Evaluation elements of the Videomuseums project in Eastern...

84 Videomuseums – recording traces of our subjective cultureAudiovisual Education for young people

Evaluation elements

of the Videomuseums project

in Eastern Attica, Greece

Eleni Kritikou, Menis Theodoridis, Irene Dimaki

Teachers and students’ training, drama workshop, Schultheater Studio, Frankfurt 9/2011

85

PART A: Videomuseums: the project & the partnership

Abstract

This is a brief presentation of the assessment results of the European project “Videomuseums: recording traces of our subjective culture”, a Comenius-Regio programme, with the participation of the Directorate of Secondary Education in Eastern Attica and the Directorate of Education in Frankfurt, as it was realised in Greece from 2010 to 2012. According to the results, the basic goals of the project have been achieved to a large degree. These basic goals include the building of cooperation networks among teachers, the collaboration of external specialists with student groups, the incorporation of innovative methods of the project in the daily teaching practice of the participating teachers. They also include the development of partnerships between Greek and German counterparts and the exchange of views and good practices.

A. Introduction

In the present article, there is a brief presentation of the results of the assessment process of the European project Comenius-Regio “Videomuseums: recording traces of our subjective culture”, as it was realised in Greece during the years 2010-2012. In this project, the Directorate of Second-ary Education in Eastern Attica, Greece and the Directorate of Education Frankfurt in Germany cooperated.

The realisation of the project was a complex and mul-tifaceted endeavour, with several and various goals. It is deemed appropriate here to mention briefly some distinc-tive features of the project, for which there is a more detailed reference in other articles of the present volume.

In Greece, the project was realised within the frame of Extracurricular Projects (EP). These projects are scheduled after school sessions, and the participation of teachers and students is on a voluntary basis. That was the case for the Videomuseums project as well. During the realisation of the project, students and teachers worked collectively and active participatory pedagogic methods, such as opinion research with questionnaires, participation in processes of democratic decision-making, field work, use of audiovisual expression tools and techniques were used. Simultaneously, the pattern of cooperation of the groups with outside collaborators/film-makers was used but also the setting up of a teachers’ coop-eration network, which worked as the pedagogic group of the project. At the initial stage, a training course for the par-ticipating teachers was organised, which had several hours’ duration and audiovisual educational content. Afterwards, the teachers were asked to “immediately” apply in each school the knowledge they had acquired during the realisa-tion phase of the project.

B. Assessement frame

The assessment of the project revolved around the following essential question: “What impact did the educational/teach-ing methodology used during the project (including teachers’ training, team work, students’ participation in processes of

democratic decision-making, the use of audiovisual and theat-rical techniques, the intervention of outside collaborators/spe-cialists) have on your work in the project, your class and other classes of the school?”The project’s assessment records the views of the students, teachers and filmmakers who have participated.

The data collection was completed in 2 phases: the first phase refers to the realisation of the project in 2010- 2011 and the second in 2011- 2012.

The tools used were:

personal diaries for teachers and filmmakers

written questionnaires of closed and open format questions which were answered by students, teachers and filmmakers, immediately after the project’s comple-tion each year

discussions of the coordinating team of the project on specific questions

with the teachers

with the filmmakers.

The data collected were:

personal diaries completed by teachers and filmmakers, during the school year 2010-11. Diaries from 8 out of 13 schools were collected

records of the main points of the discussions of the pro-ject’s coordinating team with teachers and filmmakers dur-ing June 2011

students, teachers and filmmakers’ answers to question-naires handed out in May 2011 and May 2012.

2010-11: 16 questionnaires from teachers were col-lected out of the 17 teachers asked, 112 questionnaires from students out of 220 asked and 8 questionnaires from film-


makers, concerning interventions in schools, from a total of 12 interventions.

2011-12: 15 questionnaires from teachers were col-lected out of the 19 teachers asked, 150 questionnaires from students out of 213 asked, 12 questionnaires of students’ school groups out of 13 and 11 questionnaires from film-makers regarding interventions in schools, from a total of 18 interventions.

The questionnaires handed out as well as the diary form can be found in the Appendix section of this volume (see Ap-pendices 1-8).

C. Results and Discussion

It is clarified here that there will be a brief presentation of the results, while detailed result charts can be found in the project’s final report.

C1. Personal diaries

After each meeting with the students, the teachers and film-makers were asked to keep a diary, as a tool of personal as-sessment. There, they would write down “what worked and what didn’t” in each group meeting. To facilitate the task, a diary form was handed to them (see Appendix 1), where they wrote down the issues and tasks discussed by the group dur-ing the meeting. An assessment on the goal achievement of each meeting was made based on a scale of 1 to 5.

Even though keeping personal diaries is considered an essential qualitative tool of the teachers’ action research, it isn’t a common practice in Greece; hence their collection was quite difficult.

We report, in short, that the groups’ meetings are rated by the teachers on average with 4.5 out of 5, while the film-makers rated them with 3.8 out of 5. Although the assess-ment is positive in both cases, the small difference observed is interesting since the teachers and filmmakers involved come from different fields, have different expectations re-garding the intended results and different levels of familiari-sation with the peculiarities of the school setting as a work environment.

During a visit to a school in Frankfurt 9/2011


87


The group meetings, on the grounds of the activities re-alised, are assessed by the teachers as follows:

script writing (4.8 out of 5)

survey (4.7 out of 5)

film shooting (4.7 out of 5)

We conclude, therefore, that the aforementioned activi-ties were the most attractive to students and were realised successfully.

C2. Discussions between teachers/filmmakers and the

coordinating team

After the completion of the year 2010-11, there were sepa-rate assessment meetings of the group of teachers and that of filmmakers with the project’s coordinating team. The dis-cussion revolved around certain questions and the teachers and filmmakers’ answers were recorded and grouped. An effort was made to take under consideration the results of these discussions in order to improve the project for the next school year 2011-12. Below, the most important conclusions for the year 2010-11 can be found. (The corresponding discus-sions for 2011-12 had not been realised by the time the present article was being written).

a. Discussion between teachers and coordinating team There is considerable time pressure. The time avail-

able isn’t enough for the project’s completion. The crea-tion of a Videomuseum, namely a short film, is by itself quite a demanding and time-consuming process.

The presence of the outside collaborator/filmmaker is very important. It opens up the school to society, of-fers students stimuli and “shades” the teacher cannot provide.

There is some difficulty in the relationship/balance with the filmmaker. Issues are brought about as to “what is the role of each of them in the group”, “who imposes their opinion.”

b. Discussion between the filmmakers and coordinating team There is little, insufficient time for research, photogra-

phy exercises and video production.

The school setting is unreliable; the tasks planned are not carried out by students for the next meeting, they aren’t conscientious about attendance of all group meetings.

The relationship with the teacher is very important but there should be clear definition of roles.

Teachers find it hard (even after the training course) to function independently, without technical support, and to complete the creation of the film with their students.

The whole endeavour is quite complex/ multi-factor (teachers, relationship with students, students’ ages,

time available and so on), and therefore, it is difficult to assess.

Despite the different traits of the two groups, as we have mentioned earlier (see C1, personal diaries), the difficulty to establish team relationships is evident (between teachers and external collaborators), but it’s also clear that such rela-tionships are indispensable. Another conclusion is that there is lack of time and space for activities of this kind in the rigid school setting.

C3. Questionnaires for teachers, filmmakers and

students

In the end of each year and after the screening of all the “Videomuseum” films produced in the respective Students’ Film and Photocomics Festival organised by the Directorate of Secondary Education of Eastern Attica, written question-naires were handed out to participating teachers, filmmak-ers and students with closed and open format questions (see Appendices 2-8). After their collection, the answers were processed.

It is clarified that in the brackets with the percentages and frequencies, the first figure refers to the year 2010-11 and the second to the year 2011-12. The frequencies are re-corded in the case of multiple answers, as the number of cho-sen answers out of the total number of answers.

α. Teachers’ questionnairesThe teachers consider:

the students’ participation in collective decision-mak-ing processes as exceptionally fruitful (68.7%, 66.7%)

the students’ familiarisation with studying methods different from those typical of the ordinary teaching frame as exceptionally fruitful (62.5%, 53.3%)

Teachers and students’ training, Frankfurt 9/2011


the mobilisation of students who aren’t usually in-terested in the scholarly teaching process as exception-ally fruitful (62.5%, 60.0%).

It is deduced from the above mentioned results that some of the most essential pedagogic goals of the project have been achieved. The teachers deem:

student’s familiarisation with expressional and com-municative tools (research with questionnaires, inter-views, video camera usage etc.) as satisfactory (50.0%, 46.7%);

The aforementioned goal, which is quite hard to achieve in the ordinary school setting, seems to have reached suffi-ciently high fulfillment rates.

their cooperation with the filmmaker as exceptionally fruitful (62.5%, 73.3%);

the incorporation of methodological components of the project in their lessons as very useful (68.8%, 73.3%);

The achievement of this goal, and with a high percent-age too, is deemed particularly significant, as it is an objec-tive of all respective projects (which have by definition a pre-planned and usually short duration), to contribute to incorporating their innovative practices in the daily teaching practice of the participants.

the extent to which the rest members of the school community noticed the project’s realisation as great (43.8%).

The teachers maintain that in order for their needs to be more adequately met in the future, it would be preferable to:

lengthen the duration of the filmmakers’ presence in schools, since it is deemed highly decisive

dedicate a longer period on their training in the tech-nical part (editing)

ensure that the participating schools be technically equipped.

Justifiably, the same conclusions deduced in the discus-sion between teachers and the coordinating team, (see C2), are drawn again in this case. More specifically: time pressure, importance of cooperation with the filmmaker, difficulty of independent work in the field of film creation without the filmmaker’s support. As it has already been mentioned, these views were taken under consideration so that the project im-proved in the second year of implementation.

In the questionnaire of the year 2011-12, when two field trips were made to Germany and to Greece, there were ques-tions regarding the cooperation with the counterparts in Germany.According to their answers, the teachers deem:

their cooperation/communication with the counter-parts in Germany exceptionally fruitful (46.7%).

Their contact in person and their shared participation in training courses conducted in both countries allowed for the understanding of the “other” and the development of com-munication and collaborations.

Furthermore, what made an impression to the teachers regarding the work of their counterparts in Germany were the following:

Many films had nice images, editing and music.

Human relationships were what children mostly con-templated on.

Superficial analysis of the topics.

The very few – compared to the Greek produc-tions – references to topics pertaining to the scholarly environment.

Their organisation and diligence.

The incorporation of activities from the art of theatre.

Film observation and assessment techniques.

This percentage increased in the second year of reali-sation of the project, when cooperation and familiarity be-tween teachers and filmmakers were greater, but also the definition of roles was more concrete (see also C2).

the overall planning and production process for Vide-omuseums as satisfactory (62.5%), exceptionally fruitful (73.3%);

In this case too, the second year of realisation seems to be more effective as a whole.

their experience from the initial training course as sat-isfactory (50.0%);

The initial training course 2010-11, was done in a very compressed way due to time restrictions and there was a jus-tified imbalance between aims and expectations, as well as prior experience of the participating teachers.

Students during a video shooting, Lavrio, Athens 2011

89


b. Filmmakers’ questionnairesThe filmmakers consider:

the cooperation with the teachers as exceptionally fruitful (36.4%, 81.8%);

the cooperation with the students as average (45.6%), exceptionally fruitful (54.6%);

the overall planning and production processes for Videomuseums as satisfactory (63.6%), exceptionally fruitful (81.8%);

The increase of percentages in the second year is astonish-ing. This could be attributed to the fact that the familiarisa-tion of the filmmakers with the reality of the school environ-ment was better, but also their cooperation with teachers and students alike.

the experience from the initial training course as sat-isfactory (54.6%);

Despite their different experience in audiovisual education and their diverse objectives/expectations, the assessment about the initial training course coincides for teachers and filmmakers, a fact which suggests the relative difficulty of ap-proach and adequate familiarisation with audiovisual educa-tion within a course, however long this might be.

the necessity for more meetings with a filmmaker as indispensable (90.9%, 100.0%).

The percentage remains at a remarkably high level in both years, which stresses the importance filmmakers attrib-ute to their own intervention in school for the creation of the Videomuseum film.

The filmmakers regard their participation as decisive:

in the preliminary research for the topic and the or-ganisation of shootings (frequency 10/46, 6/31)

in the shooting procedure (frequency 10/46, 6/31)

in the editing procedure (frequency 9/46, 9/31).

Moreover, they maintain that their participation should be more systematic:

in the ”get-to-know” exercises (frequency 9/51, 5/34)

in the directing exercises (frequency 9/51, 4/34)

in the topic selection process (frequency 8/51, 6/34).

From the above results we conclude that the filmmak-ers assert that the 3 last activities in which they didn’t have sufficient time to participate are a prerequisite for the 3 first, but also essential for the strengthening of bonds within the students’ group and the achievement of the best possible fi-nal outcome.

The filmmakers believe that the final outcome/Videomuseum:

has an imaginative approach in terms of its originality (72.3%, 72.7%)

its cinematic language is adequate (63.4%, 54.6%)

students’ participation in its creation is satisfactory (72.3%, 54.6%).

As it was mentioned in the questionnaires for teachers, questions regarding the cooperation with the German coun-terparts were found only in the questionnaires of 2011-12. The filmmakers saw the German films and met the Germans in person, mostly in Greece, since only two filmmakers visited them in Germany.

Teachers’ training, Frankfurt 9/2011

According to their answers, they consider:

their cooperation/communication with their counter-parts in Germany as exceptionally fruitful (36.4%).

In addition, what impressed them on their work were mainly the following traits:

simplicity


low and easily attainable goals

focus on objects as opposed to “our complex notions”

very general topics without any approach except for describing the topic

ingenuity in editing

insufficient script processing in the story they narrated.

They liked the project a lot (58.9%, 67.3%) and most of all they liked in it:

team work (27.7%, 32.7%)

the shooting procedure (18.8%, 24.0%)

the screening of Videomuseums before an audience (17.0%, 15.0%)

the research and discussions for the topic selection (17.0%, 12.0%)

the editing process (12.5%, 7.3%).

The above results are quite interesting since the stu-dents focus on specific goals from among a plethora of them, thus stressing what they are deprived of at school. To name but a few examples, let us mention team work and free ex-pression, which are merely present in the Greek educational system despite the fact that their pedagogic and learning value are recognised worldwide. There have been some at-tempts recently to introduce them in the Greek educational system (research dissertations, new school), though they are met with considerable resistance.The students:

are very satisfied with their group’s work and with themselves for their participation in the project’s tasks (75.0%, 81.3%)

felt very satisfied with the completed film when they saw it screened (73.2%, 85.3%).

Students’ training, Athens 9/2011

c. Students’ questionnairesThe students believe that the five most important goals of this project were:

to learn to work collectively (frequency 98/522, 137/729)

to express themselves freely (frequency 98/522, 109/729)

to learn how to gather information, organise it and present it (frequency 61/522, 109/729)

to entertain themselves (frequency 58/522, 75/729)

to learn how to think (frequency 46/522, 64/729).

The students choose as the most important goal of the project in 2010-11 to express themselves freely (38.4%) while in 2011-12 to work collectively (42.0%) and consider that this goal has been achieved (88.4%, 96.8%).

91


It’s worth emphasising how important it is for them to feel satisfied with team and individual work, not losing sight of the fact that the final screening of the films in the Festival allows them to grasp the totality of their work, to distinguish its inner unity and to assemble its separate components, which is rather hard to do as they engage themselves in sev-eral activities during the year.The students:

deemed the help of the collaborative filmmaker par-ticularly important (47.3%, 46.0%)

would recommend to a friend of theirs to participate in the project (88.4%, 94.3%).

In May 2012, in order to have the necessary time to include some indicative results regarding the cooperation with the German students in the Conference held, a short question-naire addressing the whole student group of each school was drafted (see Appendix 8).

According to the answers, the students’ groups believe that:

the cooperation with the students from Germany (di-rectly or through their films or through word of mouth from someone participating) influenced this year’s work of theirs a little (75%).

It should be clarified here that the students who had direct contact/cooperation with the students in Germany were just a few, as it is indicated from the figures below.Students in Greece who:

participated in the shared seminar in Frankfurt: 3.1%

participated in the shared seminar in Athens: 15.5%

participated in both seminars: 1.6%

were informed through the German films they saw or by someone who was present in the above events: 83.3%.

What impressed the students’ groups from the work of the students from Germany were mainly the following:

The films were simple and understandable.

Technically they were more advanced.

Nice topics but with inadequate development.

Many films dealt with friendship and human relation-ship issues.

Rendered the messages with images and sparse words.

Many films ended with a moral.

Impeccable infrastructure, excellent equipment, but final product average, given all these.

Good use of cinematic language.

eted endeavour, with many and various goals. According to the assessment results, the basic goals have been largely met and the participants – teachers, students and filmmakers – seem to be satisfied with their participation in the project.

It’s worth referring to the achievement of objectives such as the mobilisation of students who aren’t usually in-terested in the scholarly teaching process, the familiarisation with different study methods compared to those typical of the ordinary teaching context, students’ participation in col-lective decision-making processes, students’ hands-on with expressional and communicative tools (research using ques-tionnaires, interviews, video camera use etc.), which are more than needed in the Greek educational system as constituents for the improvement of educational quality.

Likewise, the incorporation of the project’s innovative teaching methods in the daily teaching practice of the par-ticipating teachers is deemed equally significant.

The attempt to build cooperative relationships between teachers and external collaborators/filmmakers was one of the most essential traits of the project and signifies the opening up of the school to society and students’ contact with professionals. Despite the initial difficulties, this coop-eration was considered by all parties involved as crucial and it was achieved to a great degree during the second year of the project, when all collaborators had got to know one an-other better, and when filmmakers got more accustomed to the realities of the school setting.

Team work, freedom of expression, democratic decision-making, features lacking from the typical educational frame, were greatly appreciated by the students, which illustrates their importance for the improvement of the quality of education.

The lack of time (and space) in the traditionally rigid and rather suffocating school setting which doesn’t allow for projects of such type was acknowledged as one of the facts that posed obstacles to its realisation. As it has already been noted, in the Greek educational system, these projects are realised on a voluntary basis and after school sessions, which makes it difficult for a larger number of students and teach-ers to participate.

As the initial step of the project’s implementation in schools, the training of the participating teachers had been planned, on the one hand, to enable them to work in the particular project and on the other, to contribute to their audiovisual education in general. Given that the audiovisual expression field is quite wide and requires special skills, it was concluded in the assessment that although the training course had a long duration and was experiential, it couldn’t cover completely the teachers’ needs, so that they could then function absolutely independently while guiding the students’ work for the production of the Videomuseum film.

Furthermore, the results point at the pedagogic value of the presentation of the final product/film for the participat-ing students, which, apart from the satisfaction it offered, it allowed them to assemble the separate components of their work and distinguish their inner unity so that they could grasp its totality.

Before closing, it would be useful to refer to the coopera-tion between counterparts from Greece and Germany. Per-

D. Conclusions

The realisation of the project: “Videomuseums: recording traces of our subjective culture”, was a complex and multifac-


sonal communication among the participating teachers and students from both countries was realised only during the second year when they mutually travelled to the respective countries and participated in shared seminars there. Almost all teachers participated, but the students, due to the nature of the European project, had a very low attendance percent-age. It is a shared conviction that this communication con-duced to the achievement of the project’s respective goals, allowing the understanding of the “other”, the specification of similarities and differences, the exchange of opinions, the development of cooperation, particularly among those who participated in the trips and shared seminars. The films pro-duced during the second year, illustrated this interaction. In fact, all participants agreed that the personal contact among European projects’ counterparts should be done at the be-ginning, so that the project’s completion be facilitated.

E. Instead of an Epilogue

Instead of writing an epilogue, we believe that what would best recapitulate the assessment is quoting the views of the people involved in the project, as they wrote them in the rel-evant question.

level we are aiming at during the procedure and this is so because of the fast pace everything is done.

It is the experience and not the result which unites us all.

Students… Unprecedented, unique; I want to do it again.

It was a very nice experience, but I’d prefer it if more than six people from the entire Eastern Attica had gone to Germany.

It was good from time to time.

Dancing with imagination.

I needed that.

It was very tiring for all of us, but the result rewarded us.

The world of editing is enchanting.

We had a perfect time and felt more satisfied with the result, which was far more than I expected.

To produce this short film we went through a lot: dis-putes, quarrels, passion, complaints, tiredness, love.

I’m bored with editing.

At last, I was given the chance to speak my mind.

The satisfaction after some months’ work is enormous. I won’t forget our laughter and applause when we saw the complete film.

Teachers and students during a video shooting, Acharnes, Athens 2012

Filmmakers… The primary objective should be the introduction of

children to the means of cinematic expression without necessarily having to produce a film.

The project may trigger overwhelming response. None-theless, some improvements are deemed imperative.

The students were stunned when they saw the film; they didn’t quite expect it. I think there is a long way to go before they reach sentimentally and practically the

Teachers… I could only look at a photo before; now I can read it.

The final production of a collective work is the tran-scendence of any individual and thus limited belief.

This year, the team worked collectively, democratical-ly and creatively at all levels. We came closer, laughed, experimented, talked, played. This won’t fade.

If we give children the opportunity to express them-selves freely, they will surprise us with their final prod-uct and show how much they need to speak about things that trouble them.

It’s actually a mental as well as literal trip for us. The cooperation with the filmmakers and the “opening up” to Germany were important for the school, the teacher, the students. It’s a very good chance to broaden our educational horizons, a well-organised stimulus for fur-ther creative efforts and “opening-ups” on scholarly and individual basis.

93

Eleni Kritikou is a Science Teacher at the Music High School of Pallini, Greece. She has studied Chemistry and has a Ph.D. degree in Biochemistry. She has been working as a teacher of Science in Secondary Education since 1985. From 1/9/2003 to 31/8/2011, she worked as a Coordinator of En-vironmental Education (EE) Programmes in the Directorate of Secondary Education in the Region of Eastern Attica. She has developed many EE Pro-grammes in schools, has experience in the carry-ing out of research in the field of Chemistry and EE and in the organisation of seminars and work-shops in EE. She participated in a Comenius 2.1 Programme in Czech Republic and in a Study Visit (Arion) Programme in Sweden and currently – as a member of the steering group – in the Comenius-Regio Project “The Youth Videomuseums Partner-ship: recording traces of our subjective culture”.

Irene Dimaki was born and raised in Hermoupo-lis, Syros Isl., Greece. In the summer of 2004, she graduated from the 1st High School of Syros and during the years 2004-2010, she studied at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, at the Faculty of Early Childhood Education. She wrote a dissertation on cinema and animation and she worked in public kindergarten schools in the context of her practical exercise of the University. Furthermore, she has attended educational semi-nars on the children’s age and the Means of Mass communication. Also, she has attended seminars about cinema and she has participated in the creation of some short films which were awarded in Greek film competitions. Moreover, she speaks Spanish and English and she is interested in mu-sic (percussion) and dance (contemporary dance, taps and lindy hop). She participated in the evalu-ation team of the Videomuseum project.

It was the best year of my life, even though it took up a lot of our time.

Tiring, entertaining, satisfactory.

The best experience in my tiny little life.

Not only are images connected, but they connect too.

Translated from Greek

by Marina Toulgaridou

Menis Theodoridis is a Film Director specialised in media education and issues of audiovisual ex-pression. He worked in Greek National Television Broadcasting (ERT) as a film-TV director (1984-2010). In the “Melina Project – Education and Cul-ture” he was responsible for the Media Education and Audiovisual Expression Workshop as well as for the educational design of teaching packages. He has also designed educational material for various International Film Festivals held in Greece. Recently (2010-11), he was the head of the Com-mittee for the design of a new National Curricu-lum in the field of Culture, including a proposal of a full Syllabus for Audiovisual Education during the years of Compulsory Education. He is a mem-ber of the NGO “Karpos Centre”.

www.karposontheweb.org

Evaluation elements of the Videomuseums project in Eastern...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation elements of the Videomuseums project in Eastern...