Visibility of eTwinning Projects Group July 2011 Newsletter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
how often learning takes place; (4) who chooses
the materials; (5) who chooses the work
techniques; (5) who decides on levels and criteria
of acceptable outcomes; (6) who monitors the
learning program and process; and (7) who
evaluates the results of learning? Since eTwinning
projects are negotiated between two founding
schools, who then invite fellow school partners, it
was regarded relevant to consider how both schools
and students developed efforts in terms of
negotiation, collaboration and decision-making.
By looking at Graphic 1 and analyzing its data, it
stands out that the different stages of the learning
process are teacher-centred. For instance, aspects
like identifying students‘ educational needs (item
1), learning objectives‘ definition (item 2) and who
monitors the learning program and process (item 7)
scarcely have students‘ opinions into consideration.
Nonetheless, one can refer some degree of a shared
management of learning as teachers have
highlighted that more than 50% of students take
part in decisions such as choosing the materials
(item 4) and the work techniques (item 5) as well
as evaluating the results of learning (item 8).
Graphic 1
With reference to the five basic elements suggested
by Johnson & Johnson (1994: 22-23), teachers
were asked to expressed to what extent they
considered that the involvement in the eTwinning
action promoted these key factors for successful
collaborative learning. According with Graphic 2,
58,6% of the respondents consider that eTwinning
fosters positive interdependence a lot, namely the
sense of students feeling connected and working
towards a common goal, maximizing everyone‘s
learning. Secondly comes individual accountability
meaning that each student is held responsible for
their share of work.
Graphic 2
The encouragement of interpersonal and social
skills needed in collaboratively work also comes as
a strong point of eTwinning projects, followed by
team reflection, whereby every group of work
assesses periodically what they have learned. This
former aspect links directly with teachers‘ opinions
when stating that 55,2% students decide who
participates in the assessment of the learning
resulting from eTwinning projects involvement (see
Graphic 1).
Face-to-face interaction among students seemed to
be the element with more diverged opinions and
the weaker aspect of the collaborative work. It can
be argued that this element could not have been
that clear to teachers as some might have
considered only interactions eye-to-eye with
partner students which is not always possible due
to lack of specific ICT equipment or time
scheduling.
b.
Strengths and weaknesses towards
possibilities and challenges…
These results corroborate a consensual assertion in
the eTwinning Conference 2009, in Prague, that
eTwinning action provided students with authentic
and meaningful learning environment although
much of the collaboration and mediation done in
the TwinSpace was secured by teachers and not so
9