Etwinning

Rubric for a quality project: 3. Communication and Interaction among partner schools

This is the third of the six articles which aim to present the indicators for the different criteria in the evaluation scale for a quality eTwinning project (You can see the 6 quality criteria by clicking   here). In this case the criterion we are going to present is Communication and interaction among the partner schools. This criterion evaluates the quality of the communication activities that the teachers design for/with their partners and students with the purpose of sharing the work done on the topics involved in the project.

In an eTwinning project, communication and interaction among the actors of the project are an indispensable minimum requisite. Communication and interaction among the partner teachers is necessary at the beginning of the project to discuss and agree on the design and planning of the project, as well as at each stage of its development and at its completion. There should be communication and interaction as well among the students which is necessary for them to get to know each other, work, share results and/or make decisions together as they carry out the different tasks of the project aimed at the achievement of a common end product.

The degree of communication achieved in the process of communication and exchange of information among the teachers and students will mark the difference as is explained in the indicators on the evaluation scale. The difference will also be marked by the type of communication used, which can be individual, or in small groups, and can include different objectives: voting, competitions, etc., designed to encourage the students to read, listen to or see their companions' work.

These are the quality indicators listed from the lowest to the highest  for the criterion of “Communication and Interaction among partner schools” Have you thought about starting an eTwinning project? Ae you already working on one? Apply these indicators to your idea and use them as an evaluation scale. What is your level?

1. The activities planned do not demand communication among the students to be carried out. The students just have to create a variety of products which they share on the TwinSpace or another similar tool without there being any interaction or reaction to these communications. None or very few of the students use the TwinSpace or other communication tools: there may be a simple exchange of emails with personal information, but the teachers are the ones who upload the students' work onto the platform.  

2. The partner students create a variety of products and share them on the TwinSpace or another similar external tool. However the teachers have proposed few (or no) activities which ensure that the students really share and communicate. The students from each country work separately, there is little coordination in the topics dealt with by the partner teachers.   

3. The students have shared their products and they have been improved with the contributions of their partners; as the teachers have proposed specific activities so that there is an interaction among the students from different countries. The different schools have worked on the same topics following common or similar instructions, so that the students have been curious to see the creations of their partners and have reacted to them. Topics (proposed by the teachers) have been shared, but not enough to produce a common end product in the TwinSpace or another tool.  

4. The information has been shared with clearly defined objectives: comparing, achieving more in-depth learning, and widening the students' horizons. These objectives have been reached using teaching processes designed by the teachers and implemented by the students, thanks to suitable communication among the students which has been a main objective under the guidance of the teachers (excellent use of the communication possibilities offered by the TwinSpace or others like Videoconference...). The work has been shared, common topics have been dealt with, they have been discussed among the students; the material is organized, but there is not a shared end product, the final work of the students is uploaded to the TwinSpace – or another platform – in a well-organized manner, although this communication has not led to a collaborative end product. 

5. As well as the points mentioned above, the teachers have encouraged the interaction and information sharing as a first step towards collaborative work among the students. The work has been shared, common topics have been worked on, they have been discussed by the students, there is an end product.

Communication among teachers is a crucial element in the planning of a project, but it should be maintained throughout the whole process, revising, modifying, and reconstructing if necessary what has been planned by consensus to achieve the proposed objectives. An example of quality in communication among teachers can be found in the proposal by   Juan F. Peñas Viso   from the CPEIP San Babil school, Navarre who describes in an article on our web page a magnificent example of communication among teachers and in which he includes advice and very useful tools to carry it out (you can access the article by clicking here).

 Conclusion: Look for consensus and encourage debate with your partners in the planning and development of the project. Make sure you give your eTwinning project the tools and situations necessary for your students to be able to communicate.

Source of the images: eTwinning NSS.