tev-081222 -transnationalreport-eseb · 2009. 9. 28. · title: microsoft word - tev-081222...

TEVAL 2 - Innovat

This project has been funded with s

This publication reflects the views o

cannot be held responsible for a

information contained therein.

European

Trainers’

Evaluatio

Transnational Rep

vative Evaluation Model in Teaching and TraininLifelong Learning Innovat

Ref No: LLP/LD

h support from the European Commission.

s only of the author, and the Commission

r any use which may be made of the

pean survey on

ers’ needs regard

ation Report

ining Organisations vation Transfer Project

P/LDV/TOI/2007/PT/16

09

garding

Analysis of training needs on Evaluation

1

I n d ex

Index ...................................................................................................................................... 1

I. Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 2

II. Sample ................................................................................................................................ 4

III. The questionnaire .............................................................................................................. 7

IV. Methodological note .......................................................................................................... 8

V. Analysis of the Results –identification of trainers’ needs in Evaluation................................ 14

PART1. THE LEARNING PROCESS IN THE ORGANISATION ........................................................... 14

PART2. PROFESSIONALISM .......................................................................................................... 18

PART3. NATIONAL CONTEXT ....................................................................................................... 27

PART4. QUALITATIVE DATA - Comments and suggestions from participants ............................. 31

VI. Reflections and conclusions .............................................................................................. 36

Annexes ................................................................................................................................ 40

Survey Transnational Report Lifelong Learning Innovation Transfer Project “TEVAL 2” Innovative Evaluation Model in Teaching and Training Organisations. Ref No: LLP/LDV/TOI /2007/PT/16

Analysis of training needs on Evaluation 2

I . I n t r o duc t i o n

In the scope of TEVAL 2 - Innovative Evaluation Model in Teaching and Training Organizations (2007-

2009), the research team composed by representatives of 7 partner institutions, have conceived and

carried a transnational survey. The project pretends to validate an evaluation model though the

training and experimental application in Lifelong Learning oriented organizations (find more at

www.teval-ii.eu).

The survey was directed to people who work in the field of vocational education and who are in-

volved in the learning process. The aim of the survey was to diagnose professional development

needs in respect of evaluation processes that impact on all those involved in the learning process.

Trainers, teachers and managers were asked to take part in the survey and answer questions regard-

ing their opinions and experience on evaluation, training process and professional development

needs.

The survey was applied in all the partnership countries: United Kingdom, France, Italy, Poland, Ger-

many, Romania and Portugal, resorting to a questionnaire where the ideal situation of trainers to-

wards the requirements needed to perform evaluation procedures was described. In each of the

countries, each partner has created the conditions for the survey and has monitored the results’ col-

lection through the last quarter of 2008.

COUNTRY PARTNER

Portugal

Beja’s Polytechnic Institute/ Higher School of Edu-

cation

www.ipbeja.pt

Germany

Univation – Institut für Evaluation

www.univation.org



France

CREDIJ – Centre Regional pour le Developpement,

la Formation et l’Insertion des Jeunes

www.credij.fr

Italy

FRAREG, s.r.l.´

www.frareg.it

Poland

Europejskie Centrum Zsztalcenia EUREKA s.p,z.o.o

www.eureka.lublin.pl

Romania

Casa Corpului Didactic Dolj

www.ccddj.uv.ro

United Kingdom

Entente UK

www.entente.uk



I I . S amp l e

The survey was conducted among respondents. The group was divided into 2 main categories of

analysis – trainers (including vocational teachers and other practitioners in training) and managers

(people who are responsible for managing training offer and delivery in the training centers), from

different types of teaching and training organizations:

1. Trainers from Initial Vocational Training in Vocational Schools (IVT): trainers and teachers

who specialize in vocational fields and provide training for young people at different levels.

They are mainly trained by the Ministry of Education and work as full-time trainers at

schools. They have academic degrees and are public employees. Within this group were in-

quired trainers from Technical High Schools, Vocational Secondary Schools, and initial train-

ing units (initial professionalizing course).

2. Trainers from Alternative Vocational Training (AVT): alternating vocational training or ap-

prenticeship programmes, including in-job trainers and tutors.

3. Adults’ Trainers in Training Centers (TC): majority are part-time employees, some work full

time for big entrepreneurships as internal trainers. They are mostly employed by private or-

ganizations. The group is very diverse, with various diplomas and qualifications obtained by

the trainers. Within this group also Managers of Training Centres were interviewed.

4. Training managers are professionals carry quality assurance processes in training organiza-

tions, manage human and material resources and give account to public authorities in train-

ing system. Training managers can be people with very different background and experi-

ence, but their tasks and responsibilities are similar in both initial and continuing training.

Survey TransnLifelong Learning Innovation Transfer Project “TEVAL 2” Innovative Evaluation Model in Teaching and Training Organisations. Ref No:

The table below indicates the number of respondents in each category

Country

IVT in Vocational

Trainers

Poland 25

Romania 72

France 9

Germany 26

Italy 25

UK 35

Portugal 12

Totals 204

228

TOTAL

Table1. Distribution of the sample, per

Figure 1. Distribution of global sample

Figure 2. Distribution of global sample

Survey Transnational ReportLifelong Learning Innovation Transfer Project

Innovative Evaluation Model in Teaching and Training Organisations. Ref No: LLP/LDV/TOI /2007/PT/16


The table below indicates the number of respondents in each category.

Vocational Schools Alternative Vocational Train-

ing

Training

training

Managers Trainers Managers Trainers

3 - - 50

4 - - 10

2 27 0 7

3 19 0 34

3 - - 50

5 - - 35

4 - - 23

24 46 0 209

46 251

525

Table1. Distribution of the sample, per country, type of organization and category.

sample per type of employment organization.

sample per professional status.

IVT in Vocational

Schools

Alternative

Vocational

TrainingTraining Centers

for adult training

Trainers

Managers

ational Report Lifelong Learning Innovation Transfer Project

Innovative Evaluation Model in Teaching and Training Organisations.


Training Centers for adult

training

Trainers Managers

7

1

6

0

7

5

16

42



From the whole sample of 525 inquired, in the 7 countries, the distribution shows a balance

between the representation of professionals from IVT in Vocational Schools (IVT) and Adults’

training centers. The representation of Alternative Vocational Training (AVT) is minor, and it

includes just trainers from France and Germany. According to the established methodology,

this fact was already taken in consideration, because targets in this type of training could be

very difficult to reach by the research team or inexistent in those contexts. Although, in

France, the distribution shows that trainers from Alternative Vocational Training were the

most represent in the sample.

In terms of demographic characteristics, most countries showed a similar distribution, per

sex and age average: women are the most represent gender in the sample, with the highest

percent of 67% in Italy. An exception to this case is Germany, where male participants were

more than female – 64% to 36%.

The age average for all the countries got results between 36 (Italy) and 44 (Germany), re-

flecting a gap of only 8 years. In the global sample (n=326, excluding the missing data and

not answered), the average age is 39,7 years. This result reflects a certain level of life and

professional experience of participants who answered.

The following table and figure show the general results of sample demographic features.

Country

Male Female Age average

Number % Number %

Poland 30 35% 55 65% 42

Romania Data missing

France Data missing

Germany* 23 64% 13 36% 44

Italy** 25 30% 50 67% 36

UK 32 40% 48 60% 38

Portugal 17 34% 46 66% 39

Totals 127 40% 199 60% 39,7

Table2. Distribution of the sample, per sex and age average.

* Although the initial sample in Germany involved 69 participants, during the answering process, the team was confronted

with a mortality of 48%, remaining 36 people who did respond to all the questions.

Survey TransnLifelong Learning Innovation Transfer Project “TEVAL 2” Innovative Evaluation Model in Teaching and Training Organisations. Ref No:

** From the sample, n=85, 10 didn’t answered to the gender question.

Figure 3. Distribution of global sample per sex

I I I . T h e q ues t i o nna i r e

The questionnaire used to collect information was based on the Excellence Model, where the par

nership describes the ideal situation of trainers towards the requirements needed to perform

evaluation procedures. The participants should answer about their position in 3 main themes:

I. The learning process in the organisation, effectiveness of teaching (approx. 10 questions)

II. Professionalism: Effectiveness of Training, Planning of Professional Devel

plan their professional development, are there established systems to plan and implement a cu

ture of continuous professional development, do teachers evaluate the influence and impact of

their professional practice on their learners, t

(approx. 10 questions)

III. Evaluation processes in the field, state of evaluation of trainers, relevance of the EQF

framework (approx. 5 questions)

A forth part with nationally focused questions was optional to i

decision of each research team. Therefore, the questionnaire would have a global part common to

each partner (approx. 80%) and a specific part for questions of the national context (approx. 20%).

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Sample

Survey Transnational ReportLifelong Learning Innovation Transfer Project

Innovative Evaluation Model in Teaching and Training Organisations. Ref No: LLP/LDV/TOI /2007/PT/16


** From the sample, n=85, 10 didn’t answered to the gender question.

Distribution of global sample per sex.


The questionnaire used to collect information was based on the Excellence Model, where the par


aluation procedures. The participants should answer about their position in 3 main themes:

The learning process in the organisation, effectiveness of teaching (approx. 10 questions)

Professionalism: Effectiveness of Training, Planning of Professional Devel

plan their professional development, are there established systems to plan and implement a cu


their professional practice on their learners, the organisation and the needs of the community

Evaluation processes in the field, state of evaluation of trainers, relevance of the EQF

framework (approx. 5 questions)

A forth part with nationally focused questions was optional to include in the questionnaire, upon the



Male

Female

ational Report Lifelong Learning Innovation Transfer Project

Innovative Evaluation Model in Teaching and Training Organisations.



The questionnaire used to collect information was based on the Excellence Model, where the part-


aluation procedures. The participants should answer about their position in 3 main themes:

The learning process in the organisation, effectiveness of teaching (approx. 10 questions)

Professionalism: Effectiveness of Training, Planning of Professional Development, do teachers

plan their professional development, are there established systems to plan and implement a cul-


he organisation and the needs of the community

Evaluation processes in the field, state of evaluation of trainers, relevance of the EQF -

nclude in the questionnaire, upon the





Corresponding to each main theme, a set of affirmations should be assessed by the participants, re-

lated to specific competences and activities, according to his perspective. All questions were multi-

ple-choice in a Lickert scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly Agree”. However, if the participant

found that the question was not applicable to his situation or that he had not enough information to

classify the affirmation, a fifth possible answer could chosen, by ticking the square “Cannot answer”.

Strongly Agree Rather Agree Rather Disagree Strongly disagree Cannot Answer

Table3. Answer scale to each of the affirmations in the questionnaire.

In order to collect qualitative information about each of the main themes, the end of each

set of affirmations, the inquired could add comments in an open text box.

I V . Me t hodo l og i c a l n o t e


many, Romania and Portugal. The results were analysed and represented in national reports and

then integrated in a transnational report. As the survey has a regional/national basis for data collec-

tion, each partner has conceived an appropriate approach, taking in account the conditions of the

context, such as: time available, target’s facilities to interact with the research team, target’s moti-

vation to answer surveys, target’s ability to use and access on-line tools …

The survey can be conducted though face-to-face or telephone interviews, paper-pencil question-

naires or diffused though an online- survey.

An online-survey is an internet internet-based form of a questionnaire. Compared with paper-pencil-

questionnaires, online-surveys are regarding the implementation and analysis efficient in terms of

time and costs. Online-surveys can be realised as personalised and anonymous processes. The sur-

vey participation is facilitated though a link, which is placed on webpages, newsletters or mailing

lists.

Within the partnership, this web method was used by 3 of the partners, becoming a relevant

mechanism to collect the achieved results, enlarged to a wider geographical area, than not only the

regions where these partners are based, but the entire national territories: Portugal, Germany and

Italy. Further more, on-line survey also impacted the dissemination of the project, increasing the its



web presence: the survey was not only published by the project team but also by several other or-

ganisations that found it relevant in the scope of their web activities.

Hereby, we present each of the used methodologies, per country.

P o r t u g a l

As a first moment of the survey, the Portuguese team has established a collaboration protocol with

the regional public authority in the field of employment and vocational training – Instituto do Em-

prego e da Formação Profissional, I.P. (www.iefp.pt). As associated partner to the project, this insti-

tute facilitated the involvement of 3 training centres in the entire project. Additionally, a similar con-

tact was done with regional vocational schools.

The representatives of these organisations took part on a pre-test to the questionnaire: evaluation of

adequacy of the tool developed by the partnership to collect the information in Portugal, with the

trainers and managers targeted. The results of this pre-test were presented to Partnership (see An-

nex 1) and the questionnaire was adapted afterwards.

For this survey, ESEB has published the questionnaire on-line, using the tool “Google Spreading

sheets”. The link was e-mailed through a mailing list of contacts, requesting the collaboration of tar-

gets. The contact list included:

- Direct personal contacts from trainers (picked from available databases);

- Institutional e-mails from Training Centres.

- Contacts from Associations, Authorities, Institutes, Networks and other organisations, who

are not directly delivering training but their work is related with improving and developing

the training system (in the case the recruitment e-mail included a note requiring for their col-

laboration in spreading the survey).

When the participants responded on-line to the questionnaire, their answers were directly uploaded

and sent to the research team. This methodology allowed the participation of trainers and managers

from the entire country.

Dissemination Strategies



In order to achieve a larger sample, the request for participation was published in websites

of associated partners, stakeholders and informal groups in the field of Training, Education

and related issues. Involved organisations in dissemination where:

- Associated partners: Instituto do Emprego e da Formação Profissional, I.P. (IEFP, I.P.)/ Institu-

te for Employment and Vocational Training (www.iefp.pt), Conselho Nacional de Formação

de Formadores/National Council for Trainers’ Qualification) (www.elearning.cnqf.pt).

- Stakeholders: Direcção Geral do Emprego e das Relações de Trabalho / General Direction for

Employment and Labour Relations (www.dgert.gov.pt) ; Portuguese Education Ministry

(www.min-edu.pt).

- Profissional and civic associations in the topic: Associação de Formadores profissionais

(www.aformadores.com); Associação Nacional de Jovens Formadores e Docentes

(www.fordoc.com).

- On-line groups/forums: Forma-te – Trainer’s Portal (www.forma-te.com), InFormar – Portal

de Informação/ Information Portal in Training (www.informar.pt); Associação de Formadores

Profissionais (www.aformadores.com).

I t a l y

FRAREG decided to supply the survey using an online tool called LimeSurvey

(www.limesurvey.org), an open source tool. LimeSurvey allows users to quickly create online

question-and-answer surveys that can work for tens to thousands of participants. The survey

software itself is self-guiding for the respondents who are participating. The tool has been in-

stalled in FRAREG server.

The research team e-mailed the link for the on-line survey through a mailing list with contacts

from 101 training organisations in Italy.



Figure 3. E-mail message used by FRAREG to contact target-groups, for the sample in Italy.

U n i t e d K i n g d o m

The survey was conducted using telephone interviews with appointments being made with

agreeable contributors in advance. 30 minutes was allowed for each interview. Selection of

age and sex was random. Data was collected manually with the numerical totals being en-

tered on to this customised Excel sheet for automatic analysis.

G e r m a n y

In Germany, the Project team has chosen to apply the questionnaire as a on-line survey. For the

TEVAL 2 survey an anonymous version has been applied. In this case, the sample is composed at ran-

dom. As the affiliation to a target group cannot be assured, a filter for the different target groups has

been created at the beginning of the online-questionnaire.

The survey participation is facilitated though a link, which is placed on webpages, newsletters or

mailing lists.

Dissemination Strategies

Several dissemination strategies have been used. At first, regional partners (a representative

of the BLBS organisation for technical high school teachers and the regional partner

"Bildungsbüro Köln") have been contacted in order to establish contacts to technical high

school teachers and heads of technical schools.



Secondly, the link has been placed on the following mailing-lists and important websites of

teachers and trainers´ associations:

- Foraus.de: An internet platform for tutors in the field of IVET;

- GABAL Verlag: publishing company in the field of IVET and CVET;

- "Trainertreffen": internetplattform for trainers;

- Jünger Medien: Publishing company in the field of training;

- Zentrale für Unterrichtsmedien/ [email protected]: Mailinglist for technical high

school teachers.

Furthermore, the German version of the survey has been published on the Teval Website

(www.teval-ii.eu).

In order to contact more people, Univation participated in a European Congress for IVET and

CVET organised by the Chambers of commerce and industry. Former project partners in the

field of IVET have been involved.

F r a n c e

It was conducted in collaboration with diverse training centers and technical schools: the Building

apprenticeship training centre of Eure in Evreux, technical high schools in Paris (Raspail, Diderot and

Gustave Eiffel) the technical college Belle Fontaine, the French Local delegations to initial and con-

tinuing vocational training (DAFPIC of Paris and Clermont-Ferrand), the French Institute for Employ-

ment, the Greta network of Ile de France.

The questionnaire, adapted and translated to the French context, was submitted to different VET ac-

tors following two methods:

- Data collection by phoning interviews (around 20 minutes which each person interviewed);

- Questionnaire transmitted by mail, then fulfilled by the interrogated people.

R o m a n i a

For the aims of TEVAL 2, CCDolj had made agreements with 5 regional organizations in vocational

training (“grupul scolar” and “colegiul”, where participating groups where organized. The question-



naires have been applied under the coordination of a project member and for each group of partici-

pating institutions, it was established a contact person as fallowing.

In the period of September-October 2008 was done a pre test on 43 teachers from the 5 groups. The

results’ report was discussed by all partners and the questionnaire was modified accordingly. (see

Annex 2).

The paper questionnaires have been filled during face-to-face meetings with the participants. The

collection and interpretation of the data have made by research team.

P o l a n d

The methodology used by EUREKA was as following:

- VET Teachers in Technical High Schools and High School Managers have been given a

written questionnaire to fill in, in presence appointments.

- Trainers and Managers in Training Companies have been interviewed via telephone. These

interviews resorted to the CATI (Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing) method: 20

minute telephone call with each trainer. All of the respondents were agreed to take part in

the survey earlier. The questions were read out loud by the interviewer, who was collecting

the answers during the conversation and entering them into an Excel file.



V . An a l y s i s o f t h e Resu l t s –i d en t i f i c a t i o n o f t r a i n e r s ’ n e ed s i n

E va l u a t i o n

P A R T 1 . T H E L E A R N I N G P R O C E S S I N T H E O R G A N I S A T I O N

1.2 Is the teaching effective and systematic?

1.1.1. Inspection reports indicate that learning programmes are appropriate to learners'needs.

1.1.1.

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather dis-

agree

strongly dis-

agree

cannot an-

swer TOTAL

Germany1

Values 2 3 2 0 13 20

Percent 10% 15% 10% 0% 65%

Romania

Values 8 59 15 0 5 87

Percent 9% 68% 17% 0% 6%

UK

Values 65 5 0 0 0 70

Percent 93% 7% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 8 25 10 3 5 51

Percent 16% 49% 20% 6% 10%

Poland

Values 9 48 15 5 8 85

Percent 11% 56% 18% 6% 9%

Italy

Values 27 29 19 5 4 85

Percent 32% 34% 23% 6% 5%

France

Values 27 11 10 1 2 51

Percent 53% 22% 20% 2% 4%

TOTAL

Values 146 180 71 14 37 449

Percent 33% 40% 16% 3% 8%

Missing data:

76 76

1.1.2. There is an initial assessment of ability of every learner on entry to the organisation.

1.1.2

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather dis-

agree

strongly dis-

agree

cannot an-

swer TOTAL

Germany

Values 16 10 8 15 7 56

Percent 29% 18% 14% 27% 13% 101%

1 This question is not applicable to trainers in Germany.



Romania

Values 15 57 10 1 4 87

Percent 17% 66% 11% 1% 5%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 9 11 19 7 5 51

Percent 18% 22% 37% 14% 10%

Poland

Values 27 36 17 2 3 85

Percent 32% 42% 20% 2% 4%

Italy

Values 40 15 15 11 4 85

Percent 47% 18% 18% 13% 5%

France

Values 23 20 2 6 0 51

Percent 45% 39% 4% 12% 0%

TOTAL

Values 200 149 71 42 23 485

Percent 41% 31% 15% 8% 5% 100%

Missing data: 40

1.1.3 The initial assessment covers learners' expectations and personal circumstances

1.1.3

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly disa-

gree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 7 13 13 12 11 56

Percent 13% 23% 23% 21% 20%

Romania

Values 5 51 25 3 3 87

Percent 6% 59% 29% 3% 3%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 9 30 5 5 2 51

Percent 18% 59% 10% 10% 4%

Poland

Values 19 39 18 2 7 85

Percent 22% 46% 21% 2% 8%

Italy

Values 25 40 5 5 10 85

Percent 29% 47% 6% 6% 12%

France

Values 16 19 4 8 4 51

Percent 31% 37% 8% 16% 8%

TOTAL

Values 151 192 70 35 37 485

Percent 31% 40% 15% 7% 8% 100%

Missing data: 40

1.1.4 There is a regular schedule of review for every learner.



1.1.4

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly disa-

gree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 8 10 20 11 7 56

Percent 14% 18% 36% 20% 13%

Romania

Values 14 56 13 0 4 87

Percent 16% 64% 15% 0% 5%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 8 29 10 4 0 51

Percent 16% 57% 20% 8% 0%

Poland

Values 15 39 17 11 3 85

Percent 18% 46% 20% 13% 4%

Italy

Values 26 33 4 22 0 85

Percent 34% 39% 5% 26% 0%

France

Values 8 23 10 10 0 51

Percent 16% 45% 20% 20% 0%

TOTAL

Values 149 190 74 58 14 485

Percent 30% 39% 15% 12% 3% 99%

Missing data: 40

1.1.5 Indicators of improvement for the organisation include information on learners' achievement.

1.1.5

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly disa-

gree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 2 11 9 3 5 30

Percent 7% 37% 30% 10% 17%

Romania

Values 9 64 9 0 5 87

Percent 10% 74% 10% 0% 6%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 9 25 8 2 7 51

Percent 18% 49% 16% 4% 14%

Poland

Values 4 41 18 4 18 85

Percent 5% 48% 21% 5% 21%

Italy

Values 51 16 9 9 0 85

Percent 60% 18% 11% 11% 0%

France

Values 5 28 12 4 2 51

Percent 10% 55% 24% 8% 4%

TOTAL

Values 150 185 65 22 37 459

Percent 33% 40% 14% 5% 8% 100%

Missing data:66



1.1.6 Learning outcomes are identified as well as documented.

1.1.6

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly disa-

gree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 10 13 5 0 2 30

Percent 33% 43% 17% 0% 7%

Romania

Values 17 64 4 0 2 87

Percent 20% 74% 5% 0% 2%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 12 27 9 2 1 51

Percent 24% 53% 18% 4% 2%

Poland

Values 33 33 10 3 6 85

Percent 39% 39% 12% 4% 7%

Italy

Values 50 15 6 10 4 85

Percent 59% 18% 7% 12% 5%

France

Values 15 26 9 1 0 51

Percent 30% 51% 18% 2% 0%

TOTAL

Values 207 178 43 16 15 459

Percent 45% 39% 9% 4% 3% 100%

Missing data: 66

1.1.7 Learning outcomes are communicated to learners.

1.1.7

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly disa-

gree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 13 12 3 1 1 30

Percent 43% 40% 10% 3% 3%

Romania

Values 25 55 5 0 2 87

Percent 29% 63% 6% 0% 2%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 24 20 4 3 0 51

Percent 47% 39% 8% 6% 0%

Poland

Values 35 37 5 2 6 85

Percent 41% 44% 6% 2% 7%

Italy

Values 56 15 1 13 0 85

Percent 65% 18% 0% 18% 0%

France

Values 33 16 1 0 1 51

Percent 67% 31% 2% 0% 2%

TOTAL Values 256 155 19 19 10 459



Percent 56% 34% 4% 4% 2% 99%

Missing data: 66

1.1.8 On completion of the learning programmes, an exit strategy is discussed with every leaver.

1.1.8

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly disa-

gree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 9 10 5 3 3 30

Percent 30% 33% 17% 10% 10%

Romania

Values 13 47 19 1 7 87

Percent 15% 54% 22% 1% 8%

UK

Values 65 5 0 0 0 70

Percent 93% 7% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 4 20 13 10 4 51

Percent 8% 39% 25% 20% 8%

Poland

Values 5 23 29 8 20 85

Percent 6% 27% 34% 9% 24%

Italy

Values 26 20 21 18 0 85

Percent 30% 24% 25% 24% 0%

France

Values 7 16 8 14 6 51

Percent 15% 31% 16% 27% 12%

TOTAL

Values 129 141 95 54 40 459

Percent 28% 31% 20% 12% 9% 100%

Missing data: 66

P A R T 2 . P R O F E S S I O N A L I S M

2.1 Are teachers trained and developed effectively?

2.1.1 The training of teachers for their role has been evaluated for effectiveness.

2.1.1.

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 4 13 15 11 6 49

Percent 8% 27% 31% 22% 12%

Romania

Values 18 56 9 1 3 87

Percent 21% 64% 10% 1% 3%

UK

Values 62 8 0 0 0 70

Percent 89% 11% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal Values 6 20 16 6 3 51



Percent 12% 39% 31% 12% 6%

Poland

Values 22 37 15 6 5 85

Percent 26% 44% 18% 7% 6%

Italy

Values 14 30 25 15 0 84

Percent 16% 35% 30% 18% 0%

France

Values 12 17 4 12 6 51

Percent 22% 33% 8% 23% 12%

TOTAL

Values 138 181 84 51 23 477

Percent 29% 38% 18% 11% 5% 100%

Missing data: 47

2.1.2 There is a system or process in place for systematic professional development.

2.1.2

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 4 12 20 7 6 49

Percent 8% 24% 41% 14% 12%

Romania

Values 4 46 22 0 15 87

Percent 5% 53% 25% 0% 17%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 4 18 19 8 2 51

Percent 8% 35% 37% 16% 4%

Poland

Values 26 30 19 4 6 85

Percent 31% 35% 22% 5% 7%

Italy

Values 30 20 10 25 0 85

Percent 35% 24% 12% 30% 0%

France

Values 15 15 8 12 1 51

Percent 29% 29% 16% 23% 2%

TOTAL

Values 153 141 98 56 30 478

Percent 32% 29% 20% 12% 6% 100%

Missing data: 47

2.1.3 The employee appraisal process identifies individual professional development needs.

2.1.3

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 4 10 17 9 9 49

Percent 8% 20% 35% 18% 18%

Romania

Values 11 48 15 1 12 87

Percent 13% 55% 17% 1% 14%

UK Values 70 0 0 0 0 70



Percent 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 7 18 15 9 2 51

Percent 14% 35% 29% 18% 4%

Poland

Values 14 40 20 3 8 85

Percent 16% 47% 24% 4% 9%

Italy

Values 20 37 10 14 4 85

Percent 24% 44% 12% 18% 6%

France

Values 4 23 9 12 3 51

Percent 8% 45% 18% 23% 6%

TOTAL

Values 130 176 86 48 38 478

Percent 27% 37% 18% 10% 8% 100%

Missing data: 47

2.2 Do teachers advance their subject contents and teaching methods?

2.2.1 Teachers monitor curriculum developments in their own subject.

2.2.1

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 4 25 10 1 8 48

Percent 8% 52% 21% 2% 17%

Romania

Values 23 56 4 1 3 87

Percent 26% 64% 5% 1% 3%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 11 28 7 2 3 51

Percent 22% 55% 14% 4% 6%

Poland

Values 44 38 3 0 0 85

Percent 52% 45% 4% 0% 0%

Italy

Values 30 35 10 10 0 85

Percent 35% 41% 12% 12% 0%

France

Values 7 16 7 18 3 51

Percent 14% 31% 14% 35% 6%

TOTAL

Values 189 198 41 32 17 477

Percent 40% 42% 9% 7% 4% 100%

Missing data: 48

2.2.2 Lessons are kept up to date with curriculum developments.

2.2.2

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany Values 6 22 10 1 9 48



Percent 13% 46% 21% 2% 19%

Romania

Values 27 56 2 1 2 88

Percent 31% 64% 2% 1% 2%

UK

Values 65 5 0 0 0 70

Percent 93% 7% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 13 28 3 3 4 51

Percent 25% 55% 6% 6% 8%

Poland

Values 43 40 2 0 0 85

Percent 51% 47% 2% 0% 0%

Italy

Values 41 25 10 10 0 86

Percent 48% 30% 12% 12% 0%

France

Values 25 17 5 2 2 51

Percent 49% 33% 10% 4% 1%

TOTAL

Values 220 193 32 17 17 479

Percent 44% 42% 7% 4% 4% 100%

Missing data: 47

2.2.3 Teachers consider the relevance of current developments to their subject teaching.

2.2.3

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 9 19 11 1 6 46

Percent 19% 40% 23% 2% 17%

Romania

Values 17 64 2 0 4 87

Percent 20% 74% 2% 0% 5%

UK

Values 62 8 0 0 0 70

Percent 89% 11% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 17 27 5 2 0 51

Percent 33% 53% 10% 4% 0%

Poland

Values 32 39 10 0 4 85

Percent 38% 46% 12% 0% 0%

Italy

Values 46 15 11 13 0 85

Percent 52% 18% 12% 18% 0%

France

Values 14 23 6 2 6 51

Percent 27% 45% 12% 4% 12%

TOTAL

Values 197 195 45 18 20 475

Percent 41% 41% 9% 4% 4% 100%

Missing data: 50

2.2.4 Teachers research best practice in programme design and delivery.



2.2.4

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 7 21 9 4 7 48

Percent 15% 44% 19% 8% 15%

Romania

Values 17 61 7 0 2 87

Percent 20% 70% 8% 0% 2%

UK

Values 58 12 0 0 0 70

Percent 83% 17% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 11 32 5 2 1 51

Percent 22% 63% 10% 4% 2%

Poland

Values 25 37 17 1 5 85

Percent 29% 44% 20% 1% 6%

Italy

Values 41 15 8 21 0 85

Percent 48% 18% 6% 25% 0%

France

Values 22 22 4 0 3 51

Percent 43% 43% 8% 0% 6%

TOTAL

Values 181 200 50 28 18 477

Percent 39% 42% 10% 6% 4% 100%

Missing data: 48

2.2.5

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 4 10 10 2 3 29

Percent 14% 34% 34% 7% 10%

Romania

Values 12 67 5 0 3 87

Percent 14% 77% 6% 0% 3%

UK

Values 58 12 0 0 0 70

Percent 83% 17% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 13 26 8 3 1 51

Percent 25% 51% 16% 6% 2%

Poland

Values 30 40 8 0 7 85

Percent 35% 47% 9% 0% 8%

Italy

Values 45 17 5 18 0 85

Percent 45% 25% 6% 21% 0%

France

Values 9 32 7 2 1 51

Percent 18% 62% 14% 4% 2%

TOTAL

Values 171 204 43 25 15 458

Percent 37% 44% 9% 6% 3% 100%

Missing data: 67



2.2.6

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 5 8 10 2 4 29

Percent 17% 28% 34% 7% 14%

Romania

Values 16 57 9 0 5 87

Percent 18% 66% 10% 0% 6%

UK

Values 58 12 0 0 0 70

Percent 83% 17% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 14 25 7 2 3 51

Percent 27% 49% 14% 4% 6%

Poland

Values 25 46 11 0 3 85

Percent 29% 54% 13% 0% 4%

Italy

Values 45 30 10 0 0 85

Percent 53% 35% 12% 0% 0%

France

Values 24 18 4 3 2 51

Percent 47% 35% 8% 6% 4%

TOTAL

Values 187 196 51 7 17 458

Percent 41% 43% 11% 2% 4% 100%

Missing data: 67

2.2.7 - Teachers set

realistic targets for

the development of

their teaching

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer

TOTAL

Germany

Values 3 16 5 3 2 29

Percent 10% 55% 17% 10% 7%

Romania

Values 18 55 7 0 7 87

Percent 21% 63% 8% 0% 8%

UK

Values 0

Percent

Portugal

Values 14 30 4 2 1 51

Percent 27% 59% 8% 4% 2%

Poland

Values 30 45 6 0 4 85

Percent 35% 53% 7% 0% 5%

Italy

Values 0

Percent

France

Values 16 23 7 3 2 51

Percent 31% 45% 14% 6% 4%

TOTAL Values 81 169 29 8 16 303



Percent 27% 56% 10% 3% 5% 100%

Missing data: 222

2.3.1

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 4 18 18 2 6 48

Percent 8% 38% 38% 4% 13%

Romania

Values 26 55 5 0 1 87

Percent 30% 63% 6% 0% 1%

UK

Values 50 20 0 0 0 70

Percent 71% 29% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 14 24 9 2 2 51

Percent 27% 47% 18% 4% 4%

Poland

Values 25 43 8 2 7 85

Percent 29% 51% 9% 2% 8%

Italy

Values 35 30 15 5 0 85

Percent 42% 35% 18% 6% 0%

France

Values 15 25 3 4 2 49

Percent 29% 49% 6% 8% 4%

TOTAL

Values 169 215 58 15 18 475

Percent 36% 45% 12% 3% 4% 100%

Missing data: 50

2.3.2

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 6 26 8 1 7 48

Percent 13% 54% 17% 2% 15%

Romania

Values 11 53 10 0 13 87

Percent 13% 61% 11% 0% 14%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 9 24 11 4 3 51

Percent 18% 47% 22% 8% 6%

Poland

Values 25 41 9 1 9 85

Percent 29% 48% 11% 1% 11%

Italy

Values 35 30 11 9 0 85

Percent 41% 35% 13% 11%

France

Values 22 17 11 1 0 51

Percent 43% 33% 22% 2% 0%



TOTAL

Values 178 191 60 16 32 477

Percent 37% 40% 12% 4% 7% 100%

Missing data: 47

2.3.3

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 5 17 18 3 5 48

Percent 10% 35% 38% 6% 10%

Romania

Values 18 54 7 0 8 87

Percent 21% 62% 8% 0% 9%

UK

Values 70 0 0 0 0 70

Percent 100% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 9 24 12 2 4 51

Percent 18% 47% 24% 4% 8%

Poland

Values 42 31 3 2 7 85

Percent 49% 36% 4% 2% 8%

Italy

Values 25 40 5 15 0 85

Percent 29% 47% 6% 18% 0%

France

Values 16 24 5 5 1 51

Percent 31% 47% 10% 10% 2%

TOTAL

Values 185 190 50 27 25 477

Percent 39% 40% 10% 6% 5% 99%

Missing data: 47

2.4.1

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 1 5 21 11 10 48

Percent 2% 10% 44% 23% 21%

Romania

Values 5 51 22 1 8 87

Percent 6% 59% 25% 1% 9%

UK

Values 0 5 60 5 0 70

Percent 0% 7% 85% 7% 0%

Portugal

Values 4 13 21 6 7 51

Percent 8% 25% 41% 12% 14%

Poland

Values 10 22 38 6 9 85

Percent 12% 26% 45% 7% 11%

Italy

Values 10 20 30 25 0 85

Percent 12% 24% 35% 29% 0%

France Values 5 3 11 23 6 48



Percent 10% 4% 22% 53% 11%

TOTAL

Values 35 119 203 77 40 474

Percent 7% 25% 43% 16% 8% 100%

Missing data: 51

2.4.2

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 11 13 10 4 10 48

Percent 23% 27% 21% 8% 21%

Romania

Values 4 25 29 4 25 87

Percent 5% 29% 33% 5% 29%

UK

Values 0 70 0 0 0 70

Percent 0% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 10 21 10 4 6 51

Percent 20% 21% 10% 4% 6%

Poland

Values 6 17 36 12 14 85

Percent 7% 20% 42% 14% 16%

Italy

Values 30 35 6 14 0 85

Percent 18% 29% 9% 15% 0%

France

Values 1 6 13 24 6 50

Percent 2% 14% 25% 47% 12%

TOTAL

Values 62 187 104 62 61 476

Percent 13% 39% 22% 13% 13% 100%

Missing data: 48

2.4.3

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 1 6 16 17 8 48

Percent 2% 13% 33% 35% 17%

Romania

Values 11 28 31 2 15 87

Percent 13% 32% 36% 2% 17%

UK

Values 65 5 0 0 0 70

Percent 93% 7% 0% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 1 13 24 5 8 51

Percent 2% 25% 47% 10% 16%

Poland

Values 7 25 29 6 18 85

Percent 8% 29% 34% 7% 21%

Italy

Values 14 24 27 15 4 84

Percent 18% 29% 29% 18% 6%

France Values 3 2 12 29 5 51



Percent 6% 4% 24% 57% 10%

TOTAL

Values 102 103 139 74 58 476

Percent 21% 22% 29% 16% 12% 100%

Missing data: 47

2.4.4

strongly

agree

rather

agree

rather disa-

gree

strongly

disagree

cannot

answer TOTAL

Germany

Values 5 9 10 7 17 48

Percent 10% 19% 21% 15% 35%

Romania

Values 0 18 32 3 34 87

Percent 0% 21% 37% 3% 39%

UK

Values 0 60 10 0 0 70

Percent 0% 86% 14% 0% 0%

Portugal

Values 4 12 21 4 10 51

Percent 8% 24% 41% 4% 8%

Poland

Values 4 22 24 12 23 85

Percent 5% 26% 28% 14% 27%

Italy

Values 10 29 13 15 18 85

Percent 12% 35% 16% 18% 21%

France

Values 1 6 11 16 17 51

Percent 2% 12% 22% 31% 33%

TOTAL

Values 24 156 121 57 119 477

Percent 5% 33% 25% 12% 25% 100%

Missing data: 48

P A R T 3 . N A T I O N A L C O N T E X T

Italy

FRAREG has introduced 4 questions related to the Italian context of training and teaching, specially

related to evaluation. Those questions were:

- 3.1. Trainers feel the need of an evaluation model.

- 3.2. Trainers have easy access to the professional training courses.

- 3.3. Evaluation is an important tool for the trainer professional career.

- 3..4The problem of a common evaluation model is very strong in the Italian reality.



For each of the questions, answers were given according to the same scale of the rest of the ques-

tionnaire. The following tables show the results per each question.

3.1. Trainers feel the need of an evaluation model.

strongly agree rather agree rather disagree strongly disagree

41,2% 35,3% 17,7% 5,9%

3.2. Trainers have easy access to the professional training courses.


12,9% 40,0% 25,8% 21,2%

3.3. Evaluation is an important tool for the trainer professional career.


64,7% 29,4% 0,0% 5,9%

3.4.The problem of a common evaluation model is very strong in the italian reality.


35,3% 23,5% 17,7% 23,5%

Concerning the Italian context for trainers, 2 people from the sample added comments in the last

open question:

- “It is not necessary to rise the salary of the trainers, but every extracurricular hour should be

acknowledged. In fact these hours are useful for the preparation of the didactic materials

and for the professional development. “

- “There should be a weekly timetable of 36 hours. 50% of them for the scholastic activities

(front office) and 50% for the professional development and the preparation of the didactic

materials.”

The results show that the whole sample is aware of the importance of evaluation in the scope of

training and teaching activities. Most of trainers and managers feel that evaluation is very important

for their professional development, however, only 12, 9 % strongly agree to have easy access to pro-

fessional training offer. Although, a common model is not stressed to be perceived as a very strong

problem in Italy, more three thirds of the inquired feel the need of an evaluation model. This result



it is a good omen for the introduction of the TEVAL evaluation model. They would consider it an im-

portant tool for their professional career.

United Kingdom

In UK, the research team has added 2 questions to the survey related with national context. For both

questions, inquired should mark accord to the same scale for the rest of questionnaire.

The questions where:

- 3.1 In my opinion, the introduction of common standards of competence for teachers and

trainers is a good thing.

- 3.1.2 In my opinion, the assessment of competence for National qualifications in teaching

and training is a good thing.

However, according the results, only training managers have ansewered these questions, with a full

percentage of them (n=10) pointing their strong agreement with both statetments.

UK national report on the survey stresses that “competence assessment for trainers has beens the

main route to professional qualifications for many years. The process is more recent for teachers.

Common standards were introduced in September 2007 and will replace the tradictional

examination for the initial Teaching Certificate. In general, this is a poplar move.” (UK National

Survey Report, 2008).

Poland

In Poland, targets had 3 question related to their national context:

- 3.1.Please indicate three institutions that offer education for teachers.

- 3.2. Do you feel teacher’s competences’ should be evaluated? If your answer is yes, please

explain why.

- 3.3. Do you feel teacher’s professional profile should be created? If your answer is yes,

please explain why and how such a profile would be helpful for you?

The survey revealed the following results per each of the questions (Poland National Survey Report):



“3.1. Please indicate three institutions that offer education for teachers.

Most of the teachers (88%) indicated one, two or three institutions that offer education for them-

selves. Only three persons didn’t know what to answer. In case of the managers, all of them enume-

rated three institutions. Among all the organizations mentioned by teachers and managers we could

identify a few kind of institutions:

- regional public educational centers for teachers (teachers - 72%, managers – 100%)

- private institutions, associations, courses (teachers - 36%, managers – 67%)

- universities (teachers - 32%, managers – 33%)

- government organizations (trainers - 4%, managers – 0%)

3.2. Do you feel teacher’s competences’ should be evaluated? If your answer is yes, please explain

why.

Answers for this question were very diverse in case of teachers. They didn’t pay attention for de-

tailed reasons for their opinions. Most of them claimed that trainers’ evaluation is necessary (44%),

because it’s profitable for professional development, high level of teaching, improvement of quality

of teaching, keeping the methods and content for the subject up to date, selection people with ap-

propriate predispositions for this profession. There are 32% among teachers who do not feel any

need of evaluation, quite numerous part of them (24%) have no opinion in this matter.

Most of the managers (67%) didn’t know what to answer. Only one person in this group agreed that

evaluation of trainers’ competences should exist, because learners change all the time and teachers

have to be ready to answer their specific needs, to be up to date.

3.3. Do you feel teacher’s professional profile should be created? If your answer is yes, please ex-

plain why and how such a profile would be helpful for you?

Nearly half of the teachers think that professional profile is not important and helpful for them. Nu-

merous part of them (36%) couldn’t answer, some of them didn’t know what the profile exactly is.

Only 4 teachers – 16% of whole group - said that the profile would be helpful in their professional

development, it would give them a chance to improve their competences, supplement knowledge

and teaching methods.



Most of the managers (67%) didn’t know what to answer. One of them claimed that there is no need

of teacher’s professional profile.”Poland National Survey Report, 2008, pp. ).

Germany

Univation added a single national question to the questionnaire: 3.1 Are you interested in free of

cost one-day-training on evaluation?. This yes/no question got 69% of positive answers, against 31%

of negative responses.

The results express a high interest in evaluation and professional evaluation tools. Contacted schools

already have experience in school evaluation and inspection and express a need for (self) evaluation

tools on the level of the practitioner.

The national part of the survey has been used in order to recruit participants for the TEVAL 2

seminar on the evaluation model. Part of trainers interested in an evaluation training have in-

dicated their names and contact details for posterior participation.

Portuguese and Romanian research teams have chosen not to add any national questions to the

questionnaires used in their contexts.

P A R T 4 . Q U A L I T A T I V E D A T A - C o m m e n t s a n d s u g g e s -t i o n s f r o m p a r t i c i p a n t s

Italy

For the first part “Learning Process in the Organisation”, inquired people gave the following com-

ments:

Enterprises always complains for the lack of practical knowledge of the people they hire, but then

they only train the employers on the abstract knowledge.

Educational institutions can help to increase the knowledge of the learners but enterprises should

help them on the learning by doing side.

Questions are not very well defined. They doesn't take into consideration specific operative prob-

lems of the didactic and evaluation.

After responding the part 2.3. “Are teachers trained and developed effectively”, targets added some

comments:

There are not Life Long Learning mandatory and paid Programmes for the teachers and trainers.

Salary is not related to the performance, this decreases the motivation of the trainers.



The vocational training is always paid by the trainers (when they decide they need it). This is the

proof of their professionalism and attachment to their job.

As regarding the way teachers advance their subject and teaching methods, one of the Italiant train-

ers commented:

It is mandatory to follow the ministerial programmes, but often this is not a good choice because

they follow the political view of the party that is ruling the nation.

It is not possible to generalize.

On the topic 2.3. “Do teachers evaluate the influence and impact of their professional practice…”,

one of the trainers added:

The necessity of the trainer to keep a professional and educative contact with the evolution of

the world is based on the “do-it-yourself”.

Regarding the issue on how informed are teachers about European Developments in the field of VET,

it was possible to collect a comment:

In a country where even the advertisements are subtitled it is very difficult to develop the

knowledge of the European model that request particular linguistic competences.

United Kingdom

For the parts 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3. (“Are teachers trained and developed effectively”; “Do teachers

advance their subject contents and teaching methods?”; “do teachers evaluate the influence and

impact of their professional practice on the organisation ans the community?”), the survey collected

the following comment:

All of the above are requirements for the National Vocational Qualifications in Learning and

Development AND/OR the quality management processes for education and training institu-

tions.

Other qualitative information delivered from respondents in UK was:

Only those teachers and trainers with a responsibility for European issues had much knowledge

of the EQF. Few were familiar with the term "VET".

Poland

There is no information concerning “Comments” from Poland.

Germany

In the 1st

part of the questionnaire – Learning Process in the Organisation – from the target-group of

trainers inquired in Germany, the following comments were received:



The questions are not applicable, as vocational further educations takes place in units of 2-3

days.

I am working in the field of extracurricular youth education. Here we do not have assessments

but self-evaluation, feedback, soft targets, non-formal education.

Regarding the question 2.1. “Are teachers trained and developed effectively?”, one German teacher

in Higher Vocational School, stated:

For the majority of teachers, after their internship (Referendariat), there is stagnancy in terms of

further education. Most of the trainings organised by the employer are carried out by bad quali-

fied hobby- trainers. The best trainings were self organised in the field of industry/ handcraft.

Still concerning this topic, a trainer commented:

Once you are hired as a trainer, things can go on without any assessments. Indicators can be fur-

ther engagements for other companies.

For the part 2.7.”Are teachers informed about European developments in the field of VET?”, a teach-

er in VET wrote:

Europe hasn't arrived yet in the vocational schools!

At 2.5. “Do teachers advance their knowledge their subject contents and teaching methods?”, 2

comments were stated:

This is all happening out of self-interest of the trainer teams, to adapt the trainings to the needs

of the participants, not to be bored and to try out new things.

Permanent, that is daily self-evaluation and adaptation of the training programme.

For the part 2.7.”Are teachers informed about European developments in the field of VET?”, respon-

dents commented:

Europe hasn't arrived yet in the vocational schools!

The only link to the EQF is the "YOUTHPASS", whose key competences are oriented to the frame-

work. Apart from that, criteria are very different

Romania

In Romania, the research team collected qualitative information about the perception of targets in

relation to the topics being assed directly in discussion during the seminars when the questionnaires

where fielded. We quote the Romanian National Report (2008):

General comments:



The questions are not formulated in a very clear manner, leaving space for interpretation.

Some questions are not formulated well.

The questions do not fully apply to the situations.

The questions refer to general situations and do not reflect situations specific to each type of

school unit, profession.

Many questions from this seminar are not in compliance to the current situation.

Evaluation of the students

The current system of national evaluation of students is not as performant in comparison to the

evaluation and selection of each school unit. It requires the distribution of financial and time re-

sources that are too large.

In the evaluation of students there is a lot of subjectivism and not always we can obtain an ob-

jective evaluation. The desire to appreciate as good as possible the professor or the school makes

the degree of exigency to be different.

The present evaluation system does not sufficiently stimulate the school performance, the ac-

complishment of school progress for each student.

The initial training

The initial formation should represent the basis for the profession of professor. It should follow

the improvement of the evaluation competences, to agree with the reality from the system of

education and with its objectives, to lead to an efficient teaching process.

The graduates are better prepared and from a theoretical point of view and less prepared from a

methodical point of view.

The quality of formation within a form of education, as the long distance education is not satis-

factory.

There is no initial selection based on the evaluation of aptitude for this profession. The system of

financing of the education and the level of salaries make the profession of professor unattractive

and this is why not all the didactic staff has the necessary aptitudes and competences.

The pedagogical practice accomplished by the students is not sufficient and not very well orga-

nized. There will be a small number of assistants to the class and of teaching to the class. The

methodology classes are not adapted to the concrete requirements to the class. Knowledge is

more theoretical and less adapted to the reality of the pre-university system of education.

The continuous training



The continuous training is necessary for the adaptation of the new requirements and improves

the system of education. New methods are presented and there is also an exchange of expe-

rience, the teachers have the opportunity to learn from the experience of the colleagues. The

continuous training is necessary for the adaptation of the novelties and exchanges in education.

Many teachers do not go out of the patterns in which they were initially formed and are not re-

ceptire to change; this is why the continuous training should be obligatory.

It is necessary to make a real training in compliance to the requirements of the system of educa-

tion and to follow the application of the knowledge assimilated. There is no monitoring pro-

gramme concerning the effect of the training in the subsequent didactical activity.

There is a multiple offer of formation, but it does not cover the needs and requirements of forma-

tion. Sometimes there is too much theory and less practice and too little things cannot be applied

in the activity at the class.

Not all teachers understand correctly the role of continuous formation. Not always the partici-

pants to the formation are correctly motivated, many of them go through the training pro-

grammes only to accumulate evaluation points and do not have an intrinsic motivation coming

from the need and wish of improvement. There is a lot of formalism in the content and develop-

ment of training and the certificates obtained do not always cover the knowledge and compe-

tencies accumulated.

There is no clear definition of the statute of trainer.

The evaluation of teachers

The appreciations done through the results stimulates the teachers from the personal and pro-

fessional point of view may determine the promotion in career.

There are no correct evaluation standards and criteria with the proper indicators. The financial

interests determine the increase of the interest of teachers for the evaluation. Due to the preoc-

cupation to find a modality as objective as possible of evaluation, this process has sometimes a

formal character. There is too much bureaucracy and the preoccupation to produce papers in or-

der to proof the activity consumes a lot of time and energy for the teachers. The measuring and

quantification of progress is largely artificial. Attention is given mainly to the formal proof, the

insignificant aspects and less attention is given to the activity in class. There is not enough credi-

bility for the self appreciation. The extracurricular activity is not very highlighted. The unique cri-

teria, as well as the results in class do not take into account the conditions (school specificity)

where the teachers unfold their activity. There are not differentiated criteria in connection to the

education unit and the level of students. The progress made by the students is not taken into ac-

count in the evaluation of the teacher. There is no evaluation from the beneficiaries (students,

parents).

The seniority in education represents an underrated criterion in the evaluation and promotion in

carrier.

The process of evaluation does not identify the individual needs of professional development.



V I . Re f l e c t i o n s a nd conc l u s i ons


many, Romania and Portugal, resorting to a questionnaire where the ideal situation of trainers to-

wards the requirements needed to perform evaluation procedures was described. Corresponding to

each main theme, a set of affirmations should be assessed by the participants, related to specific

competences and activities, according to his perspective. All questions were multiple-choice in a

Lickert scale from “Strongly disagree” to “Strongly Agree”.

Some of the most interesting results reveal that teachers and trainers are aware of the importance

that evaluation in their professional development, but at the same time, they verify that organiza-

tions and educational/training systems are not totally corresponding to their needs on terms of ap-

plying a evaluation procedures regarding their professional performance or potential.

Further more, the questionnaire included questions regarding involvement and learning of the par-

ticipants in educational developments in Europe. Results reveal that there are strong needs within

these professional groups to become able to use and disseminate the recent European tools availa-

ble for VET system, such as EQF and ECVET. According to the statement of a participant in Germany:

“Europe hasn't arrived yet in the vocational schools!



32%

29%

20%

12%

6%

There is a system or process in place for

systematic professional development

strongly agree

rather agree

rather disagree

strongly disagree

cannot answer

27%

37%

18%

10%

8%

The employee appraisal process identifies individual

professional development needs



27%

56%

9%

3%5%

Teachers set realistic targets for the development of their

teaching

36%

45%

12%

3%4%

Teachers evalute their own practice

0%0%0%0%0%

strongly agree

rather agree

rather disagree

strongly disagree

cannot answer



39%

40%

10%

6%5%

Teachers take up professional development

opportunities relevant to their organisation

7%

25%

43%

16%

8%

Teachers are aware of current developments in

the European VET system



Annex es

tev-081222 -transnationalreport-eseb · 2009. 9. 28. · title: microsoft word - tev-081222...

Documents