INSETROM PROJECT TEACHER TRAINING EVALUATION REPORT Barry van Driel, International Association of Intercultural Education, the Netherlands Dragana Nikolajevic, International Association of Intercultural Education, the Netherlands Fokion Georgiadis, International Association of Intercultural Education, the Netherlands Executive Summary The INSETRom teacher training evaluation suggests that, on the whole, the project was successful in sensitizing the teachers from seven of the eight participating European countries about Roma issues. Teachers expressed that they had hardly been trained around these issues in the past and many knew little about Roma history, Roma culture, etc. beforehand. Especially their sense of confidence to teach about the Roma, to teach their Roma students and work with Roma parents received a boost through the project. Some concerns remain, however, about the ability of teachers to develop new approaches to their teaching, and to confront existing barriers. Teacher responses to the questionnaires and focus group discussions revealed their need for additional exposure and exercises that would challenge them and help them translate theory and the curriculum development methodology into useful tools that they themselves could then adapt to their own class and school environments. There was a special desire for concrete tools and approaches. According to the teachers responses to the pre- and post-training questionnaires, the following six specific objectives of the INSETRom Project developed, were largely met: Objective 1: Help teachers become more aware of Roma culture, challenges and stereotypes and to redefine their role as educators that will facilitate Roma inclusion; The evaluation suggests that the training sessions managed to sensitize the teachers about Roma issues and about the need to include Roma parents in their children s education. Objective 2: Assist teachers to develop their social and intercultural competencies in order to redefine their pedagogical tools for creating an intercultural school environment that will respect ethnic and cultural diversity; The teachers did not always recognize that their role as educators also includes tailoring of their pedagogical tools to fit the needs and circumstances of their students. The teachers at all locations expressed their need for more concrete tools, materials and methods that they can directly apply in their classrooms and that would answer their day-to-day needs. Objective 3: Improve teachers social and intercultural skills in order to communicate and work effectively with Roma parents; 1
The evaluation of the teacher training across nations suggests that it provided the teachers with the basic framework and understanding of the importance to involve and cooperate with Roma parents in order to support Roma children s education. Objective 4: Build a functional and efficient interface for cooperation between Roma parents and school; The data provided to the evaluators did not provide indicators for assessment of this objective. Objective 5: Motivate Roma parents to engage in school and become active contributors; The evaluation tools were not designed to measure this objective. Objective 6: Develop European partnerships. This project has been a product of a close cooperation of teams and organizations in seven EU countries. Whereas the project teams have had the opportunities to meet and share their experiences, the actual teachers expressed the need to learn from and share their experiences with their colleagues in other countries. In addition, the results from the teacher focus groups and post-training questionnaires suggest that working with teachers through the training modules leads to increased empathy, understanding and recognition of the values of diversity, multiperspectivity, equality and equity, inclusion, social justice, social cohesion and human rights. It leads to inclusion of both school experiences of individual teachers and the larger concerns of cultural diversity within the participating countries. Finally, the programme cultivates teachers positive attitudes and professional behavior. Evaluation Report Introduction The problems that Roma students and their families face are very old, complex and multi-faceted. Whereas the education systems and policies in the contemporary EU member states attempt to confront a number of these challenges, it is the teachers that have a unique opportunity and role in turning social exclusion into inclusion. Teacher training programmes are seen as crucial to assist teachers in fulfilling this role. Within this framework, the Teacher-IN-SErvice-Training-for-Roma-inclusion (INSETRom) programme (134018-LLP-1-2007-1-CY-COMENIUS-CMP) aimed to assist school and Roma community partnerships through an innovative teacher training concept in order to establish an environment of collaboration and shared goals for Roma children s education. The project was initiated in 2007 by co-operating institutions in eight European countries, namely, Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Romania, the Slovak Republic, the Netherlands and the U.K. in order to provide for development of adjustable outputs that enable implementation in different educational settings and to allow for good practices to be disseminated across Europe. The histories and contexts of each participating country vary and these clearly impact Roma non-roma relations, project implementation as well as the possibilities for educational change. 2
More specifically, the INSETRom project aimed to bridge the gap between Roma communities and school communities, as well as address the stereotypes that feed into this gap. The project focused not just on interventions involving Roma communities but also identified primary and secondary school teachers as the principal agents who are in a position to change educational outcomes for Roma students. Its major component aimed at training teachers: - to adjust their perceptions, approaches and methodologies according to the needs and perspectives of multicultural societies to that they can improve their effectiveness in approaching Roma parents and involving them in the school life of their children; - to improve their intercultural, socio-psychological and educational skills in order to enhance teachers awareness of Roma culture, which can in turn help them to better engage with Roma parents to become active agents in their children s education. The INSETRom Project developed the following six specific objectives, in addition to the previously mentioned general objectives. 1. Help teachers become more aware of Roma culture, challenges and stereotypes and to redefine their role as educators that can facilitate Roma inclusion. 2. Assist teachers to develop their social and intercultural competencies in order to redefine their pedagogical tool for he intercultural school environment that will respect ethnic and cultural diversity; 3. Improve teachers social and intercultural skills in order to communicate and work effectively with Roma parents; 4. Build functional and efficient interface for cooperation between Roma parents and school; 5. Motivate Roma parents to engage in school and become active contributors; 6. Develop European partnerships. Some of the key strengths of INSETRom programme were: (i) thoughtful analysis of teachers multiple identities to connect insight, experiences and visions of educating Roma students. (ii) a comparative analysis and framework of perceptions of multicultural and intercultural education among the participating countries in terms of Roma students education. (iii) an apparent disconnect between European educational policy, national educational policies and teacher pedagogy within the realm of interculturalism. INSETRom Teacher Training Evaluation: IAIE Scope of Work From the proposal: The IAIE will be responsible for the overall evaluation of the teacher training as well as the implementation of the interventions at schools (WP5-WP7), using its network of professional project evaluators. The overall evaluation will take place by two persons from the IAIE: one person who is involved in the project and one who is not involved in the project except for the evaluation component. The evaluation of the training modules will take place through distribution of research tools for evaluation to training participants and teachers through the partner institutions (who will translate the instruments and distribute the questionnaires). This will result to a short descriptive report based on (pre 3
and post training) questionnaires given to teachers, which will be issued by IAIE regarding the teacher training in each partner s country (January 2009) and a common report on the evaluation of the training and the evaluation of the implementation of the intervention (June 2009). IAIE Evaluation Outputs: The IAIE evaluators created the following tools that were subsequently adapted for each country, translated and disseminated to the teachers: - Pre-training questionnaire for teachers (Appendix A) - Guidelines for teachers log books (Appendix B) - Post-training questionnaire for teachers (Appendix C) - Suggested questions for focus groups (Appendix D) The questionnaires made use of a mix of closed ended and open ended questions, demographic questions and reflective questions. The closed ended questions allowed for more direct comparisons and much of that is reflected in the discussion here. Due to the questionnaire adaptation in some countries and the variations in the quality of summaries/data provided 1, this independent evaluation is limited in scope and looks at the pre-training and post-training data in the aggregate for the project, not by country. It will offer per country or per question analysis only for the segments where data was available. In many cases the data necessary to make judgments about particular countries was missing. This independent evaluation is primarily based on teacher feedback given on the preand post-training questionnaires and on the input provided through focus groups. Teachers were recommended to write log-books as self-assessment tools. However, they were not expected to share them or submit them for project evaluation purposes. Training of teachers: Training Modules: A total of 67 training modules were delivered during the Spring of 2009 to over 165 attendees at eight locations in seven participating countries (note that Italy participated with two locations: Turin and Florence). The Netherlands did not participate in the implementation phase, but was responsible for the project evaluation through the IAIE. The specific training modules used in the various countries were developed by local trainers and the academics participating in the project, but closely followed the standard modules developed by the project team as a whole. All 67 modules delivered could be grouped into one of the following general themes: 1. Culture and enculturation 2. Roma history, culture, language, traditions 3. Stereotypes and prejudices (delivered in all countries except Cyprus) 4. Teacher-parent relations/communication (delivered at all locations except Cyprus) 5. Intercultural/multicultural education, multicultural, multi-linguistic schools 1 Some country representatives provided summaries of teachers answers to all the questions, some summarized only the multiple-choice questions but not the open-ended questions, and some submitted a general report without including details specific to each question. 4
6. Curriculum design and adaptation (training delivered in Austria, Cyprus, Romania and the United Kingdom) The teacher training modules did not only vary in the number of modules delivered at each location, but they were also delivered over different lengths of time and with different frequencies of trainings. One significant variation is related to the composition of attendees of these trainings. Whereas all the modules but those delivered in Florence were taught to mixed groups of teachers, teaching different subject areas, the training delivered in Florence divided the attendees into three groups (mathematics-scientific, linguistic-literary and historical-geographical) and designed the training modules to specifically target the needs of each of these three subject groups. If and when the data become available, it would be interesting to compare the outcomes of the approach used in Florence (24% of all the attendees of INSETRom teacher trainings) with the outcomes of the approaches in other locations combined. Teachers: Whereas the above-mentioned number of 165 attendees (the large majority women) represents the core number of teachers that went through the INSETRom teacher training program, we understand that the total number of attendees that attended the trainings was larger at some locations and for certain modules. This evaluation report will focus only on this core number of attendees at all eight locations, out of which 4% work in school management, 52% teach 5-10 year old pupils and 44% teach pupils older than 10 years of age. Only 2 % of all teachers were Roma (attending teacher training modules in Austria, Romania and Slovakia). In some countries, the number of participants varied from seminar to seminar and it is difficult to assess whether the teachers who filled out the pre-questionnaire were the same as those who filled out the post-questionnaire. When queried about this, the country coordinators indicated that in most, but not in all, cases the teachers were the same. The average duration of teaching experience of the teachers who attended the training seminars varies across the eight locations, with the group of teachers from Slovakia having the shortest teaching experience (11.67 years, and a range of 2-31 years in the teaching profession), and teachers from Austria having the longest experience (average of 23 years, with a range between 7 and 31 years working as teachers). Almost all of the attendees teach Roma children. The percentage of pupils in their classes that are Roma varies greatly: from less than 5% (UK) to at least 25% and up to 100% (the case of teachers in Slovakia) Teachers pre-training assessment 5
1. How well trained do you feel you were in the past? 60% 50% To Teach Roma Children To Teach About Roma Issues % of teachers 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Not at all Not Well Somewhat Well Very Well Teachers Responses Teachers self-assessment of the quality of training they previously had to teach Roma and about Roma a. When asked about how well trained in the past they were to teach Roma children, only one teacher out of the 147 that answered the question, reported that he/she was well trained. The majority of teachers reported that they were not well trained (49%) or not at all trained (33%). The remaining percentage (17% of teachers who answered this question) reported that they were somewhat well trained. % of teachers Response 33% Not at all well 49% Not well 17% Somewhat well 1% Very well b. When asked how well trained they felt in the past to teach about Roma issues (history, culture etc.), 120 teachers who answered this question responded in the following way: % of teachers Response 47% Not at all well 29% Not well 22% Somewhat well 2% Very well 6
2. Teachers assessment of their teaching materials regarding 80% 70% Roma History Roma Culture 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Very Inadequate Somewhat Inadequate Somewhat adequate Very Adequate Most frequent challenges that teachers experience when teaching Roma are: attendance, Roma children s attitude, their attention span and preparation for school, parent participation in school life of their children, socialization and overcoming stereotypes and prejudices, integration of Roma pupils into society. These answers and frequencies with which the above challenges were listed by teachers were quite uniform across the countries participating in this project. Teachers reported that their greatest challenges with teaching about Roma could be found in: the lack of adequate materials and in their concern that as a result of poor training and knowledge they would end up dispelling prejudice; some also noticed the issue of self-identity of Roma children. When asked what kind of training would help them teach Roma students many expressed interest in learning about Roma history and culture, but they also listed communication and cooperation with Roma parents, improving curricula and teaching methods, as well as finding ways to motivate Roma children. When asked what would help them teach about Roma culture and history, teachers listed teaching materials on Roma culture and history, expert literature, magazines and films as their top needs. 3. How would you describe the relationship between Roma and other children in your classroom? 7
Relationship Between Roma and Non-Roma in The Classroom 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Relationship Between Roma and Non-Roma in The Classroom Not Good Fair Good Very Good 8% 23% 64% 8% 4. How would you describe your relationship with the Roma-pupils parents? Teachers' relationship with Roma parents Teachers' relationship with Roma parents 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Not Good Fair Good Very Good 17% 39% 35% 9% The results in table 3 and 4 are somewhat striking in light of the research from the needs assessment phase of the project, where the teachers were much more negative about their relationship with Roma parents and the relationship between students. It is unclear what led to this discrepancy, though social desirability factors might have played a role. Teachers self assessment: pre and post-training Measured on a scale of 1-4, Pre- and Post-training questions about teachers confidence to teach Roma children, to teach about Roma issues and to address stereotypes in the classroom indicate that on average the teachers confidence increased by approximately 1 point, with 1 indicating the highest level of confidence, and 4 the lowest. 8
Before the training, the average aggregate score of teachers level of confidence to teach Roma children was 2.71, and after the training the average score was 1.68. Similarly, their confidence improved for teaching about Roma issues (from 2.87 before the training, to 1.76), and when asked about handling prejudices and stereotypes in the classroom, the score went from 2.59 to 1.52. The three graphs below illustrate the percentage of teachers that evaluated their confidence about three aspects of teaching, before and after the INSETRom training: 1. How confident do you feel when teaching Roma Children? 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Not at all Not Very Somewhat Confident Very Confident Pre-Training Post-Training Post-Training Pre-Training Not at all Not Very Somewhat Confident Very Confident Post-Training 2% 11% 51% 36% Pre-Training 8% 27% 50% 15% 2. How confident do you feel teaching about Roma issues? 9
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Not At All Not Very Somewhat Confident Very Confident Pre-Training Post-Training Post-Training Pre-Training Not At All Not Very Somewhat Confident Very Confident Post-Training 5% 19% 42% 34% Pre-Training 20% 48% 32% 0% 3. How confident do you feel about addressing any existing stereotypes/prejudices towards Roma in your classroom? 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Not at all Not Very Confident Somewhat Confident Very Confident Pre-Training Post-Training Post-Training Pre-Training Not at all Not Very Confident Somewhat Confident Very Confident Post-Training 9% 9% 47% 35% Pre-Training 19% 34% 34% 13% Teachers evaluation of the training modules and of the training overall (posttraining questionnaire) Teachers Expectations 10
As many as 48% of teachers reported that their expectations were fully met by the provided training, and another 30% reported that their expectations were met to the average extent. The average score that INSETRom training received on a 1-4 scale was 1.82 (a score of 1 meant expectations were met fully and 4 not at all). The submitted summaries of teacher training evaluations showed certain variations between countries, with teachers in Cyprus being the most critical and the teachers in Greece and the United Kingdom completing the training with mostly positive impressions. The more detailed teachers feedback suggests that teachers expected more concrete tools, materials and examples that they could immediately use in their classroom. The teachers in Cyprus also thought that the training content was not focused enough on the Roma specifically. Finally, teachers from several countries had expected to share experiences and practical ideas with other representatives from educational systems participating in this project. Though a Yahoo Group for teachers had been created, this was rarely used. Language problems could have been a major cause of this. Teachers Overall Impressions The average impression of the teachers from five countries (that submitted answers for evaluation) was that the INSETRom training was stimulating and interesting. Only the teachers in Cyprus considered the training to be average, and not interesting at all. Training Elements Teachers were also asked to provide a more detailed assessment of the following five training aspects: Training Aspects Teacher Ratings average (range) Content 1.78 (1.33-2.93) Clarity 1.64 (1.23-2.78) Methodology 1.86 (1.40-2.60) Duration 1.98 (1.60-2.64) Professionalism of the trainers 1.59 (1.16-2.86) The analysis of the teachers feedback indicates that teachers were the least satisfied with the duration of the training. In their notes the teachers wrote about their need for continuous and regular training opportunities and some teachers called for a change in the schedule from weekends to week-days (Greece). Overall, teachers in Cyprus were least satisfied with the training and the teachers in Romania gave it the most positive scores. Although the teacher training sessions at all locations followed a general structure for the entire INSETRom training program, the teachers at each location were presented with training modules unique to that location. This tailored approach, however, created some difficulties for the evaluation of the entire training segment of the project since the variations did not allow for a level of analysis that would indicate trends across all the locations. The furthest this analysis can go is to observe some commonalities in the between results received from individual locations. For instance, teachers in all six submitted reports, besides the training duration, were the least satisfied with the training 11
methodology. It is important to mention that both the training duration, and the methodology still received high marks from most of the teachers. Modules Rating The teachers were asked to rate the following parameters of the training modules: Parameters: Average teacher scores (range) Usefulness 1.57 (1.19-3.00) Quality of Discussion 1.40 (1.23-2.00) Flexible structure 1.70 (1.46-2.71) Execution 1.49 (1.08-2.85) Level of effort requested 1.87 (1.47-2.78) Use of time 1.54 (1.23-2.43) Frequency 1.49 (1.15-2.57) Level of activity 1.76 (1.27-3.07) Practicality 1.98 (1.54-3.64) Applicability 1.83 (1.35-3.64) The teachers were the most satisfied with the quality of discussion during the training modules, and with how well the time was used. However, they found some of the modules not very applicable and practical, and this evaluation was repeated in many of their open-ended comments, where they criticized the ratio between theory and practical tools offered during the training. If we compare teachers trainings evaluations that we received from the five countries (Cyprus, Austria, Romania, United Kingdom and Greece), the teachers in Cyprus were the most critical about the training they received while the teachers in Greece were the most satisfied with their training. When asked specifically which modules were the most useful to them, the teachers from all locations valued the most the courses on Roma culture and history and on stereotypes, and they highly appreciated all training sessions that offered practical ideas and resources for resolving their day-to-day real class situations. The teachers were not equally in agreement when they were asked to list the modules that were the least valuable to them. Whereas many found that all the modules were useful and were hardly pressed to find those less valuable, the overall message of their answers was that modules that were more general and theoretical in approach met with the less enthusiasm, overall. When asked about the strategies that they would use to implement new insights, the teachers offered a range of answers - from practical ideas about art projects (mosaics and collages), to ideas about what methodology to use (role plays and empathy, use of visual aids, though-provoking stories and films) and many were focused on building school-parent partnerships. The teachers felt that they could use their new insights across many subject areas but mostly civic education and history, art and literature. The teachers from Romania specifically included math and sciences to the list of classes. Conclusions: Barriers and Lessons learned Evaluations of projects with training components usually lack an essential component outcome evaluation. This is mostly due to the fact that the project outcomes are revealed 12
over time, during the post-training period of implementation. By that time the projects are usually closed, evaluated, the funding spent etc. Whereas it would be ideal to create a longitudinal study to assess the outcomes of this training in the communities of stakeholders and to monitor the level of change that could be attributed to the INSETRom project, for the purpose of this evaluation, two questions were chosen to serve as proxy for projections of future outcomes and impacts: - A question requiring teachers to identify the barriers for implementation of the new insights they gained through the training, and - A question inquiring about the teachers plans to deal with these barriers. The teachers answers to these two questions also demonstrated what they acquired from the training and how equipped they felt they were to return back to their communities and to their day-to-day school life. It would have been interesting to look for correlations between the years of teaching experience and their answers to the two questions above. The submitted data did not allow for this however. When asked on the Pre-training Questionnaire about their assessment of the greatest challenges that they felt they would face when teaching Roma children, the teachers gave the following answers (in the order of frequency with which they were mentioned): 1. Attendance 2. Attitude 3. Attention span 4. Preparation for school 5. Socialization and overcoming of stereotypes 6. Integration of Roma pupils in society The Post-training questionnaire asked the teachers to list the barriers for implementation of the insights that they gained from the training modules, and to propose methods that they plan to use to deal with the barriers. Barriers Low school attendance of Roma children causing them to fall behind academically (Cyprus, Slovakia, Greece) Attitude that Roma parents have towards school and Roma pupils lack of care for school materials (Slovakia) Roma children s learning and language difficulties (Cyprus, The UK)) Lack of cooperation from other teachers and from other pupils (Romania, Cyprus, Greece, The UK) Lack of parental involvement (Romania) Plans for overcoming the barriers* Will continue in the same manner to resolve the problems (Cyprus) Partner with Roma parents, demonstrate patience and cooperation with Roma families; visit parents in their homes; organize the school environment so that children can leave their school materials at school (Greece, Slovakia, Romania) Be friendly, encouraging, approachable (The UK) Build team cooperation with all teaching staff (Romania) Partner with Roma parents, visit Roma 13
Roma culture (Greece) Busy teachers schedules and constraints of curriculum and standard tests. (The UK) homes (Romania, Slovakia) Stay positive when facing potential issues Use the holidays; extracurricular activities; new, more flexible curriculum would help. (The UK) *NOTE: The evaluators did not have available the list of teachers ideas for overcoming each specific barrier mentioned. The table above represents the evaluators effort to match, to the best extent possible, the mentioned solutions with the concrete barriers. Overall, the teachers predicted that they would continue to face the same difficulties, and whereas some were more specific about the new strategies that they would use to overcome barriers, some felt that the training did not sufficiently equip them to do anything different from what they had been doing previously. In discussing the barriers for implementation of their new, post-training insights, it is interesting to observe that the teachers expressed the same factors that they listed in the Pre-training questionnaire as their challenges when teaching Roma pupils. In addition, there is one new barrier: Roma culture, that was added to the list in the Posttraining questionnaire and it raised the evaluator s concern. Listing it as a barrier after the training suggests that as much as the training on Roma culture, language and history was seen as the most valuable by teachers, it was not always able to avoid a danger of adding scientific validation to existing stereotypes, instead of leading to realizations that would affect cognitive and behavioral change in teacher perceptions and methods. The analysis of the specific objectives for the INSETRom teacher training and of the available questionnaire and focus groups feedback from teachers suggests the following: 1. Whereas the training provided teachers with content on Roma culture and challenged their stereotypes, the initial effects of the training are still rather limited. The evaluation suggests that training sessions managed to sensitize the teachers about Roma issues and about the need to include Roma parents in their children s education. However, it is too early to assess how well the training helped teachers to redefine their role as educators and to include Roma. 2. The second objective for the INSETRom teacher training was to assist the teachers to develop their social and intercultural competencies and to redefine their pedagogical tools. Most of the teachers did not report a high interest in the modules on intercultural education or on curriculum development, which, coupled with their dislike for theory and the need for specific tools, suggests that the teachers did not always recognize that their role as educators also includes tailoring their pedagogical tools to fit the needs and circumstances of their students. The teachers from the UK were the only group that mentioned this aspect as part of their role as educators, albeit within the context of barriers for implementation of their new insights. They specifically spoke of limited time availability and curriculum constraints that do not leave much space for additional content and changes. This need for practical tools that was expressed at all training locations suggests that the UK teachers are not in a unique position and that future training sessions will need to devote special attention to this issue. 3. Improvement of teachers social and intercultural skills in order to communicate effectively with Roma parents was the third specific objective of this project. Many of the 14
teachers who completed the questionnaires, recognized the need for better communication with, and involvement of Roma parents, suggesting that the training provided the teachers with at least the basic framework for achieving this objective. 4. Building a functional and efficient interface for cooperation between Roma parents and schools was one of the teacher training objectives that could not be measured or evaluated through teacher responses to the questionnaires shortly after the training. 5. The objective to motivate Roma parents to engage in school and to become active contributors was not assessed through the teacher pre and post training questionnaires. 6. The project aimed at developing European partnerships to share experiences and provide common platforms for action. With the conferences in Slovakia and in Italy, and with the trainers cooperation this aim has been largely achieved. On the other hand, the teachers pointed to their expectations to join more directly this network and to share their experiences with other teachers and that expectation has not yet been met by the project, despite the creation of a special Yahoo group for teachers. 15
Appendix A Pre-training questionnaire for teachers Question 1: Can you tell us the ages of the students that you teach? 3-7years old 7-11 years old Senior Management and therefore no teaching English as an Additional Language teacher = across the whole school 3-11 No response Question 2: What subjects do you teach? All primary curriculum subjects English as an Additional Language Senior Management and therefore no teaching No Response Question 3: Do you currently teach Roma/Gypsy/Traveller Children (please circle)? Yes No No response Question 4a: If YES, approximately what percentage of all the children you teach at the moment would you say are Roma/Gypsy/Traveller Children? Less than 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%-35% No response (but Yes to currently teach Roma children) Question 5: How many years have you been in the teaching profession? 1-5 years 6-10 years 11-20 years 20-30 years Over 30 years No response Question 6: If you teach Roma/Gypsy/Traveller children... how well trained do you feel you were in the past to teach these children? Very well trained Somewhat well trained Not well trained Not at all well trained No response Question 7: How well trained do you feel you were in the past to teach about Roma/Gypsy/Traveller issues (relating for incidents to culture and history)? 16
Very well trained Somewhat well trained Not well trained Not at all well trained No response Question 8: If you teach Roma/Gypsy/Traveller children... how confident do you feel when teaching the children? Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident Not at all confident No response Question 9: How confident do you feel teaching about Roma/Gypsy/Traveller issues with your pupils in general? Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident Not at all confident No response Question 10: How confident do you feel teaching about addressing any existing stereotypes and prejudices towards Roma/Gypsy/Travellers in the classroom? Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident Not at all confident No response Question 11: If you teach Roma/Gypsy/Traveller children... how would you describe the relations between them and the other children in your classroom? Excellent Good Not so good Good & Not so good Not good at all No response Question 12: If you teach Roma/Gypsy/Traveller children... how would you describe your relations with their parents? Very good Good Fair Not very good No response 17
Question 13: If you teach Roma/Gypsy/Traveller children... what do you see as your greatest challenge when teaching these children? Question 14: What do you see as your greatest challenge when teaching about Roma/Gypsy/Traveller issues in your classroom (relating for instance to culture and history)? Question 15: How adequate do you think your present teaching materials are regarding Roma/Gypsy/Traveller history? Question 16: How adequate do you think your present teaching materials are regarding Roma/Gypsy/Traveller culture? Question17: Do you have any final questions, comments or suggestions? 18
Appendix B Guiding questions for the teachers to answer in their logs as they start the implementation (First, reflection ) Question 1: Are these modules really useful in my teaching? Are they better than the materials I am already using? Why? (Then, implementation ) Question 2: Was I able to use the key components of the training module I attended? What did I have to change? ( and at a later stage!) Question 3 How did the students respond to the teaching of this module? For those that did not respond so well, why do I think that was the case? Question 4: Fill in the blank after each session of work with the students * I am quite satisfied that... * I am less satisfied that... * I wish my students... (And/ Or quantitatively) Percentage of key training components that I was able to successfully implement in the classroom (students responded well to them and the component objective was met: % Question 5: What new strategies that I have learned through those modules exceeded my expectations, how and why, or why not? 19
Appendix C Post-training questionnaire for teachers Question 1: Assessment of following aspects of the training Coverage of content Clarity of presentations Training methodology Duration of training Professionalism of trainer Excellent Good Weak Unsatisfactory Question 2: Which aspect of the training did you consider most valuable and useful? Why? Question 3: Which aspect of the training do you consider least valuable and least useful? Why? Question 4: To what extent do you feel your expectations of the training have been met? Fully Partially Poorly Not at all Question 5: Which of your expectations have not been met, and why? Question 6: What do you feel will be most useful for your teaching practice? Question 7: What do you feel will be least useful for your teaching practice? Question 8: How confident do you feel to teach Roma/Gypsy/Traveller children? Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident Not at all confident Question 9: How confident do you feel to teach your pupils about Roma/Gypsy/Traveller issues? Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident Not at all confident Question 10: How confident do you feel about addressing any existing stereotypes and prejudices towards Roma/Gypsy/Travellers in the classroom? Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident 20
Not at all confident Question 11: I found this training Not interesting at all Average Interesting Challenging/stimulating/very interesting/learned new things Question 12: How would you rate the training modules and process overall? Score 4 3 2 1 NR Very useful Good discussions Flexible structure Well conducted Demanding Well spaced out Good use of time Good level of activity Very practical Very applicable* *in your teaching Little use Limited discussions Rigid structure Poorly conducted Undemanding Too condensed Poor use of time Poor level of activity Not at all practical Not at all applicable* Question13: What strategies do you intend to use to implement your new insights and materials for in your teaching practice after training? Question14a: Why did you choose the strategies? Question14b: Have you had a chance to discuss your ideas with other staff members not involved in the project? Question 15: Where do you think new insights and materials fit into your existing teaching? (If possible, please make reference to subjects (history, literacy, citizenship education, etc. and also to teaching strategies) Question16: What barriers might impede your implementation? Question17: How do you think you will deal with these barriers? Question 18: Are there any other additional subjects/themes/issues you would have liked to have included in this training course? Question19: Do you have any final questions, comments or suggestions? 21
Appendix D Questions that can be used by the coordinators in the various participating countries as they start to think about their focus group discussions with the teachers Issue1: Teachers are asked to briefly explain the work they have done with the students and reflect on their practice. Question 1: How did you contextualize work with the modules? What did you do to plan and prepare for their implementation? What did you do to prepare students and how did you follow up or how do you plan to follow-up? Question 2: Can you describe your work with the students in brief? Question 3: What were your initial aims/ goals and how did you choose the modules that you used? Question 4: Do you feel that you accomplished those aims/ goals? Did you feel that you were adequately prepared for the intervention and it was successful? Question 5: Were there any major adjustments you had to make to the modules with the use of previous or other techniques to make them useful for your classroom practice? Issue2: Identification of strengths / weaknesses / barriers Question 6: After implementing this initial intervention cycle, what key components seem to generate some: a. initial gains with the students and their families: b. long-term gains with the students and their families: c. possibilities to be accepted by other teachers, wider in the school, wider in the community? Please explain. Question 7: Did you need to adapt, change or drop any module? Did you first try to use it as the training suggested, or you realized that you could not use it at all before making changes? Question 8: If you had to modify any number of modules, can you specify what prompted the need for change? How did the students respond to your change? Do you think that you will need more support to further develop your approach? Question 9: After your initial implementation phase, what do you see as the major barriers and obstacles for implementing the methods that you were trained in and what are your suggestions to remove them? Issue3: Sustainability and impact Question 10: After initial intervention implementation, what do you think you will need to continue to use the modules that you were trained to use on this project? Do you think that existing obstacles can be handled by modifying the methodology or the methodology that you tried using seems to be ineffective for reaching your goals? Please explain. 22
Question 11: Has the work with these modules impacted your work at all or the way you view your work? Question 12: Have you shared these new methods with the other teachers or have you tried to use the in other student-parent settings? Do you see any other ethnic group that would benefit from this approach? 23