1. ETWINNING’S IMPACT ON TEACHERS’ SKILLS, TEACHING PRACTICES, AND
1.4. What impact has eTwinning had on teachers’ use of new teaching methods
As Figures 9 and 10 show, a large majority, i.e. 89% of teacher respondents state that they now use new tools or resources (e.g. an online educational application) as a direct result of their involvement in eTwinning, compared to 81% who state that they have adopted new teaching methods (e.g. project-based teaching). Both results are very positive. A plausible explanation as to why roughly 10% less express they have integrated new methods into their teaching as a result of eTwinning, could be that changing teachers’ methods requires a change of mindset and can take some time.
On the other hand, using a concrete tool which one has already experimented with or seen others use within eTwinning is less time consuming and provides an easier way to change your practice in the short-term. Needless to say, however, the two items are closely related, so that by increasing teachers’ exposure to new innovative tools and resources and encouraging their use in their daily practice, eTwinning is likely to in time influence their overall teaching methods, and in this way the programme can be said to support this long term change process.
89%
Figure 9: The use of new tools/resources as
a result of eTwinning Figure 10: The use of new teaching methods a result of eTwinning
89%
Figure 11: The use of new tools/resources as a
result of eTwinning by country Figure 12: The use of new teaching methods a result of eTwinning by country
If we look at the data for these questions at country level, including only those nine countries with the highest participation rate, we firstly observe that the trend is confirmed. The use of new tools/resources fares higher than the use of new teaching methods. Some interesting distinctions between countries can also be observed.
As we see from Figure 11, more than 80% of respondents in all countries state that they use new tools/resources as a direct result of their involvement in eTwinning.
However, interestingly, Turkey (18%) and France (14%) have the highest percentage of respondents stating that this is not the case. It could be interesting for the National Support Service of these two countries to perhaps investigate with their national eTwinners why this is the case, and to identify how they might better support them in order to benefit fully from the resources and tools they become acquainted with through eTwinning. Also, in Figure 12 we observe that in Romania (89%) and Poland (86%) the largest majority of respondents state that they have changed their teaching methods as a result of their participation in eTwinning. This potentially might be because these countries, in comparison to the others in the list, are among those with more traditional education systems, which might explain why exposure to eTwinning has especially helped a large number of teachers in these countries to update their teaching methods.
1.5. What impact has eTwinning had on teachers’ reflection about their own practice and do they share what they learn from eTwinning with other school staff?
Respondents were firstly asked to consider how frequently they reflect on their own practice in general, and secondly, whether or not they do so more frequently as a result of involvement in eTwinning. This two-step question was once again designed to elicit as accurate a self-assessment from teachers as possible.
0%
10%
38%
52%
A LOT QUITE A BIT
TO SOME EXTENT NOT AT ALL Figure 13: How frequently do you reflect on your
own pedagogical practice? Figure 14: As a result of eTwinning do you reflect more than before on your own pedagogical practice?
87%
13%
YES NO
As seen in Figure 13, a resounding 90% state they currently reflect on their practice either quite a bit or a lot. This seems plausible when considering that respondents were required to dedicate time to reflect on their own teaching practice in order to be able to answer the detailed questions in this survey. A similarly high percentage (87%) of teachers states that they now carry out such self-reflection about their pedagogical practice more now than before as a result of their involvement in eTwinning (Figure 14).
When looking at Figure 15 illustrating the frequency with which all respondents share their eTwinning practices with other school staff, the picture is a bit more mixed.
The graph indicates that teachers tend to reflect more on their own practice rather than share reflections with others so that the school’s collective knowledge and expertise can be improved. Almost half of all respondents (41%) expressed they share eTwinning practices frequently with colleagues and around one quarter (23%) expressed they do so very often. Around one third of all respondents stated that they only do this occasionally, which indicates that this important sharing phase at the end of an eTwinning project or professional development activity is likely implemented when time and circumstances allow. This report recommends that eTwinning makes a targeted effort to ensure that the sharing of results with colleagues becomes commonly understood as an essential part of the eTwinning process.
Figure 15: Frequency with which teachers share eTwinning practices with other school staff 4%
23% 32%
41%
VERY FREQUENTLY
OCCASIONALLY FREQUENTLY
NEVER
The above graph illustrates the responses to the question on frequency of teachers’
sharing practices with other school staff at country level, taking into account only the top 9 countries which had a minimum of 200 respondents (Italy, Turkey, France, Greece, Romania, Spain, Poland, Serbia, and Portugal). It can be observed that three countries have a particularly high percentage of teachers stating that they frequently or very frequently share eTwinning practices with other school staff; Turkey (77%); Greece (74%), and Romania (72%). In striking contrast, just under one third of all respondents in France state that they share eTwinning experiences with colleagues only occasionally and almost 10% say they never do. As a follow-up to this analysis it would be interesting for eTwinning’s Central and National Support Services to do a qualitative investigation into why exactly such sharing practices can differ so much from country to country. It would be worth finding out whether this is potentially due to cultural differences, or perhaps more structural reasons at country level, in order to see what might be done in countries where sharing eTwinning practices is less widespread.
Figure 17: Frequency with which teachers share eTwinning practices with other school staff depending on eTwinning profile
VERY FREQUENTLY FREQUENTLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER
Figure 16: Frequency with which teachers share eTwinning practices with other school staff by countryShare prac�ces
4%
VERY FREQUENTLY FREQUENTLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER
Figure 17 shows the sharing of eTwinning experience (in relation to all respondents) depending on respondents’ eTwinning profile. Interestingly, 60% of new eTwinners state they share their eTwinning practices with other school staff, while 70% of advanced teachers state this. This difference might be in part explained by the fact that more advanced eTwinners are more familiar with eTwinning and therefore more confident about sharing how the programme works with other colleagues.
Another cross-analysis of the same data suggests that teachers are more likely to share eTwinning practices with colleagues if they teach in an innovative school. From the sample, we see that a large majority (75%) of teachers working in innovative schools state that they very frequently or frequently do so, while by striking contrast only 43% of teachers working in less innovative schools state this. Although the difference is clear, one might remark that it is nevertheless encouraging that over one third of teachers working in less innovative schools share their eTwinning practices with other school staff, including non eTwinners, despite working in less supportive circumstances.
Interestingly, there is no correlation between teachers’ years of experience and whether or not they share eTwinning practices with colleagues. This would suggest that a teacher’s length of professional experience does not in any way determine their sharing practices. Whereas, whether they work in an innovative school or not could potentially have some influence (although it is not possible to infer any causal link from this analysis). The evidence from this survey analysis therefore provides a strong reason for eTwinning to invest more in focusing on making schools more innovative as a whole, rather than only focusing on the development of individual teachers.
This is in line with the idea of investing in the involvement of school heads, who are paramount to changing the school culture and to ensuring a whole school approach (see European Commission, 2017). To ensure that a teacher’s expertise and learning developed within eTwinning is not lost but rather capitalised on to the benefit of the whole school, it is advisable that the programme continues to encourage the sharing of eTwinning project results with non-eTwinners, and that it uses strategies in the future to do so more directly and explicitly. This should be promoted as an integral part of a successful eTwinning project, and not just as a ‘take it or leave it’ add-on at the end.
Figure 18: Frequency with which teachers share eTwinning practices with other school staff depending on school profile
11%
2%
46%
22%
34%
45%
9%
31%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Non-innova�ve Innova�ve INNOVATIVE
LESS INNOVATIVE
VERY FREQUENTLY FREQUENTLY OCCASIONALLY NEVER
Sharing with other school colleagues should clearly feature as a top tip on eTwinning guidance material for how to successfully disseminate project results to ensure they have a lasting impact on other teachers’ professional development. Moreover, teachers should be encouraged to share with the eTwinning community examples of how they presented and discussed their work with the wider school community, through assemblies or other means, to encourage other eTwinners to do the same.
eTwinning already provides guidance to teachers in this regard, but more needs to be done to specifically target head teachers and senior school management staff as their role is pivotal in mainstreaming good practice at school level.
To this end, as already mentioned, the Central Support Service has introduced, in the autumn of 2017, a new form of recognition to supplement the existing National and European Quality Labels. While those two labels are primarily for the work of individual teachers in eTwinning Projects, this new initiative called the eTwinning School Label is aimed at recognising involvement in a much broader range of eTwinning activities by teachers in the same school, from involvement in professional development activities to collaboration with other members of staff, to eTwinning promotional activities with parents, other schools and organisations in the local community and beyond. The eTwinning School label reflects the contribution of eTwinning in four main areas of activity:
z developing eSafety awareness in the school
z teaching and learning practices, interdisciplinary teaching and project work
z professional development for teachers and other school actors
z strategic development of the school
It is likely that the scope of the eTwinning School Label will be immediately attractive to those schools, which are deemed – in the terms of this report – to be innovative schools. In order to get the label, the application has to be agreed to and certified by the senior management of the school. This is a means of drawing them in more closely to understand what eTwinning is and what it can offer to school development.
It is envisaged that the schools who obtain this label will become proactive in encouraging and supporting other schools, including those less innovative, to begin a developmental journey towards becoming an eTwinning School to the benefit of both staff and students.