ANNEX I
DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION
Section C of the proposal:
Since the launch of the SUPERCOMET project in 2001 a number of outputs, including surveys (PISA and TIMSS), conferences (GIREP, ESERA and MPTL) and teacher focused initiatives (Physics on Stage, Science on Stage), have all demonstrated that whilst pockets of excellence in practice exist, the general provision for science education is in need of stimulation. The following quote from the Annex to Progress Report, December 2004 of Working Group D, “Mapping of Policies Supporting the
Implementation of The 2003 Recommendations Agreed upon by Working Group D”, pp12-13, underlines this:
“There was a clear recognition in all countries that the promotion of more effective and attractive teaching methods was essential.”
“…polarised recognition with particular groups of teachers active in supporting innovative methods while others preferred to stick with more familiar traditional ones.”
The recruitment of teachers who show both competence and confidence in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) subjects is a Europe wide issue and across Europe the particular need, amongst the sciences, is in physics. For example in the UK only 17% of secondary schools have a physics specialist, and in Norway, 50% of upper secondary school teachers are above 50 years old, according to a recent survey by the National Teachers’ Association. Also in other European countries the situation is problematic. For example in Poland, the number of students entering science teacher faculties has fallen by 40-50% in the last 5 years.
The challenge is therefore one of motivating teachers, through both pre-service and in-service provision, thereby passing enthusiasm to learners who, in turn, become the scientists, engineers and teachers of the future. The following quote from the Progress Report, December 2004 of Working Group D, “Increasing Participation in Math, Sciences and Technology”, might illustrate this:
“Whilst there are clear partnerships formed between universities and schools in attempt to make MST subjects more attractive to pupils, very few partnerships in this area address the issue pedagogy by helping teachers to adopt more user friendly methods. As teacher reluctance to change to more active, authentic pedagogies has been identified as a problem by a number of countries, perhaps this is an area which should be explored.”
This is the rationale behind linking this project proposal to the Leonardo da Vinci priority 2,
Continuous training of teachers and trainers, and the Programme Objective “to support improvements in quality and innovation in vocational education and training systems, institutions and practices”.
References:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/sciprof.html
http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/2010/doc/math2004.pdf
Work package 1 Administration
Aims Manage the project’s administrative and financial operations Start/finish date
(overall duration) Entire project duration – see Gantt Diagram for work packages.
Staff days See overview of staff days per work package.
Operating Costs Travel costs for NA meetings and WP1 Project Administration meetings Equipment costs for operating project file server, email server, web server Role and tasks of
partners involved P1 Simplicatus is Project Contractor and WP1 leader. Simplicatus will be responsible for the financial transactions, documentation and reporting, as well as the project administration, documentation and reporting.
Simplicatus is also responsible for operating the project file server, email server and web server.
WP1 members:
P19 UMK Torun is Project Coordinator and will contribute to the project reporting with regard to the output of the project work packages.
P27 Institute of Education is Project Evaluator and will contribute to the project reporting with regard to the evaluation of the project quality.
Role and tasks of
sub-contractors None.
Working methods
and techniques Skype conferences, online project management tools, F2F meetings, email correspondence with exchange of documents for review, version control Expected
outcomes/results Partner contracts, Financial transfers and documentation, Interim Report, Final Report.
Quality management
tools Payments of project grants to partners by the Project Contractor will be linked to success criteria defined for each partner and work package, in cooperation with the Project Coordinator and Evaluator.
The success criteria will be set out in the Project Quality Plan, developed by the Project Contractor and Coordinator based on the specifications from the Project Evaluator (see tasks for WP8). The Project Contractor and
Coordinator will be responsible for following the Project Quality Plan, and the Project Evaluator will monitor this work.
The Project Evaluator will maintain close contact with the Project Contractor and Project Coordinator, be kept informed of operational decisions related to the administrative and financial issues, and will act as a critical friend to the project.
A Quality Assessment procedure will be adopted, based on similar procedures from previous projects, and used for assessing important project deliverables (documents, specifications and products).
Work package 2 Coordination
Aims Coordinate the project’s transfer of innovation efforts Start/finish date
(overall duration) Entire project duration – see Gantt Diagram for work packages.
Staff days See overview of staff days per work package.
Operating Costs Travel costs for WP2 Project Coordination meetings.
Equipment costs for setting up online project management tools.
Role and tasks of
partners involved P19 UMK Torun is Project Coordinator and WP2 leader. UMK Torun will be responsible for the overall progress of the project’s scientific and
pedagogical activities in the different work packages, following up the work package leaders and reporting to the Project Contractor.
WP2 members:
P1 Simplicatus is Project Contractor and will control that UMK Torun coordinates the work done by the partners in line with the overall project concept and the projected project outcomes. Simplicatus is also responsible for setting up the online project management tools.
P27 Institute of Education is Project Evaluator and will contribute to the evaluation of partner tasks carried out in the work packages.
Role and tasks of
sub-contractors None.
Working methods
and techniques Skype conferences, online project management tools, F2F meetings, email correspondence with exchange of documents for review, version control Expected
outcomes/results Ensuring the implementation of project activities and development of products according to project proposal.
Quality management
tools Payments of project grants to partners by the Project Contractor will be linked to success criteria defined for each partner and work package, in cooperation with the Project Coordinator and Evaluator.
The success criteria will be set out in the Project Quality Plan, developed by the Project Contractor and Coordinator based on the specifications from the Project Evaluator (see tasks for WP8). The Project Contractor and
Coordinator will be responsible for following the Project Quality Plan, and the Project Evaluator will monitor this work.
The Project Evaluator will maintain close contact with the Project Contractor and Project Coordinator, be kept informed of operational decisions related to the administrative and financial issues, and will act as a critical friend to the project.
A Quality Assessment procedure will be adopted, based on similar procedures from previous projects, and used for assessing important project deliverables (documents, specifications and products).
Work package 3 High-tech Minds-on experimental kit
Aims Develop and improve the high-tech minds-on kit based on test results Start/finish date
(overall duration) First 12 months of project – see Gantt Diagram for work packages.
Staff days See overview of staff days per work package.
Operating Costs Travel costs for WP3 workshop meeting.
Other costs for development, production, shipping and testing of the high- tech experimental kits. Most of the costs will be for materials for producing a number of kits to be distributed to partners for testing. These will be split chiefly between P9 U of Paris Sud 11, P19 UMK Torun and P24 Soliton.
E.g. to fully characterize the properties of the superconductor and
determine its capacities and limitations, some measurement equipment will be needed (a lock-in amplifier detector or a precise multimeter), as well as some small materials (magnets and such).
Subcontracting costs for USB 4-point measurement probe (see below).
Role and tasks of
partners involved P20 U of Wroclaw is WP3 leader, responsible for coordination and also the development of certain elements.
WP3 members:
P1 Simplicatus will be involved in the conceptual, technical and aesthetic design.
P9 U of Paris Sud 11 will contribute to the pedagogical aspects and educational/technical design of the experiments.
P11 U of Udine will contribute to the pedagogical, educational and technical design of the experiments. They will also coordinate the subcontractor developing a new USB-connected 4-point measurement probe that will be able to measure the resistivity of a high-temperature superconductor with sufficient resolution and at a low cost, for use in school laboratories.
P19 UMK Torun will be responsible for the conceptual and educational issues. Some of the parts will be developed and produced at the university machine shop.
P24 Soliton will be responsible for the technical aspects of the production.
They will coordinate the purchasing of materials to be used for the
production of the experimental kits, as well as the packing and distribution to project partners, in coordination with P1 Simplicatus.
P28 U of Loughborough will contribute to the pedagogical aspects and educational/technical design of the experiments.
Role and tasks of
sub-contractors Subcontractors will be invited to develop a new USB-connected 4-point measurement probe for the high-tech experimental kit, as the probes currently on the market are too large and expensive, and also impractical since the connections are not using the modern USB interface.
Working methods
and techniques Skype conferences, online project management tools, F2F meetings, email correspondence with exchange of documents for review, version control.
Expected
outcomes/results Product R1, including new USB 4-point measurement probe Quality management
tools QA procedure adopted from previous projects used for assessing important project deliverables (documents, specifications and products).
Work package 4 Low-tech Minds-on experimental kit
Aims Develop and improve the low-tech minds-on kits based on test results Start/finish date
(overall duration) First 12 months of project – see Gantt Diagram for work packages.
Staff days See overview of staff days per work package.
Operating Costs Travel costs for WP4 Workshop meeting
Other costs for development, production, shipping and testing of the low- tech experimental kits. Most of the costs will be for materials for producing a number of kits to be distributed to partners for testing. These will be split chiefly between P19 UMK Torun and P24 Soliton.
Role and tasks of
partners involved P19 UMK Torun is WP4 leader and will be responsible for the conceptual and educational issues of the development. Some of the material parts will be developed and produced at the university’s machine shop.
WP4 members:
P1 Simplicatus will participate in the conceptual, technical and aesthetic design, with a responsibility towards the overall project concept and links to previous projects.
P4 U of Antwerp, P6 U of Brno, P8 U of Lille, P11 U of Udine and P28 U of Loughborough will participate in the conceptual and technical design, as well as the practical development and connections to previous experience and work in the field.
P24 Soliton will be responsible for the technical aspects of the production.
They will coordinate the purchasing of materials to be used for the
production of the experimental kits, as well as the packing and distribution to project partners, in coordination with P1 Simplicatus.
Role and tasks of
sub-contractors None.
Working methods
and techniques Skype conferences, online project management tools, F2F meetings, email correspondence with exchange of documents for review, version control Expected
outcomes/results Product R2 Quality management
tools QA procedure adopted from previous projects used for assessing important project deliverables (documents, specifications and products).
Partners not directly involved in design and manufacturing of the kits but with a long experience in teaching by hand-on activities (like PAP Słupsk) will be involved in the evaluation of all different aspects of the kits produced.
Work package 5 Teacher Seminars
Aims Develop and improve the teacher seminar based on test results Start/finish date
(overall duration) Entire project duration – see Gantt Diagram for work packages.
Staff days See overview of staff days per work package.
Operating Costs Travel costs for WP5 Workshop meeting Role and tasks of
partners involved P4 U of Antwerp is WP5 leader and will be responsible for the conceptual and educational issues of the development.
WP5 members:
P1 Simplicatus will be involved in the practical organization and testing of the Teacher Seminar, connecting with the valorisation partners.
P2 U of Graz, P6 U of Brno and P28 U of Loughborough will participate in the conceptual and pedagogical design of the Teacher Seminars, as well as the practical development and connections to previous experience and work in the field.
Role and tasks of
sub-contractors None.
Working methods
and techniques Skype conferences, online project management tools, F2F meetings, email correspondence with exchange of documents for review, version control Expected
outcomes/results Products R5 and R6 Quality management
tools QA procedure adopted from previous projects used for assessing important project deliverables (documents, specifications and products).
The quality of the contents for the two Teacher Seminars will be based on extensive experience from previous projects and many years of practical working knowledge by the involved partners. The Institute of Education will be responsible for implementing the QA procedure during the testing phase in Work Package 8.
Work package 6 Support materials
Aims Develop and improve the electronic/printed support materials for the minds-on kits and teacher seminar (how-to-explanations, demo videos, magnetism-booklet etc.)
Start/finish date
(overall duration) Entire project duration – see Gantt Diagram for work packages.
Staff days See overview of staff days per work package.
Operating Costs Travel costs for WP6 Workshop meeting Role and tasks of
partners involved P28 U of Loughborough is WP6 leader and will be responsible for the overall development of support materials, including the Teacher Guide, the
explanations of experiments and teaching methods connected to the experimental kits and possibly classroom posters.
WP6 members:
P1 Simplicatus will be involved in the practical organization and testing of the Teacher Guide, connecting with the valorisation partners.
P2 U of Graz, P4 U of Antwerp, P6 U of Brno, P11 U of Udine and P20 U of Wroclaw will participate in the conceptual and pedagogical design of the support materials, as well as the practical development and connections to previous experience and work in the field.
P19 UMK Torun will be responsible for the conceptual development and distribution of a small booklet about magnetism, specially designed to compensate for the lack of such information in Polish textbooks, in order to provide the necessary prerequisites for pupils and teachers to fully
appreciate the contents of the project materials.
P24 Soliton will be responsible for the technical production (printing) of the booklet about magnetism, and also for other production activities related to the support materials.
Role and tasks of
sub-contractors None.
Working methods
and techniques Skype conferences, online project management tools, F2F meetings, email correspondence with exchange of documents for review, version control Expected
outcomes/results Products R3 and R4 Quality management
tools QA procedure adopted from previous projects used for assessing important project deliverables (documents, specifications and products).
The quality of the contents for the Support materials will be based on extensive experience from previous projects and many years of practical working knowledge by the involved partners. The Institute of Education will be responsible for implementing the QA procedure during the testing phase in Work Package 8.
Work package 7 Videos, photos
Aims Produce and collect the necessary photographs and videos for the teacher seminars and support materials
Start/finish date
(overall duration) Entire project duration – see Gantt Diagram for work packages.
Staff days See overview of staff days per work package.
Operating Costs Travel costs for WP7 Workshop meeting (if separate meeting is necessary) Role and tasks of
partners involved P8 U of Lille is WP7 leader and will coordinate the work gathering
photographs and videos for the project deliverables and documenting the intellectual property rights and/or usage rights for these, using a tool developed by the University of Lille for a previous project (see table B2).
WP7 members:
P1 Simplicatus, P4 U of Antwerp, P9 U of Paris Sud 11, P19 UMK Torun, P20 U of Wroclaw and P28 U of Loughborough will contribute illustrations, photographs and videos, and assist in discussions about the illustrations.
Role and tasks of
sub-contractors Norwegian company Visualize DA, who has previously contributed Flash animations and illustrations for the SUPERCOMET 2 Computer Application and Teacher Guide, will be asked to contribute animations/illustrations of the experiments for the MOSEM Support materials, in order to supplement the photos and videos provided by the partners.
Working methods
and techniques Skype conferences, online project management tools, F2F meetings, email correspondence with exchange of documents for review, version control Expected
outcomes/results Photos, videos and illustrations for WP5, WP6, products R3, R4, R5 and R6.
Quality management
tools QA procedure adopted from previous projects used for assessing important project deliverables (documents, specifications and products).
The Pomeranian Academy, Slupsk, Poland and P24 Soliton, author and producer of an educational CD based on videos and photos (“Physics and Toys”) will act as critical friends in this work package.
Work package 8 Evaluation
Aims Evaluate project quality and report back to Contractor and Coordinator for necessary improvements.
Organize classroom trials of the developed materials in the partner schools and associated testing schools, report back to other work packages for improvements and for evaluation.
The MOSEM materials will be piloted in conjunction with the materials developed through SUPERCOMET 2; Teacher Seminar, Teacher Guide and Computer Application with e-modules containing animations and
background information on superconductivity and electromagnetism.
Start/finish date
(overall duration) First 12 months: Develop testing procedures
Last 12 months: Carry out testing of products from WP3, WP4, WP5, WP6 See also Gantt Diagram for work packages.
Staff days See overview of staff days per work package.
Operating Costs Travel costs for WP8 Evaluator visits to partners, workshops, testing Role and tasks of
partners involved P26 Institute of Education is WP8 leader and will coordinate the testing routines, and produce a synthesis of the national testing reports.
All other partners – P1 Simplicatus, P2 U of Graz, P4 U of Antwerp, P6 U of Brno, P8 U of Lille, P9 U of Paris Sud 11, P11 U of Udine, P19 UMK Torun, P20 U of Wroclaw, P28 U of Loughborough and all partner schools are WP8 members.
All WP8 members will contribute by carrying out testing activities in their own countries and producing a national testing report.
Role and tasks of
sub-contractors None.
Working methods
and techniques Skype conferences, online project management tools, F2F meetings, email correspondence with exchange of documents for review, version control Expected
outcomes/results Coordinated testing/valorisation of products R1-R8 in the second half of the project, when the minds-on kits (products R1, R2 and R3) are ready for testing along with preliminary versions of product R4, R5, R6, R7 and R8.
Quality management
tools QA procedure adopted from previous projects used for assessing important project deliverables (documents, specifications and products).
The Project Evaluator will maintain close contact with the Project Contractor and Project Coordinator, be kept informed of operational decisions related to the administrative and financial issues, and will act as a critical friend to the project.
The Project Contractor and Coordinator, on the other hand, will follow up on the Project Evaluator, requesting feedback and overlooking that the
Evaluation activities are carried out according to the agreed timeline.
Work package 9 Valorisation
Aims Organize dissemination and valorisation of the developed materials, report back to other work packages for improvements and for evaluation
Start/finish date
(overall duration) Entire project duration – see Gantt Diagram for work packages.
Staff days See overview of staff days per work package.
Operating Costs Travel costs for WP9 activities – GIREP, MPTL, LdV conferences Role and tasks of
partners involved P1 Simplicatus is WP9 leader and will be responsible for coordinating the dissemination and valorisation efforts of the project, especially following up the project valorisation partners and media coverage of the project results.
All other partners – P2 U of Graz, P4 U of Antwerp, P6 U of Brno, P8 U of Lille, P9 U of Orsay, P11 U of Udine, P15 Norwegian Teacher Association, P18 PSNPP, P19 UMK Torun, P20 U of Wroclaw, P23 PUB Gdansk, P24 PUB Sopot and P28 U of Loughborough are WP9 members.
All WP8 members will contribute to the dissemination of project results through presentations at relevant local, national and international conferences and venues, as well as by helping to recruit and follow up external reference group members.
Role and tasks of
sub-contractors None.
Working methods
and techniques Presentation at various national and international conferences.
Dissemination through network of testing schools associated with the project partners in each country.
External organizations like superconductivitiy industry companies,
professional associations, teacher associations and educational authorities will be invited to join Reference Groups in each partner country, in order to become familiar with and assess the quality of the products.
Skype conferences, online project management tools, F2F meetings, email correspondence with exchange of documents for review, version control Expected
outcomes/results All relevant upper secondary schools in Poland and Norway should be informed about the project results and have access to using them if they wish – through cooperation with Teacher Associations in these countries. As many schools as possible in other partner countries should also get this information and access, hopefully it is possible to involve teacher associations there as well.
Quality management
tools QA procedure adopted from previous projects used for assessing important project deliverables (documents, specifications and products).
2. The work programme must also include a quality management plan: procedures, criteria and resources for monitoring and evaluation of the progress of the project, and for internal and/or external evaluation - including quality control and testing, if applicable - of the interim and final results in comparison with the needs of the target group(s) and sector(s) and of the potential users. Please explain, in particular, how the target group(s) and/or potential users will be involved in these activities (limit 30 lines)
1. Quality management and project evaluation is the responsibility of the Project Evaluator, the Institute of Education, University of London, UK.
2. Project routines and quality management procedures will be drawn up based on those used for SUPERCOMET and SUPERCOMET 2, and additional risk assessment procedures will be put in place.
3. A Quality Management Plan for the project will be presented by the Evaluator and Contractor to the partners at an early stage of the project, including the following items:
Progress reports will be required from each work package leader each six months.
Each deliverable will be subject to a review procedure before being signed off and accepted as a project deliverable. Review panels will include both other partners within the project and outside experts. Payments to partners will be linked to the outcome of the review procedures.
4. Project evaluation : the project process to be evaluated by IoE – (e.g. planning, development, communication/teamwork, monitoring and control processes) – and an evaluation report to be product as part of the final report
5. The project deliverables will be evaluated:
a) Formatively (of the interim results) – via expert review of proposals and early prototypes, specifically in terms of physics contents and pedagogical approach. The expert review panels will include teachers and teacher educators drawn from the target groups.
b) Summatively (of the final results) – via a series of trials in schools each partner country. A wide range of teachers from the target group will be involved in these trials, and they will report on their use of the materials, their curriculum relevance (within their country), the impact on students’ learning and motivation and any impact on equality and discrimination issues. The Project Evaluator will produce an integrative report on the national trials.
