Spain evaluation report of students performance


EVALUATION REPORT OF STUDENTS PERFORMANCE
2015 –2017
F L w I C T
Erasmus+ KA2 Project
MULTIDISCIPLINARY FLIPPED LEARNING WITH ICT
Turkey is the Main Coordinator of the Project
Participant Schools are Lithuania, Poland, Italy, Latvia, France, Portugal, Spain
KA2 - Cooperation for Innovation and the Exchange of Good Practices
Strategic Partnerships for Schools Only
Project Number: 2015-1-TR01-KA219-021988
Prepared by
JOSE LUIS LEÓN
I.E.S. MIGUEL DE CERVANTES
Seville/SPAIN

2
WebPage: http://flippedlearning.wix.com/home
e-twinning:https://twinspace.etwinning.net/12713/home
MultidisciplinaryFlippedLearningwith ICT
Participant Countries: Turkey-Lithuania-Latvia-Italy-Poland-Portugal-Spain-France
In 2015-2016 academic year, during the implementation process of Multidisciplinary Flipped Learning
with ICT Project’s first year, the students of Miguel de Cervantes School have studied about the subjects
whichare given below.
First Year - First Semester
Improving Digital Skills
First Year - Second Semester
Improving Intercultural Awareness
September2015
Preparation of the project board
February 2016
Preparing a presentation about the culture
October 2015
Creating the project logo
March 2016
Preparing an e-guide about theculture
December2015
Preparation a digital postcard – Making an e-guide about how to
make a movie – Preparing a video about thestudents’s own school
April 2016
Preparing a presentation about the custom and etiquette
January 2016
Preparing a presentation about Cyberbullying
May 2016
General evaluation of student’s products
At the end of May, the evaluation form, which was prepared in order to assess the students’ all products by
the main coordinator of the project, was filled for each student monthly. The goal of the evaluation form is
to obtain information about the quality degree of the students’ monthly products and the performance of
students. This year, 20 students of Miguelde Cervantes Secondary School have participated in FLwICT
project. The evaluations of our students’ performances are given below in details as graphics. The scale
level for each item represents the least positive value 1 (Poor), 2 (Average), 3 (Above average) and 4 the
most positive (Superior).

3
0
5
10
15
20
He/she
cooperated with
other students
His/her
motivation is
high
He/she studied
consistentlyand
productively
He/she
completed the
work on time
He/she did the
work selflessly
1
11 10 10 9
13
9 10 10 10
7
Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
September 2015: Preparation of the project board
Graphic 1
In Graphic 1, the evaluation of the students’ performance on preparation of the project boardis seen. Totally 20
students worked on this subject. From the analysis of Graphic 1, we can say that the evaluation of the students’
performance onpreparationof the projectboardis mostly consideredgood.

4
0
5
10
15
20
He/she used
the computer
program for
designingthe
logo properly
He/she
designed really
creative logo
He/she did the
work selflessly
He/she
cooperated
with other
students
His/her
motivation is
high
11 2 2
9
1
3
8
6
4
6
16
10
11
7
12
Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
0
5
10
15
20
He/she studied
consistentlyand
productively
He/she completed
the work on time
He/she published
the work on thee-
twinningwithout
any problems
He/she published
the work on face
group
7
21
3
4
11
5
3
5
8
15
5 8
Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
October 2015: Creating the project logo
Graphic 2.1
Graphic 2.2

5
In Graphic 2.1 and Graphic 2.2 show the evaluation of the students’ performance on preparation of the
project logo. From the analysis of Graphic 2.1, it is found that regarding the information provided for
creating the project logo, the most of the students used computer programs to prepare the project logo
properly and designed a creative logo . However, the Graphic 2.1 shows half of the students didn’t study in
a big cooperation with each other regarding the preparation of the project logo.
From the analysis of Graphic 2.2, the most of students worked on this subject constantly and productively.
And most of them completed the work on time. But the students aren’t successful to share their products
on Facebookgroup and e-twinning platform.
As a result, the evaluation of the students’ performance on creating the project logo is mostly
considered positive butthe communication and broadcasting must be improve.

6
0
5
10
15
20
He/she used
the logosof
Erasmus+ and
NA correctly
He/she used
the name of the
project
He/she defined
the sources
He/she
improved
languageskills
He/she took
care to use
proper English
language
He/she
researched
enough
10
3
7
5
4
5
4
2 2
3
8
8 11
14
2
4
7 8 7
4
Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
0
5
10
15
20
He/she
cooperated
with other
students
His/her
motivation is
high
He/she
studied
consistently
and
productively
He/she
completed the
work on time
He/she
published the
work on thee-
twinning
without any
problems
He/she
published the
work on face
group
8
22 2
4
8
2
10
12
10
10
2
6
8
6 6
10
2
10
Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
December 2015: Preparation a digital postcard – Making an e-
guide about how to make a movie – Preparing a video about the
students’ own school
Graphic 3.1 –
Graphic 3.2 –

7
In Graphic 3.1 and Graphic 3.2, the evaluation of students' performance on preparing a digital postcard,
making an e-guide about how to make a movie and preparing a video about the students’ own school is
seen. As is shown in Graphic 3.1, while preparing the products on the areas at issue, the logos of Erasmus+,
NA and the name of the project aren’t used correctly by the most of the students . And regarding to define t
the sources, five students were evaluated in level 2 and 7 students in level 1. Nevetheless, it can be said
that based on the data in Graphic 3.1, mostly all students have improved language skills throughout this
activity. They tried to use proper English. This shows that they didn’t pay enough attention to define the
sources on their products.
As seen in Graphic 3.2, the students cooperated with each other and studied consistently and productively.
Beside this, their motivation is high related to working on this project and they used the time efficiently,
completing their products on time. We can observe at the fifth column in Graphic 3.2, the students had
difficulties about uploading the products on e-Twinning platform most. When we look at the sixth column
in Graphic 3.2, we see students improved their participation on Face group comparing with the October
activity.
As a result, the evaluation of the students’ performance on performance on preparing a digital postcard,
making an e-guide about how to make a movie and preparing a videoabout the students’ ownschool:
Students must pay attention to define sources on their products and to use the name and logo of the
project.

8
0
1
2
3
4
He/she used
the logosof
Erasmus+ and
NA correctly
He/she used
the name of
the project
He/she
defined the
sources
He/she
improved
language skills
He/she took
care to use
proper English
language
He/she
researched
enough
1
3
1
2
3
3
4
2
4
3
1
Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
0
1
2
3
4
He/she
cooperated
with other
students
His/her
motivation is
high
He/she
studied
consistently
and
productively
He/she
completed the
work on time
He/she
published the
work on thee-
twinning
without any
problems
He/she
published the
work on face
group
3
4
1
1 1 1
4
3 3 3
Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
January 2016: Preparing a presentation about Cyberbullying
Graphic 4.1 - (only for students whoattended themeeting in Italy)
Graphic 4.2 (only for students who attendedthe meetingin Italy)
As shown in Graphic 4.1 and Graphic 4.2, the students participated in the Italy meeting were able to
complete all their responsibilities with regards to preparation of representative presentation about their
school and the bad sides of Cyberbullying perfectly. During the workshops on Cyberbullying in Italy, we can
say that the students improved languge skills via working with other students. With regards to publish the
workon e-twinning platform and facebook,it can be said that they were not successful.

9
0
1
2
3
4
He/she used
the logosof
Erasmus+ and
NA correctly
He/she used
the name of the
project
He/she defined
the sources
He/she
improved
languageskills
He/she took
care to use
proper English
language
He/she
researched
enough
3
1 1
3
4
1
4 4
3 Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
0
1
2
3
4
He/she
cooperated
with other
students
His/her
motivation is
high
He/she
studied
consistently
and
productively
He/she
completed the
work on time
He/she
published the
work on thee-
twinning
without any
problems
He/she
published the
work on face
group
2
11
3
4 4 4
2
3 Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
February 2016: Preparing a presentation about the culture
Graphic 5.1 - (only for students who attended themeeting in Spain)
Graphic 5.2 - (only for students who attended themeeting in Spain)
Four students participated in Spain meeting. As shown in Graphic 5.1 and 5.2, the results related to
students’ performans on preparing a presentation about the culture are mostly superior. Students were
able to complete all their responsibilities perfectly. And they have improved their English language skills
and tried to use proper English troughout Spain meeting. Besides,, they cooperated with other students
during the meeting, too.

10
From the analysis of Graphics, it is seen that there are two problems. One of them is that these students
didn’t give importance to define the sources on the products, and other one is that they couldn’t publish the
work on e-Twinning platform without any problems. These problems can be seen at third column in
Graphic 5.1 and at fifthcolumn in Graphich 5.2 respectivly.

11
0
5
10
15
20
He/she used
the logosof
Erasmus+ and
NA correctly
He/she used
the name of the
project
He/she defined
the sources
He/she
improved
languageskills
He/she took
care to use
proper English
language
He/she
researched
enough
1
7
1
13
2
1 1
4
19
17
19 19
16 Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
0
5
10
15
20
He/she
cooperated
with other
students
His/her
motivation is
high
He/she studied
consistently
and
productively
He/she
completed the
work on time
He/she
published the
work on thee-
twinning
without any
problems
He/she
published the
work on face
group
1
20 20
1
1
1
9 6
1
19
10
11
19
Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
March 2016: Preparing an e-guide about the culture
Graphic 6.1 -
Graphic 6.2

12
In Graphic 6.1 and Graphic 6.2, the evaluation of students' performance on preparing an e-guide about
culture is seen. During March, totally 20 students worked on this activity. Based on the results of Graphic
6.2, we can say that generally the performance of the sudents is high related to using the logos and the
name of the project correctly. While working on this subject, the students improved their Language skills,
tried to use English language properly and researched enough related to the subject.
Rearding to complete the work on time all students show a level poor because this activity was in fact made
in April and May. They researching enough but they didn’t publish the works on etwinning platform.
Most of the student’s didn’t give importance to these subjects.

13
0
1
2
3
4
He/she used
the logosof
Erasmus+ and
NA correctly
He/she used
the name of
the project
He/she
defined the
sources
He/she
improved
languageskills
He/she took
care to use
proper English
language
He/she
researched
enough
2
2
2
4 4 4 4
2
Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
0
1
2
3
4
He/she
cooperated
with other
students
His/her
motivation is
high
He/she
studied
consistently
and
productively
He/she
completed the
work on time
He/she
published the
work on thee-
twinning
without any
problems
He/she
published the
work on face
group
2
2
1 1
4
3 3
4
0
4 Superior
Above
Average
Average
Poor
- April 2016: Preparing a presentation about the custom and etiquette
Graphic 7.1 (only for students who attendedthe meetingin Latvia)
Graphic 7.2 (only for students whoattended themeeting in Latvia)

14
As shown in Graphic 7.1 and Graphic 7.2, the students participated in the Latvia meeting were able to
complete all their responsibilities with regards to preparation of a presentation about the custom and
etiquette perfectly. As seen in Graphic 7.1, it is said that they gave importance to use the logos and the
name of the project on their work. Beside this, we can say that they improved their English language skill
during the meeting.
From the analysis of Graphic 7.2, it is seen that most of the students studied consistently and productively.
And the motivation of the students was high. But they didn’t publish their products on Face group and
etwinning successfully. If we look at the third and sixth columns in Graphic 7.2, it is seen that these
students didn’t define the sources on the products, and they didn’t give enough time for researches related
to their presentations. With regards to complete the workon time.

15
CONCLUSIONS
As we said before, the goal of this performance assessment is to decide the level of competence of the
students. However, this performance assessment also provides useful information to assess whether the
students improved their language skills or not throughout the first year of the project. And it can help the
teachers about which subjects to be given more special attention while the students are working on the
products. This assessment strategy can be used to monitor students’ English language skills, as well as their
competence in particular areas.
Based on the results of this study the following conclusionscan be drawn:
1. The students have improved their English language skills throughout the implementation processes
of the project’s first year.
2. Mostly all students tried to use proper English while preparing the works.
3. Mostly all students cooperated with each other while workingon the their responsibilities.
4. As shown in Graphics, the most of the students’ motivation was really high.
5. Mostly all students tried to use computer programs properly especially while preparing
presentations, logos and videos.
6. Mostly all students assumed the responsibilities on the area at issue selflessly.
7. Mostly all students studied consistently and productively during the first year of the project.
8. Mostly all students tried to use the logos of Erasmus+ and NA on their products correctly.
9. Most of the students used the name of the project on their products.
10. Few students publishedtheirworks on Face groupsuccessfully.
11. Mostof the students didn’tpayenoughattentionto definethe sources ontheir products.

16
12. Mostly all students used the time efficiently.Most of the students completed their products on time.
13. Mostof the students couldn’tpublishtheirproducts on e-twinningplatformwithoutanyproblems
Summing up, we consider, in general, the implementation of the project in our school has
been very successful and profitable, achiving the main goals defined.
Nevertheless, iIt can be said that the students must be more active about publishing the
products on Face group and e-Twinning platform. And they have to paid more attention to
define the sources of their products.

Spain evaluation report of students performance

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (17)

Destaque

Destaque (20)

Semelhante a Spain evaluation report of students performance

Semelhante a Spain evaluation report of students performance (20)

Mais de Jose Luis Leon Gonzalez

Mais de Jose Luis Leon Gonzalez (20)

Último

Último (20)

Spain evaluation report of students performance