there is a dominant transnational orthodoxy for successful school partnerships?  This overarching question will be broken down into other questions, such as: Can a theoretical standard be proposed for successful school partnerships?  If so, can that theoretical standard encompass indicators that are universal for all multicultural partnerships and for all partners in the partnership?  What are the drivers  that provide a rationale for developing successful school partnerships? Do the outcomes identified by the drivers align with the components of the theoretical standard?

 To what extent dis circuit sesame demonstrate success? 

This question provides the structure through which practice can challenge theory.  The question comprises a number of separate aspects that need to be considered: To what extent did the  programme’s indicators of success align with the theoretical standard? To what extent does Circuit Sesame demonstrate an impact on the delivery of the curriculum? What were, if any the perceived obstacles to achieving a successful partnership? And how were the obstacles  overcome?

 

Methods of analysis applied to the Circuit Sesame data

The successful school partnerships standard is used to evaluate the data from the Circuit Sesame questionnaires and the project in general in order to ascertain the extent to which it demonstrate success.  This section falls into four distinct stages:

Use of the literature review to inform the methods and define the context for Erasmus plus KA201 partnerships

Identification of the location of the data and its extraction

Consideration of the nature of the data and the methods used to provide a compilation of variables from the data that can be mapped on to the successful school partnerships standard 

Methods used to evaluate obstacles in the development of successful school partnerships.

 

 Use of the literature review to inform the research methods and to define the context for the partnership 

The research methodology for this stage of the study identifies two distinct areas for consideration.  The first is to evaluate the learning from the literature review in order to inform this study’s research methods.  The second is to set the context for the Circuit Sesame  in terms of the project’s aims and its success criteria.  The latter incorporates the terminology considered earlier in particular, the definition of the term ‘success’. 

Use of the literature review to inform the research methods for Circuit Sesame’s data 

The literature review revealed little to support the process of mapping a programme’s outcomes on to a theoretical standard.  However, scrutiny of the methodology used by Edge et al. (2009b, p. 35) in their extensive study of school partnerships in both the UK and the South, offers some helpful pointers.  Their work demonstrates a pragmatic way of developing the process of analysis.  The authors share the difficulties of collecting and analysing large quantities of information The aims of the Comenius programme

 

The aims of Circuit Sesame is to to meet both the European and  national priorities. This applies to all five schools involved in the programme. The European priorities included:

Addressing the theme of intercultural dialogue

Promoting languages, whether early language learning, multilingual comprehension and/or content and language integrated learning

Enabling persons with a disability or other special needs to take part in the projects

Ensuring that both males and females are equally able to participate in the projects.’

Increasing and widening participation

Encouraging greater exchange of learners, trainees, researchers and teaching staff  in a new area of research that relates

Increasing the development of skills for employment

Promoting the transfer and recognition of qualifications.

 

 

 

Locating the data and its extraction

 

The first series of questions were created by the French Coordinating School and allied themselves to the key competencies identified earlier. There were three preliminary questionnaires which were delivered to every student involved in the project both at an early stage and towards the end of the project.

Intrinsic difficulties with this were not all students participated in every mobility, so in some cases the work was a snap shot based upon one mobility.

Initially there were disagreements between the partners regarding the ethics of some of the questions and problems with the translations of the texts was also apparent. This resulted in certain nuances of interpretation creating differences between students.

The first series of questions reflected level one, two and three attitudes. The questions were outlines below and the response was a simple yes no, rather than a sliding scale

ATTITUDES

SKILLS

 

I can communicate effectively and cope in everyday life in a European / international setting. Tick all boxes that are applicable:

I can collect and organize general information on the partners’ countries.

I am aware of the diversity of languages in the partners’ countries.

I know basic expressions of the working language English in our project.

I can use e-mail to present myself, talk about my hobbies and ask my partners to do the same.

I understand that working in a project is important for my future as a global citizen.

 

Level 2  I can communicate effectively and cope in everyday life in a European / international setting. Tick all boxes that are applicable:

I can collect and organize information on current affairs in the partners’ countries.

I try to learn basic words and expressions in the language of at least 1 partner. ( apart from English).

I am able to use the internet for chats, forums and searches within the common project with the partners.

I participate actively in programs virtually, related to the project, or work face to face.

I can communicate effectively and cope in everyday life in a European/ international setting. Tick all boxes that are applicable:

 

I can explain roughly the history of European integration and comment on it.

I can express my own opinions and feelings, and communicate about them with my partners in the project language.

 

I know how to behave, when I am in a partners’ country, according to general rules of conduct.

I know how to use basic aspects of my international informal learning to support my formal learning.

 

CIRCUIT SESAME - KNOWLEDGE  

 

I am an informed European citizen who can access, process and evaluate knowledge relevant to Europe and the wider world, and act upon it. Tick all boxes that are applicable:

I have basic knowledge of the geography of Europe and a general idea of European history

I have basic knowledge of the geography of my own country

I have basic knowledge of the geography of the partners’ countries

I have a general idea of the history of my own country

I know how friends in other countries communicate with each other, about which topics and can join in

I know sites ( monuments, places of interest etc.) of common heritage in my own country

I know sites ( monuments, places of interest etc.) of common heritage in my partners countries

I know expressions ( traditions, culture etc.) of common heritage in my own country

I know expressions ( traditions, culture etc.) of common heritage in my partners countries

I recognize that I am constantly learning outside of the school environment

I recognize that , meeting my partners, is learning me basic things about their countries

 

 

I am an informed European citizen who can access, process and evaluate knowledge relevant to Europe and the wider world, and act upon it. Tick all boxes that are applicable:

I am an informed European citizen who can access, process and evaluate knowledge relevant to Europe and the wider world, and act upon it. Tick all boxes that are applicable:

 

I have an idea of the variation within Europe per partner country : natural condition, population, language, EU-membership etc.

I know how daily life in a family in at last one of my partners’ countries is structured.

I can find and compare with my partners information from our countries on price level or protection of consumer rights.

I understand that informal learning is important for my formal education.

 

I am an informed European citizen who can access, process and evaluate knowledge relevant to Europe and the wider world, and act upon it. Tick all boxes that are applicable:

 

I know how family and friendship relations in another country work.

I understand concepts as : democracy, citizenship, human rights and other important declarations.

I can find and compare with my partners information from our countries on our national attitude towards selected international topics.

I know how to use basic aspects of my international informal learning to support my formal learning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

One of the key focal points of the project was an evaluation of the extent to which engagement with the project raised the self esteem of the participating students. The team responsible for this intellectual output established the platform in  which the questions were addressed to the same students on four occasions over the lifetime of the project.

 

This methodology relating to this particular small scale action research project was subject to various amendments between the planning and completion of  the enquiry.

• In choosing the same students each time and striving to plot a timeline of progress in which  researchers could identify each students’ progress individually it would have been impossible to maintain any anonymity, this raised doubts about the authenticity of the responses.
• It was argued by some of the partners that in choosing the same students each time, there was a danger that the project would limit its impact to a very small cohort of students.
• Some of the questions regarding self esteem are deeply personal. This led to ethical questions relating to the delivery of the questionnaire. The actual content of the questionnaire was challenged by parents, students and teachers.
• There were some students who moved to other schools because they entered an age range which required they move to a school catering for an older age group.

 

The modified methodology was to issue anonymous questionnaires to all students  before commencing the project’s mobilities  commenced and then issueing the questionnaire to the students who participated in the mobilities.

This overcame the ethical issues and the questions regarding anonymity but caution must be heeded in interpreting the authenticity of the responses. We have battered a compromised with our results.  The data does provide an overview of the students’ sense of self esteem but it will lack precision to be able to monitor the impact on individual students. 

 

 

 

 

10 I think sometimes I am good for nothing                                               1             2            3            4

Analysis of responses

 

I think that I possess a number of beautiful      qualities.
		after Spain	After Italy	After Montarnaud	After Peterlee
Disagree strongly		1	0	0	0
Disagree		3	1	2	0
Agree		21	25	17	20
Agree strongly		99	95	103	100

 

 

These responses indicate that most students started by recognising that they possess positive personal characteristics, but the project did not enhance their self image.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All things considered, I tend to consider myself as a failure		after Spain	After Italy	After Montarnaud	After Peterlee
	1	95	96	94	95
	2	9	10	14	17
	3	16	14	12	8
	4	0	0	0	0

 

I have a positive attitude of myself		after Spain	After Italy	After Montarnaud	After Peterlee
	1	30	14	6	6
	2	39	40	30	29
	3	32	37	42	54
	4	19	29	23	31

 

 

 

Altogether, I am satisfied by me.		after Spain	After Italy	After Montarnaud	After Peterlee
	1	28	9	6	7
	2	39	40	30	31
	3	34	42	42	54
	4	19	29	23	28

 

 

 

 

I would like to have more respect for myself.		after Spain	After Italy	After Montarnaud	After Peterlee
	1	41	22	20	23
	2	39	40	18	29
	3	33	52	41	64
	4	7	6	9	4

 

 

 

Sometimes I feel really useless.		after Spain	After Italy	After Montarnaud	After Peterlee
	1	30	27	32	51
	2	69	74	70	71
	3	21	18	17	19
	4	0	1	1	1

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think sometimes that I am good for nothing		after Spain	After Italy	After Montarnaud	After Peterlee
	1	42	38	41	45
	2	59	64	61	65
	3	19	17	17	19
	4	0	1	1	1

 

 

Overall, this large and wide ranging evaluation of the impact of Circuit Sesame on participants has shown that it has been a successful personal development programme for young people. The results have shown that doing an Erasmus KA2 programme has the potential to support personal development in many ways and that participation has been widely recognised by educational authorities local communities and prospective employers as benefiting young people. There are, however, some areas identified which could be addressed to further enhance the quality and effectiveness of the programmes. The key findings of the report are set out below, under the following headings: - attitudes towards new experiences - personal development - community engagement - physical and mental well-being - employment skills and prospects. Attitudes towards new experiences

 

 Participating in Circuit Sesame gave young people practical skills and new experiences. It also gave them a spirit of adventure; the desire to seek out and engage with new and different activities. This gave them the opportunity to build skills that they may not otherwise develop. The main personal development benefits for young people are: - interpersonal skills to engage with new groups - trying new activities, particularly expeditions and volunteering - building confidence through taking part - making new contacts and knowing more people, especially those who are different to themselves - a sense of achievement

 

For each aspect of personal development considered, those with the lowest starting points are likely to benefit the most from participation in the programme.

 

Building self-esteem and friendships, alongside raising their fitness levels through regular active participation, were considered to be some of the main benefits of participation by participants. Having fun was an important aspect for young people taking part in programmes, and this, combined with support from Leaders and their friendships, keeps them engaged with the project. Thus, the environment where they worked on the project  is significant for encouraging completion of programmes. Young people were asked if they had changed the way they felt about themselves by taking part in Circuit Sesame. The overwhelming answer to this was ‘yes’ and most felt that this change was gaining or building confidence. The benefits for well-being include: - building confidence and self-esteem - building and enhancing friendships and a sense of belonging - learning about themselves and their capabilities - improving team and communication skills - improving resilience and the ability to overcome challenges - getting fitter and healthier.

 

 

Impact snapshots

 

 Young people - 93% feel that participating in Circuit Sesame has helped them to develop teamwork skills - 84% feel that it has helped them develop decision-making skills - 84% feel that it has made them a more responsible person - 82% feel that it has helped them to develop leadership skills - 81% feel that it has made them more adventurous - 80% feel that it has helped them understand their own strengths and weaknesses better - 76% feel that doing it has helped them stick to tasks until they are finished - 71% feel that since starting their programme they believe in themselves more - 67% think  it will  help them achieve their goals in life - 60% feel that it has changed the way they see themselves - 82% feel that participation has made them want to take part in volunteering/ voluntary activities in the future - 87% think it will make them more  attractive to employers - 62% feel that it has helped them make a positive difference to their local community -  76% think their teachers are inspirational.

Tables showing the emerging themes from the attitudes, Skills Knowledge Questionnaire

Positive

Improved social/communication skills and confidence

Increasing interest in language learning

Awareness of global ecological problems

Improved empathy and awareness of diversity

Awareness of the accessibility of Europe

Increased team working skills

Greater knowledge of other cultures

Challenging of stereotypes, gender bias, racism

Students experienced high levels of enjoyment from the activities.

Greater opportunities for self expression through art, dance, music etc

 

Negative

Only a slight increase in IT skills seemed to be reported

Language skills did not increase as much as they could have done due to most partners speaking English

Emerging themes  ‘Impact of the partnership on the teachers/staff’ Positive

Increase in knowledge of new cultures

Increase in pedagogical skills

Opportunities to explore new educational environments

Staff were highly motivated, enthusiastic and committed to the project

Staff willing to learn new languages and skills

Staff had opportunities to learn new ICT skills

Good experience of project management and leadership

Staff cooperated well, both inside their schools and across schools / borders

Pupil motivation and behaviour has improved as a result of the project

Comenius helped teachers plan and deliver cross-curricular activities

Staff enjoyed meeting and building friendships on an international level

Inclusive of students with SEN

 

Positives

Allowed teachers to explore certain aspects of the curriculum in greater depth

Language learning has become tied to cultural understanding

New themes were incorporated into the curriculum (e.g. European Citizenship)

Opportunities to forge cross-curriculum links between subjects

Great cooperation between staff members

Enhanced extra curricular activities

Greater European ‘feel’ to the school

Schools moved more towards sustainable development / understanding of green issues

Some schools added new foreign language programmes  

Encourages younger students to become more interested in MFL

Shared knowledge & best practices between partner schools at a nation and international level

Increased impact on schools’ relationships with parents, families & wider community

Increase of teachers’ & students’ skills (ICT, language etc)

Good involvement of students

 

Negatives

Some schools have relatively inflexible curricula or are legally bound to certain aspects of curriculum prohibiting large scale changes

Positive

Help and support from local businesses, organisations and charities

Local media provided positive press coverage.

Speakers and representatives from local organisations came to the school to give talks/help etc

External agencies provided data and information for various projects

Strong involvement by parents and families

Various Mayors and council officials have offered support for the project

The project has provided a way to challenge racism and prejudice in the wider community

 

Negative

The need for CRB checks as well as socio-economic factors sometimes stopped families (particularly English Students)  from being totally involved in the project

Allowed teachers to explore certain aspects of the curriculum in greater depth

Language learning has become tied to cultural understanding 9 1.4%

New themes were incorporated into the curriculum                60 9.1%

 Opportunities to forge cross-curriculum links between subjects 74 11.2%

Great cooperation / between staff members / management etc     73 26.3%

Enhanced extra curricular activities 13 2.0%

Greater European ‘feel’ to the school / greater links across Europe 78 11.9%

009 Some schools added new foreign language programmes   22 3.3%

Encourages students to become more interested in MFL 51 7.8%

Shared knowledge & best practices between partner schools at a nation and international level

33 5.0%

Increased impact on schools’ relationships with parents, families & wider community   28 4.3%

Increase of teachers’ & students’ skills (ICT, language etc) 13 2.0%

Good involvement of students 24 3.6%

Negative  

Some schools have relatively inflexible curricula or are legally bound to certain aspects of curriculum prohibiting large scale changes   6 0.9%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

The coordinating school and the partnership as a whole was very good at promoting successful international school partnerships, as demonstrated by its close alignment with a standards  for successful school partnerships constructed using a large literature review.  

Key findings arising from the data analysis identifies circuit sesame as an effective vehicle to support two major educational issues.  

 1   Developing a workforce with the necessary skills to live and work in a global economy. 

 2   61% of employers ‘perceive shortfalls in international cultural awareness among school and college leavers’.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusion

The three years of the project saw a number of positive outcomes, from the perspective of students, participation gave them an opportunity to experience life in a different country in a non tourist context.

This in turn gave them the opportunity to widen their horizons and plant a seed for future employability opportunities within the EU.

The activities relating to the project did meet the  European commission’s key competences aims. These were achieved through presenting their schools, their circuits, their regions using a variety of digital, audio visual amd through printed media. The project was juxtaposed with a number of other initiatives, which although unfunded created a symbiotic relationship  with Circuit Sesame. Examples of these were

The Duke of Edinburgh award which allowed students to actively develop skills in Web Design, presentational techniques in digital media, leadership, and expedition planning.

Students participating in the circuit Sesame project received certification through Youth Pass.

Links were established with local tourist providers, the printed circuits were made available to tourist offices in our regions. The UK partner donated the brochures with “Broomley Grange,” The Weardale Activity Centre and Malham Tarn Outdoor field centre. These organisations are designed to provide outdoor activity provision to schools, youth groups and the scout movement for 50 weeks per year. Owing to the number of youth groups from abroad visiting these institutions, the brochures were provided in several languages.    

Widening participation. The UK school opened the project to a number of students who came from backgrounds in which they experienced significant obstacles to participation and who potentially were at risk of early departure from Education. This support included using project management and implementation budget to buy passports for these individuals because they had never benefitted from the opportunity to leave their own county. At present it is too early to evaluate whether this is something which has played a part in maintaining these students’ participation in education.

Youthpass, Students involved in exchanges have been registered with Youthpass as a means of certifying their informal acquisition of skills.

Caveat

The high level of satisfaction expressed by students is a particularly rewarding and satisfying output, however research was unable to determine whether this was a result of students who already possessed positive attitudes and opinions about the project, whose levels of self esteem were already high and  who were already receptive to improving their key competences. These students volunteered themselves to participate in this project. Evaluation of the success on a global scale would require students to be selected randomly and to be involved throughout the project.

 

 

 

Benefits for Teachers

The issue of student participants’ self selection applies equally to the teaching staff. So while there is evidence indicating the positive impact on relationships between students and teachers’ motivation improving as a result of the experience and this in turn transferred itself to the classroom with the net result that the quality of the teaching and learning experience improved. Would the benefits have accrued with the participation of unwilling participants?

For the teachers who were involved, the areas of improvement stemmed from the increase in motivation for teaching. The evidence for this was reported anecdotally by participating teachers. Participating teachers also reported an improvement in their project management skills.

Reported benefits for Teachers:

1.                   Develop personally, professionally and academically.

2.                   Gain vital new skills required for a global economy.

3.                   Broaden your horizons – physically and mentally!

4.                   Acquire invaluable transferable skills.

5.                   Increase motivation to learn.

6.                   Boost your employability (recorded by trainee teachers).

7.                   Develop cultural awareness and open mindedness.

8.                   Enhance self-confidence.

9.                   Have fun!

10.                Gain knowledge in new subjects or in teaching methods.

11.                Improve and gain language

 

 

 

 

Caveat for Teachers

The project was not without difficulties, many of these stemmed from different cultural expectations between teaching staff.  To illustrate this, we will look at what appears a trivial point but it does it reflects cultural problems that needed to be overcome. During transnational meetings some partners were unaccustomed to actually having an extended eat at the table lunch break, they found it frustrating to leave a meeting room for an hour or more  to sit at a table for lunch.  The cultural norm they were familiar with would involve a 30 minute lunch time with sandwiches eaten while the meeting continued. More serious issues involved different cultural norms within the participating schools, These include school policies about teaching staff being allowed out during school time. All schools had the active support of their head teacher and governing bodies, but the mechanics of participation differed from school to school.

Examples of the differences were ;

Discrepencies in the number of teachers being free to participate during term time, some partner schools expected transnational meetings or any meeting not involving students to occur at weekends or during holiday periods.

There were differences regarding which age groups were free to participate, the pressure imposed by national targets and academic policies made it difficult for some age groups to fully engage in the project.   

 

Legal differences

At the heart of circuit sesame was participation in outdoor activities. The legislation, codes of practice or policy in each partner country was different. In some regions, being a qualified Physical Education Teacher allowed teachers to lead outdoor activities, whereas in other partner regions, adults leading a party of children needed a formal outdoor education leadership qualification. Differences in the responsibilities and  expectations from different external providers was also an issue. There is no Europe wide standard on the responsibilities, qualifications or expectations of Adventure Activity providers and accidents in some countries could leave the teacher open to legal action in the event of some problem.

Hosting and accommodation with families, while not absolutely forbidden and it can take place, UK schools are not encouraged to actively participate in hosting or being hosted by families. The reasons for this rest with child safety and equality of opportunity. The child safety is obvious, but the equality of opportunity rests with the belief that students from a position of social disadvantage (not necessarily economic) are  effectively barred from participation if they are expected to host other children in their home.

With the benefit of hindsight, the partnership as a whole should have been more proactive, more tolerant and more understanding in recognising the breadth of the cultural diversity between schools. The project probably would have benefitted from a more open communication network.

The other problem encountered by schools was staffing changes. Both direct participants in the project and indirectly, where school management changes.

 

Professional Development

The involvement of Student Teachers, Erasmus Interns and Erasmus KA1 placements was employed by partners in the project. This was a very positive aspect with no obvious negatives to report. The schools benefitted directly form the assistance of excellent trainees who were firmly committed to the aims and objectives of Erasmus plus. The trainees benefitted from an excellent experience in terms of teaching, project management, development of key competences  and Erasmus itself benefitted from the introduction of a project to teachers of the future.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

African Liaison Program Initiative. (2006). Ensuring Successful Partnerships: a toolkit. Washington: InterAction. Available at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/40876306/ALPI-Partnership-Toolkit. [Last accessed 9.8.2011].

Alcock, H. (2010). What is the impact of training and development within North-Scout educational partnerships with specific reference to the UK DFID Global School Partnership programme. Unpublished Dissertation at Masters' level. Institute of Education London.

Andreotti, V. d. O. (2006). A Postcolonial Reading of Contemporary Discourses Related to the Global Dimension in Education in England. University of Nottingham, Nottingham.

Aronson, J. (1994). 'A Pragmatic View of Thematic Analysis'. The Qualitative Report, 2 (1).

Baker, W. (2011). 'Intercultural awareness: modelling an understanding of cultures in intercultural communication through English as a lingua franca'. Language and Intercultural Communication, 11 (3), 197-214.

Bonnell, J., Copestake, P., Kerr, D., Passy, R., Reed, C., Salter, R., Sarwar, S. and Sheikh, S. (2010). Teaching approaches that help to build resilience to extremism among young people. London: Office for Public Management and National Foundation for Educational Research,

Boote, D. and Beile, P. (2005). 'On the Centrality of the Dissertation Literature Review in Research Preparation'. American Educational Research Association, 34 (6), 3-15.

Bourn, D. (Ed.) (2008a), Development Education Debates and dialogues. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Bourn, D. (2008b). Global Skills. London: Development Education Research Centre, Institute of Education, University of London.

Bourn, D. (2011). International school partnerships - contribution to improving quality of education for all in rural schools in  Uganda. Research Report for Link Community Development. London: Development Education Research Centre, Institute of Education.

Bourn, D. and Hunt, F. (2011). Global Dimension In Secondary Schools. London: Development Education Research Centre, Institute of Education.

Bourn, D., McKenzie, A. and Shiel, C. (2006). The Global University: The Role of the Curriculum. London: Development Education Association.

Bracken, M. and Bryan, A. (2010). 'The reflective practitioner model as a means of evaluating development education practice: Post-primary teachers' self-reflections on 'doing' development education '. [Online]. Policy and Practice: A Development Education Review, 11, 22-41. Available at: http://www.developmenteducationreview.com/issue11. 

British Council. (2009). Comenius School Partnerships Final Report Guidance. London: British Council.

Building Understanding through International Links for Development (2007). Toolkit for Linking: Opportunities and Challenges. Manton, Wiltshire. http://ec.europa.eu/education/policy/school/competences_en

 

 

285620/BPI/PAS/29/A 28 February 2012 C:\Documents and Settings\mar32571\My Documents\NM Work\Comenius\BC Comenius Report v31 NM.docx 6

 

Appendices

he European Commission works with EU countries to strengthen 'key competences' – knowledge, skills, and attitudes that will help learners find personal fulfilment and, later in life, find work and take part in society. These key competences include 'traditional' skills such as communication in one's mother tongue, foreign languages, digital skills, literacy, and basic skills in maths and science, as well as horizontal skills such as learning to learn, social and civic responsibility, initiative and entrepreneurship, cultural awareness, and creativity.

The approach is to promote key competences by:

• providing high-quality learning for all students based on relevant curricula;
• reducing early school-leaving
• increasing early childhood education
• improving support for teachers, school leaders, and teacher educators

What has been done so far

• EU legislation establishing the European framework of key competences

 

• Improving competences for the 21st century: agenda for European cooperation on schools

 

• The European Commission supports a European network on the development of Key Competences in schools

 

• A summary of the policy conclusions of the Commission’s expert group on key competences

• Assessment of key competences: literature review, glossary & examples
• Rethinking education: investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes

 

• Assessment of key competences in initial education & training: policy guidance

 

• Language competences for employability, mobility & growth

 

• Preparing young people for the 21st century: an agenda for European cooperation on schools

 

• Education & training monitor
• Supporting the teaching professions for better learning outcomes

 

• Partnership and flexible pathways for lifelong skills development