European Pedagogical ICT License - Evaluation Report 2005

National and Kapodistrian
University of Athens
Faculty of Primary Education
Laboratory of Comparative Education,
International Education Policy
and Communication
European Pedagogical ICT License
(a web-based service for the professional development of
teachers in Greece)
Evaluation Report
For the Lambrakis Foundation
Athens 2005

2
Evaluation Team
Scientific Director – Senior Evaluator
Dr Dimitrios Mattheou,
Professor of Comparative Education, University of Athens
Team Members - Evaluators
Dr Charalambos Mouzakis
Yiannis Roussakis, M.Ed.

3
Contents
1. Introduction
2. About EPICT participants
3. Summary of findings
4. The EPICT evaluation process
4.1 Theoretical background - On line training environments evaluation
4.2 The framework of the EPICT evaluation process
4.3 Research Method
5. Quantitative results
5.1 The Sample
5.2 Evaluation of the online learning process
5.2.1 Personal development (Knowledge centered)
5.2.2 Independent learning and educational material (Learner centered)
5.2.3 Interaction and Collaboration (Community centered)
5.2.4 Support and System management (Assessment centered)
5.2.5 Satisfaction
6. Qualitative results
7. On-Line Learning Material
References
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1. EPICT evaluation scales
Table 2. Scale reliability using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for EPICT instrument
Table 3. Reliability of items in the EPICT Questionnaire
Table 4. Gender and age distribution of the sample
Table 5. Computer ownership and Internet access at home
Table 6. ICT use at home
Table 7. Access to the ICT at school
Table 8. Use ICT in the classroom
Table 9. Factors that prevent teachers of using ICT in their classroom
Table 10. Personal time spending in online training
Table 11. Mean values and standard deviation of the eight variables
Table 12. Teachers’ perceptions about Personal Development
Table 13. Mean values and standard deviation of independent learning items
Table 14. Mean values and standard deviation of community centered items
Table 15. Mean values and standard deviation of assisment centered items
Table 16. Mean values and standard deviation of satisfaction scale’ items
Table 17. Pedagogic use or technological skills
Table 18. How did you find the materials of each module?
Table 19. Did you use any of exercises in each module?
Table 20. How do you find the exercises in each module?
Table 21. The use of manuals in each module
Table 22. How did you find the manuals of each module?
Table 23. How did you find the assignments of each module?
Table 24. Did the modules satisfy you?
Table 25. Did you learn from the modules?
Table 26. Did you find effective the cooperation with your facilitator in each module?
Table 27. How much time did you spend in each module?

4
Figures
Figure 1. Gender distribution of the participants
Figure 2. Work distribution of the participants
Figure 3. Anderson’ Model of online learning
Figure 4. Gender /age distribution of the sample
Figure 5. Gender and Work of the of the sample
Figure 6. Work experience of the sample
Figure 7. Years of work experience
Figure 8. Computer ownership and access to the Internet
Figure 9. Forms of ICT use made most frequently at home
Figure 10. Factors that prevent teachers of using ICT
Figure 11. Place of study during online learning
Figure 12. I am able to develop pedagogic scenarios using ICT in teaching process
Figure 13. I learned useful thing for my work
Figure 14. I study real cases related to my class
Figure 15. I learn how to apply educational software packages during my lessons
Figure 16. I would change my existing teaching practice to use ICT in my lessons
Figure 17. I am given the opportunity to take an active role in my training
Figure 18. I was allowed to work during times I found convenient
Figure 19. Educational material were appropriate for on line learning
Figure 20. I work with my team effectively
Figure 21. I learn many thinks through group work
Figure 22. Facilitator responds promptly to my questions
Figure 23. I am given the opportunity to discuss my ideas with members from other teams
Figure 24. Facilitator gives me comprehensive feedback on my assignments
Figure 25. Facilitator encourages me
Figure 29. I need regular face-to-face contact with my facilitator
Figure 27. Introduction seminars helped me to attend the online training
Figure 28. The interface of online training environment was friendly
Figure 29. It was easy for me to find course information and to communication with others
Figure 30. Items of teachers’ satisfaction
Figure 31. I found effective the learning through collaboration with others
Figure 32. How did you find the materials?
Figure 33. Responses related to materials in each module
Figure 34. Did you use any of modules exercise?
Figure 35. Responses about use exercises in each module
Figure 36. How do you find the modules’ exercises?
Figure 37. Distribution of the respondents about exercises in each module
Figure 38. Did you use any of the intended manuals of ICT?
Figure 39. Responses about the use of manuals in each module
Figure 40. How did you find the manuals?
Figure 41. Distribution of the respondents about manuals in each module
Figure 42. How did you find the assignments?
Figure 43. Distribution of the teachers’ perceptions about assignments
Figure 44. Distribution of teachers’ satisfaction by the modules
Figure 45. Distribution of responses about modules’ usefulness
Figure 46. Did you find effective the cooperation with your facilitator?
Figure 47. Distribution of responses about cooperation with the facilitator in each module
Figure 48. Responses relating to the time to which teachers spent for study each module

5
1. Introduction
This document reports on the research designed to evaluate the European Pedagogical ICT license
Pilot Phase implementation in Greece, in accordance with the provisions of the EPICT License Agreement
with the Greek Provider (Lambrakis Foundation). A key aim of the evaluation process was to assess the
effectiveness of providing Greek school teachers an in-service training program based on the principles of
team-work, collaborative learning, process oriented work and expert guidance. The evaluation process
sought to identify:
 The effectiveness of the EPICT professional development training model in supporting school-
based in-service teachers’ training for Greek educators;
 The effectiveness of the EPICT training model in promoting the pedagogical integration of ICT in
the learning process in Greek schools;
 The factors affecting the integration and successful use of ICT in school education in Greece;
 The skills which are essential to facilitators and trainees for the effective handling of the online
training environment of EPICT;
 The factors affecting success or failure of teachers-trainees in completing the online courses;
 The appropriateness of the EPICT training material for online training in Greece.
The evaluation process was carried out by Laboratory of Comparative and Education, International
Education Policy and Communication of the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. The
evaluation research, which included surveys concerning the training process and the learning materials,
interviews and a focus group discussion with trainees, facilitators, course designers, and training providers,
was carried out in June and July 2005. Previous research findings focusing on evaluation of learning and
methods of evaluating online courses were thematically analyzed to identify the key variables of what the
evaluation team perceives to be an effective evaluation system, and were used to develop a comprehensive
evaluation plan for the EPICT Project.
Since EPICT is an eContent project, aiming at developing a “flexible and open, generic, European
version of the original Danish initiative”, the evaluators think that this report should include some basic
information about the Greek system of education, which will help the reader understand the specific
demands and the possible difficulties of this EPICT localization attempt.
Some facts on the Greek system of Education
Greece has a 9-year compulsory education starting at the age of six. It comprises of six-year
Primary School (Dimotiko) and three-year Lower Secondary School (Gymnasio). Parents can choose to
enrol their children to kindergartens (Nipiagogeio) at the age of four. Post-compulsory Secondary
Education consists of two types of institutions: (a) Three-year Upper Secondary Schools (Eniaia Lykeia)
and (b)Technical Vocational Education Schools (Technika Epagelmatika Ekpaideftiria - TEE) where
students study for two or three years. Schools or classes of special-needs education exist throughout
compulsory schooling and upper secondary education. An initiative to co-educate students with special
needs in regular classes has been recently taken up and is a currently expanding practice. Other types of
education institutions for secondary education include Musical, Ecclesiastical and Physical Education
Lower and Upper secondary schools. Post-compulsory education also includes the Vocational Training
Institutes (IEK), where graduates of both lower and upper secondary education are admitted to obtain
vocational qualifications.
Higher education is provided by Universities (Higher Education Institutions - AEI) and Higher
Technological Education Institutes (ATEI). Students are admitted to these Institutes according to their
performance at national level examinations taking place at the second and third grade of Upper Secondary
Education.
Both primary and secondary education teachers are trained in the Universities in four-year courses. Primary
education teachers are expected to teach most subjects included in the primary school curriculum. Physical
education, music and foreign languages are taught by subject specialists who have the same qualifications
as the secondary school teachers of the same specialization. Secondary education teachers are expected to
teach the subjects of their specialization. What is remarkable though is that while the university curricula

6
for primary education teachers include many pedagogical courses, this is not the case for the university
curricula of the secondary education teachers. As a result many of the secondary education teachers lack in
depth pedagogical training and are not familiar with pedagogical and learning techniques. Their pedagogic
knowledge usually depends on the short in-service training courses which are compulsory for the newly
appointed educators.
Table A: Figures on Greek Compulsory Education
Number of schools, pupils, teachers in pre-school education
Public Sector Private Sector
School
year
Schools Pupils Teachers Schools Pupils Teachers
2001-02 5,647 138,544 9,973 111 5,024 322
Number of schools, pupils, teachers Primary
Public Sector Private Sector
School
year
Schools Pupils Teachers Schools Pupils Teachers
2001-02 5,739 594,639 47,998 373 45,775 3,185
Number of schools, pupils, teachers at the lower secondary school level (gymnasia)
Public sector Private sector
School
Year
Schools Pupils Teacher
s
Schools Pupils Teachers
2001-
02
1,768 321,674 35,221 112 19,054 2,301
Source: Eurybase
Table B: Figures on Greek upper Secondary Education
Number of schools at the upper secondary school level
Unified Lykeia (EL) Technical vocational educational schools
(TEE)
School Year Public Private Public Private
2001-02 1,182 98 418 77
Number of pupils at the upper secondary school level
2001-02 219,269 16,814 122,581 6,236
Number of teachers at the upper secondary school level
2001-02 21,454 1,879 15,973 1,399
Source: Eurybase
The Greek system of education is highly centralized and bureaucratic. Almost all aspects of pre-
school, primary and secondary education in Greece, including, for example, appointment of teachers,
appointment of educational administrative bodies, finance of schools, development of school curricula,
authoring of school textbooks, school time allocation, student assessment schemes and in-service training

7
programs for teachers, are administered by the Ministry of National Education and Religions. Few
initiatives are left to local educational authorities and school units.
An important feature of the Greek system of education, which affects both the quality of
instruction and the opportunities of teachers for professional development, is the existence of remote school
units with very small student population, where one teacher of primary education teaches two, three or all
primary classes, or secondary education teachers teach subjects outside their area of specialty. This happens
because of the complex geographic morphology of Greece and the existence of dispersed population in
many small islands and remote mountain villages. Although in several cases there is an attempt to gather
the students of neighboring areas to one school unit, small schools still exist and will continue to exist.
A diachronic attribute of Greek education, probably stemming from the Classical Greek literary
and scientific tradition is that it tends to value theoretical over practical subjects and General over
Technical and Vocational Education, with the later considered, by a significant proportion of the Greek
families, until recently, a last resort for underachieving students. This is reflected in the Greek curricula and
textbooks used until recently in Greek schools which often succumbed to verbalism and excluded practical
knowledge.
Having received the generous support of the European Union, which subsidized the First (1995 –
2000) and Second (2000 – 2006) Operational Programs for Initial Education and Training, Greece
embarked on a major educational reform effort since the late 1990s. Several aspects of the reform were
concerned with the development of new school curricula for compulsory education, and the production of
updated school books and digital instructional materials (e.g. CD-ROM) in all subjects, the establishment
of day-long schooling which gave schools the opportunity to include several innovative subjects in their
daily routine, like project work on subjects chosen by the students and teachers of a particular school unit,
ICTs in primary education etc.
The EPICT in Greece
Enhancing ICTs in the curriculum of Secondary Education and developing school-based and
nation-wide information and communication technology infrastructures has been a central feature of the
recent attempted education reforms in Greece. This course of action was pursued even further, in order for
the Greek education to comply with the decisions taken under the eEurope initiative, which emphasized the
importance of “bringing European youth into the digital age”, by making Internet and multimedia tools
available in all classrooms and by adapting education to the requirements of the digital age. This line of
policy included in-service training for teachers, whose attitudes and expertise of ICT were considered
crucial for the successful incorporation of new technologies in education and the learning process. The
relevant literature mentions that, in broad terms, two types of in-service training which sought to achieve
ICT expertise of teachers have been enacted across Europe:
The first emphasizes basic functional ICT competence, focusing on the use of computer hardware
and software. The second prioritizes the pedagogical skills and the understanding of ICTs which is essential
for effective use of the new technologies in the classroom.
While the first approach treats school teachers as every other citizen who should be able to use
ICTs in everyday life, the second approach usually requires teachers to understand the innovative learning
opportunities ICT may offer, how these resources can be managed in the classroom and how learning could
change. It calls for convincing teachers of the pedagogical benefits of using ICTs in their daily practice and
enabling them to use ICTs to this end.
The Greek Ministry of Education launched in 2001 the “Operational Program for the Information
Society” for the period 2000-2006 to provide schools with equipment and facilities, to establish an
educational network and develop ICTs in education.. This program extended previous initiatives such as
the 1996-2000 Odysseia action, which aimed at incorporating ICTs in the administrational and instructional
processes of 380 Schools of Secondary Education. Some of the key aims of the Operational Program have
been to provide schools with ICT equipment and facilities; to provide all schools with internet access by
thee end of 2001 and to install an intranet of all Greek schools by the end of 2006; to ensure internet access
for pupils and teachers through the advancement of a national network for education (EduNet); to invest on
elearning solutions.
In this context the Ministry funded through this Operational Program an ambitious project aiming
at training 75.000 teachers of primary and secondary education to use ICTs and subsequently giving them
the opportunity to obtain formal certification of their knowledge. The courses involved where delivered
locally, following a common curriculum, focusing on introducing teachers to the use of computer hardware

8
and software. Training took place in designated training centers which were equipped and networked
according to the provisions of a specific training directive issued by the Ministry. The project anticipated
that there would be a follow-up, addressed to teachers who had received certification for the introductory
course, focusing on the use of ICTs in the classroom. This project has not been launched yet.
In a number of surveys, Greek teachers strongly expressed their demand for ICTs in-service
training and stated that they would use ICTs in their daily instructional practice if they knew how to do it.
This is extremely important for the introduction of an in-service training program which would not only
aim at giving educators the technical knowledge on ICTs but would pay attention to the pedagogical
implementation of the INC knowledge. Given the transitional phase of Greek education towards the
introduction of ICTs, the evaluators believe that a course like EPICT, which, as stated in the Provider
Agreement combines “classroom instruction; work in teams of teachers, independent work and distance
education” and “is developed continuously” has the potential of a good practice for the in-service trainng of
Greek teachers.
The stated characteristics of EPICT, as mentioned in the course brochure, also seem to serve such an
aim:
 “All themes of the course have a pedagogical rationale. Participants work with ICT-
skills related to these themes. No ICT without a pedagogical rationale.
 Course material inspires and offers ideas of how to teach about and with ICT.
 Participants work in teams where teachers together develop material and learning
scenarios for use in their own daily praxis.
 The team is challenged pedagogically and ICT-wise through an online dialogue with
their facilitator.
 Many teachers from the same school participate simultaneously. This means that
information technology and its role in teaching, learning, collaboration and
communication is on the school’s pedagogical agenda .
 The course is distributed with regional or local providers to allow for large-scale
implementation. Includes the following levels:
 The duration of the course is 6 – 12 months
 Module assignment/assessment is the documentation of a learning scenario that
integrates ICT in a learning situation.
 A blended learning approach
 Module elements are: pedagogical content, ICT-skills exercises, ICT manuals, and
supplementary articles”
In order to “elaborate, customize, implement and evaluate the generic EPICT model” in Greece, the
Lambrakis Foundation collaborated with the University of Athens (Faculty of Primary Education), the
University of Ioannina, the Computer Technology Institute, which have been involved in and implemented
Primary and Secondary Education teachers training (“e.g. the pedagogical integration of computers, basic
ICT skills for Primary and Secondary Education teachers, etc.”).
More details concerning the organization and the provision of the course in Greece can be found in the
Provider’s Agreement and the EPICT brochures, in the EPICT – Greece web site (http://epict.lrf.gr).
A major concern of this evaluation study is if the localization of EPICT actually serves the needs of
Greek educators and provides a trustworthy alternative for the ICTs in-service training.
2. About EPICT participants
Sixty-four (64) teachers were selected to participate in the ePICT course. The selection was made
in accordance with the provisions of the pilot planning of the course, fulfilling both geographic / spatial and
social characteristics among volunteered educators. The participants were randomly assigned to 18 groups

9
supported by 9 facilitators. 54,2% of the participants were female, and 45,8% were male. 69,4% of the
participants were primary education teachers and 30,6% were lower secondary education teachers.
Figure 1. Gender distribution of the participants
Male
45,8%
Female
54,2%
Figure 2. Job distribution of the participants
Primary
education
teachers
69,4%
Secondary
education
teachers
30,6%
3. Summary of findings
EPICT is not an introductory ICT course, and it does not aspire to be one. The evaluation team
feels that educators applying to the course should be warned and may be even tested with a relevant prior
learning assessment test before admitted to the project. In this pilot implementation, the participants were
clearly and adequately informed about the features and the demands of EPICT. This has certainly
contributed to the success of this project. An expanded implementation of EPICT in Greece would require
Greek educators to have attended introductory ICT courses and to possess accredited relevant knowledge.
I. Satisfaction. The trainees were satisfied by their participation in the EPICT course both by the technical
and pedagogic knowledge they acquired and by the collaborative distance learning training process. They
adapted well to the distance training process requirements and stated that the course significantly helped
them in learning and incorporating ICTs into their daily teaching practices.

10
.
II. Personal Development. The educators who completed the course state that they can develop pedagogic
scenarios and use ICT in their teaching process. The majority of the participants stated that they would
change their existing teaching practices and include ICT in their instructional repertoire. Concerning the on
line training process they mentioned three areas of particular interest: (a) they have acquired useful
knowledge about specific educational software packages, (b) they have studied real case studies related to
their instruction and (c) they feel that they can combine the skills they have acquired from EPICT to
develop educational / pedagogic scenarios for the real life situations in their classrooms.
III. Independent Learning. The educators who attended the EPICT course state that they had the
opportunity to take an active role in implementing the knowledge and skills they learned on a daily basis.
The fact that EPICT is an in-service training course allowed the participants to flexibly organize their work
schedule.
IV. Learning Material. Generally, participants expressed positive views about the learning materials. It is
remarkable though that their views vary between the modules. In several cases the participants suggested
that (a) the learning material should be better written and provide clear and specific directions (b) the
optional modules should contain more specific and detailed information (c) should be more relevant to the
assignments (d) contain self – evaluation exercises so they could be able to test their knowledge.
V. Interaction. Participants expressed positive views about their interaction with other team members and
with their facilitators at most cases. The facilitators responded promptly to their questions and provided
effective feedback. The communicated mainly through e-mail messaging. On the other hand, the
participants did not use forums and the provided chat room options of the EPICT web site to communicate
with their facilitators.
VI. Collaboration. The participants stated that team collaboration assisted them to develop their
knowledge on the pedagogic use of ICT and develop a positive attitude towards collaborative learning
approaches. They stated that they enjoyed discussing ideas with team colleagues and jointly fulfill their
assignments. It is important, though to note that collaboration was limited only among team members and
did not develop across teams.
VII. Support. The facilitators provided timely and clear feedback but the participants would like them to
have a more active role, providing suggestions and giving directions than merely correcting their
assignments.
VIII. System management. (a) Platform. The interface did not create serious obstacles to the learning
process. There were problems occasionally concerning the posting of assignments and downloading the
instructional material.
(b) Organizational issues. The participants would like more meetings with their facilitators, and probably
to have an intermediate meeting for better feedback. The also suggest the EPICT to expand over a longer
time span so they would have adequate time to work with their assignments.

11
4. The EPICT evaluation process
4.1 Theoretical background - On line training environments evaluation
The widespread use of information and communication technologies (ICT) and particularly the use of
the World Wide Web have been paralleled by a growth in number of on online distance training courses.
The perceived benefits of this form of training include the opportunity to learn anytime, and to
communicate and collaborate with other learners. A number of research studies have focused specifically
on online learning, including overviews of the foundations and theoretical perspectives. Collis (1996)
analyzed a pedagogical approach of online courses based on achieving an overall learning experience.
According to this approach the instructional components that can be combined to produce online
courses were: Presentation of concepts and information, communication between trainer and trainee, or
between trainee and trainee and trainee about the learning context, communication in the form of
discussion or collaboration among trainees, self-study primarily on materials, individual practice and
consolidation activities, such us exercises with some form of feedback, group activities, and assessment and
testing activities. The author, concluded that the major issues that dominated the online pedagogy, after
developing the skills needed for handling the technical environment, appeared to be (a) facilitating effective
interaction and communication, and (b) achieving student and community acceptance for the validity of the
course taught by distant facilitator.
Gunawardena and McIsaac (2003) claim that one recent trend in online learning environments is the
shift from a teacher-centered to a learner-centered paradigm based on constructivist and social
constructivist learning principles. Using the features of networked learning technologies, designers are
exploring how to build communities of inquiry to facilitate collaborative learning and knowledge
construction in online learning designs.
Bransford, Brown, and Cocking (1999) provide evidence that effective online learning environments
are framed within the convergence of four overlapping lenses: They argue that effective learning is learner
centered, knowledge centered, assessment centered, and community centered and describe these attributes
of online learning as follows:
 Learner Centered: Effective learning includes awareness of the unique cognitive structures and
understandings that the learners bring to the learning context.
 Knowledge Centered: Effective learning is both defined and bounded by the epistemology, language,
and context of disciplinary thought. Students also need opportunities to reflect upon their own
thinking: automacy is a useful and necessary skill for expert thinking, but without reflective capacity, it
greatly limits one’s ability to transfer knowledge to an unfamiliar context or to develop new
knowledge structures.
 Assessment Centered: “Quality online learning provides many opportunities for assessment: not only
opportunities that involve the teacher, but also ones that exploit the influence and expertise of peers,
others that use simple and complex machine algorithms to assess student production, and, perhaps
most importantly, those that encourage learners to assess their own learning reflectively”.
 Community Centered: “The community centered attribute includes the critical social component of
learning in on line learning design. Here we find Vygotskys’ popular concepts of social cognition to be
relevant as we consider how students can work together in an online learning context to create new
knowledge collaboratively”.
Terry Anderson (2004) development a model of online learning based on the Bransford et al.
framework. This model, illustrates the two major human actors, learners and facilitators, and their
interactions with each other and with content. The element in this model that is central to successful online
educational experiences is interaction. Six types of educational interaction were listed in Andersons’
model: Student-student interaction, student-teacher interaction, student-content interaction, teacher-teacher
interaction, teacher-content interaction, and content-content interaction.
According to Anderson (2004), the task of the online course designer and facilitator should be to
choose, adapt, and perfect (through feedback, assessment, and reflection) educational activities that
maximize the affordances of the online learning environments.

12
Figure 3. Anderson’ Model of online learning
In doing so, they create learning-, knowledge-, assessment-, and community-centered educational
experiences that result in high levels of learning by all participants. Many other researchers are now
spending time evaluating the use of online environments to examine the effects of its use. A great number
of evaluation instruments have been created to delineate which modes, methods, activities and actors are
most effective in terms of cost and learning, in creating and distributing quality online training programs
(Dempster, 2003, Wallace, 2003; Garrison 2000, Saba, 2000, Jegede, Fraser, & Fisher, 1998).
4.2 The framework for the EPICT evaluation process
The framework utilized by the evaluators to guide the EPICT evaluation process is based on Andersons’
model of e-learning evaluation. The evaluation team agrees that this model illustrates most of the key
variables which interact to develop effective online educational experiences and contexts. One of the basic
assumptions underpinning this model is that effective learning should be knowledge, community,
assessment, and learner centered. In order to use Anderson’s model for the evaluation of online learning,
the evaluators identified seven scales / variables which were deemed essential for creating effective online
educational experiences and in an effective environment. These seven scales are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. EPICT evaluation scales
On line learning forms Scales
Knowledge centered 1. Personal development
Learner Centered
2. Independent learning
3. Educational material
Community Centered
4. Interaction
5. Peer-Collaboration
Assessment centered
6. Support
7. System Management
8. Satisfaction
In addition to the seven scales designed to measure the attributes of online learning, a scale of
satisfaction, adapted from the Fraser’s Test of Science Related Attitudes (1981) was included. Walker
(2002) notes that, “student satisfaction is not a measure of the learning environment, yet it is used
consistently in post-secondary education to measure how effectively a program or institution delivers what

13
students, expect, need and want, and is associated with student achievement”. The questionnaire appearing
in Appendix 1resulted from the attempt of the evaluation team to relate the attributes, scales and items
identified above, and was used as the main EPICT survey instrument.
4.3 The Evaluation Research Method
A systematic multi-method approach was employed to evaluate the EPICT pilot course. It included
gathering data from trainees, facilitators, training providers and people who prepared the learning material,
using both quantitative and qualitative research techniques to produce the findings presented in this report.
Data from participants were collected using a questionnaire, semi-structured interviews and a focus group
discussion. The quantitative survey instruments were administered to a large sample of participants (51
respondents 79,6% of the participants), while the qualitative survey involved of a smaller sample of
participants (12 teachers or 18,7% and 2 facilitators). The data on training providers were collected from a
qualitative survey and a focus group discussion in which two trainees, two facilitators, two course designers
and a training provider were involved. For the evaluation of the learning material, in addition to the
information obtained from the participants through a relevant, module-specific questionnaire, and during
interviews and the focus group discussion, the evaluation research team reviewed online course documents
to gather evidence related to the breadth and depth of course documentation regarding pedagogical and
technological innovation. Thus, this multi-faceted evaluation consisted of the following components:
(a) The EPICT trainees’ questionnaire
The questionnaire was distributed on line to all trainees and contained two sections:
The first section was designed to gather personal information on the trainees such as: Gender, age,
work status, years of teaching experience, computer ownership, Internet access at home, frequency and
length of computer experience, previous training on ICT and information as well as computers at school,
computer use in teaching, factors complicate the use of ICT at teaching and learning and personal time
spending to attend the online training process.
The second section of the questionnaire consisted of twenty-three items intended to measure the eight
scales of the effectiveness of the online training: personal development, independent learning, educational
material, interaction, collaboration, support, and system management. The response to each item was
based on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 to 5 (1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=undecided, 4=agree,
5=strongly agree). The questionnaire also included an open-ended question asking for the trainees’
assessment of online training process and their suggestions for improvement. The questionnaire was
administered as an online form. The full form of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.
After the data were collected, the validated items in each composite scale were subjected to a
Cronbach’s Alpha reliability analysis for internal consistency of the instrument. The interval statistics
concerning consistency reliability, showed in Table 2, ranged from 0.77 to 0.85 for the six scales and the
scale of satisfaction.
Table 2. Scale reliability using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for EPICT instrument
Scales Number of items a
Personal development 5 0.78
Independent learning 2 0.77
Educational material 1 0.75
Interaction 2 0.75
Collaboration 2 0.81
Support 2 0.74
System management 2 0.80
Satisfaction 5 0.85
The summary statistics of the item analysis for homogeneity and reliability indices, shown in Table 3,
indicate that the EPICT evaluation instrument reached a high alpha coefficient (a= .88) in all of the 23
intended items.
Table 3. Reliability of items in the EPICT Questionnaire
Scales Items a
Personal I learn useful thing for my work 0.87

14
development I learn how to apply educational software packages in my
classes / lessons
0.88
I study real cases related to my classroom practice 0.88
I am able to develop pedagogic scenarios using ICT in my
teaching process
0.87
I would change my existing teaching practice to use ICT in my
lessons / classes
0.88
Independent
learning
I am given the opportunity to take an active role in my training 0.88
I was allowed to work at the times I found convenient 0.87
Educational
material
Educational materials were appropriate for on line learning 0.75
Interaction The facilitator responded promptly to my questions 0.87
It was easy for me to communicate with members from other
teams
0.80
Collaboration
I work with my team effectively 0.87
I learn many thinks through group work 0.88
Support
The facilitator gives me comprehensive feedback on my
assignments
0.86
The facilitator encourages me 0.86
System ma
nagement
Introduction seminars helped me to attend the online training 0.87
I need regular face–to–face contact with my facilitator 0.88
The interface of online training environment was friendly 0.86
It was easy for me to find course information and to
communicate with others
0.87
Satisfaction
Distance education is interesting 0.87
I was able to pursued topics that interest me 0.87
I found effective the learning process through collaboration with
others
0.87
I enjoy in-service training 0.87
I prefer online training than training in an ICT laboratory /
classroom
0.88
(b) The semi-structured interviews with a selected sample of the participants
In-depth interviews were carried out with trainees and facilitators at the end of the course. In total, 12
trainees and 2 facilitators, selected to fit the diverse participants’ profile of the EPICT project, were
interviewed. The structure of the interview can be found in the Appendix 2 of this report.
(c) The focus group discussion involving trainees, facilitators, course designers, web designers
and training providers.
A focus group discussion involving with four trainees, two facilitators, one member of the course
designers team and one training manager was carried out at the end of the course. The discussion was
directed by one member of the evaluation team. Further information on the process and the focus group
structure can be found in the Appendix 3 to this report.
(d) The questionnaire and the evaluators’ analysis of the learning material
A questionnaire was designed to obtain the trainees’ views about the learning material used in each
module and their assessment of the quality and relevance of the learning materials, exercises, assignments,
and manuals they used. This questionnaire had 11 scale-answered questions and was administered as an
online form.
All groups involved in the EPICT pilot project were asked their opinion and personal assessment of the
provided learning material during the interviews and the focus group discussion. The evaluators also asked
for the views of selected people from the group that prepared and localized the EPICT learning material.

15
5. Quantitative results
Data from the quantitative survey have been used here to sketch the profile of the educators who
participated in the EPICT course. The questionnaires were filled out by 51 teachers (79,6%) out of 64
teachers took part in EPICT.
5.1. The Sample
In this section, the characteristics of the teachers who filled out the questionnaire are presented, in
order to provide an overview of the types of persons who volunteered for the pilot phase of EPICT. The
evaluation team believes that such data are important to consider for a thorough evaluation of the initiative.
The first subsection looks at the demographic characteristics of the sample. The subsection that follows
looks at factors such us possession of personal computer, access to the Internet and computer use at home.
The last subsection reports on participants’ status towards using ICT in teaching process.
5.1.1. Demographic data
This section outlines the demographic characteristics of the sample. There were many more males than
females in the sample (78,4% male and 21,6% female) which is different from the composition of the
actual population of the EPICT project. Interviews with several female participants revealed that they just
did not take the time to fill out the questionnaire. The age profile of the participants group was broad. The
survey participant group contained slightly fewer young people aged 25- 30 (5,9%) and slightly more
people aged over 41 years old (54,9%). 31-35 years old formed 13,7% of the responders, and 36-40 years
old formed 25,5% of the sample. This phenomenon, of older people participating in evaluation surveys of
on line courses more eagerly that younger people has been encountered in several similar cases in the past,
and is well documented in the relevant literature. In this case the age profile of the respondents is
consistent with the age profile of the EPICT participants. Table 4 shows the profile of the sample in terms
of Gender and age.
Table 4. Gender and age distribution of the sample
Frequency Percent
Gender
Male 40 78,4
Female 11 21,6
Total 51 100,0
Age
25-30 3 5,9
31-35 7 13,7
36-40 13 25,5
41 + 28 54,9
Total 51 100,0
Figure 4 shows the distribution of the age and Gender of the survey participants. The majority were
males and over of 41 years old.

16
Figure 4. Gender /age distribution of the sample
Age
41 +36-4031-3525-30
Nofteachers
30
20
10
0
Sex
Female
Male
6
3
2
22
10
5
3
The surveyed participant group was split quite evenly in terms of working status (26 primary education
teachers out of 51 (51%) and 25 secondary education teachers out of 51 (49%). Figure 5 shows the work
distribution and the Gender of the responders. In terms of years of work experience, 49% of the
respondents stated that they had more than 16 years of teaching experience, 17,6% had 11-15 years, 17,6%
had 6-10 years also, and 15,7% had 1-5 years of teaching experience (Figure 6). It can then be argued that
the pilot trainee group of EPICT, consisted mainly of educators bearing significant classroom experience.
Figure 5. Gender and Work of the of the sample
Work Status
Secondary school TeaPrimary school Teach
Count
30
20
10
0
Sex
Female
Male
4
7
21
19

17
Figure 6. Work experience of the sample
Years of Experience
16 +11-156-101-5
Nofteachers 30
20
10
0
25
99
8
5.1.2 Personal use of computers
This section looks at factors such us ownership of computer, access to the Internet and regular use of
computer at home which serves to establish the relevance of the trainees with ICTs in their everyday life.
Data presented in Table 5 show that the great majority of the responders own a computer (98,0%) and have
Internet access (94,1%) at home. Figure 8 shows that only 2 teachers owning computer do not have access
to the Internet at home. Possession of internet connection at home is crucial to on-line training courses,
since it gives the trainee the opportunity to access fellow team members, trainers and instructional material
easier, although school internet access is sufficient for EPICT participation.
Table 5. Computer ownership and Internet access at home
Frequency Percent
Computer at home
Yes 50 98,0
No 1 2,0
Total 51 100,0
Access to Internet at home
Yes 48 94,1
No 3 5,9
Total 51 100,0

18
Figure 8. Computer ownership and access to the Internet
Computer at home
NoYes
Teachers
50
40
30
20
10
0
Access to Internet
No
Yes
48
Table 6 shows that the most frequent uses of ICTs at home are Internet browsing and word-
processing. This is also crucial for the effectiveness and relevance of EPICT, since two of the compulsory
modules are devoted to these modes of computer use. Respondents stated that they often use CD-Roms,
presentation tools, databases, spreadsheets and games (see also Figure 9). This also reveals the relevance of
EPICT modules to their everyday computer use and can be considered as a factor adding to the
effectiveness of the project.
Table 6. ICT use at home
N Mean Std. Deviation Min Max
Word processing 51 4,02 0,94 2,00 5,00
Spreadsheets 51 2,71 1,17 1,00 5,00
Databases 51 2,27 1,28 1,00 5,00
Presentation tools 51 2,74 1,24 1,00 5,00
CD-Roms 51 3,43 0,87 2,00 5,00
Internet 51 4,16 0,93 2,00 5,00
Games 51 2,14 1,20 1,00 5,00
Figure 9. Forms of most frequent home ICT uses
4,02
2,71
2,27
2,74
3,43
4,16
2,14
W
ord
processors
Spreadsheets
D
atabases
Presentation
tools
C
D
-R
om
s
Internet
G
am
es

19
5.1.3 Use of ICT at school
This section reports on the survey participants’ use of ICT in their teaching process. Table 7 shows that the
majority of the sample have access to ICT at school laboratories and Table 8 shows that the 78,4% of the
responders have a positive attitude to using ICT in the classroom.
Table 7. Access to the ICT at school
Frequency Percent
Access to ICT 36 70,6
No access to ICT 15 29,4
Total 51 100,0
Table 8. Use ICT in the classroom
Frequency Percent
Use ICT in teaching 40 78,4
Don’t use ICT 11 21,6
Total 51 100,0
Table 9 shows some of the reasons which teachers mention as preventive for their use of ICT in
teaching. Their most frequent claim is that they are not taught how to revise their pedagogical practices and
how to replace other traditional approaches to their classes without abandoning the provisions of the
compulsory curriculum. Other factors that teachers mention to prevent them of using ICT are difficulties in
using hardware and software, insufficient access to educational software, no enough time to use ICT in
curriculum, the lack of computers at school and the lack of technical support (see also Figure 10).
Table 9. Factors that prevent teachers of using ICT in their classroom
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Minimum Maximum
Lack of computers 51 3,49 1,41 1,00 5,00
Lack of quality educational software 51 3,78 1,10 1,00 5,00
No enough time to use ICT in class 51 3,68 1,19 1,00 5,00
Lack of knowledge of using
software/hardware
51 3,86 1,03 1,00 5,00
Insufficient pedagogical guidelines 51 4,11 1,17 1,00 5,00
Lack of technical support 51 3,45 1,36 1,00 5,00

20
Figure 10. Factors that prevent teachers of using ICT
3,49
3,78
3,68
3,86
4,11
3,45
3 3,2 3,4 3,6 3,8 4 4,2
Lack of computers
Lack of quality educational software
No enough time to use ICT
Lack of knowledge of using software/hardware
Insufficient pedagogical guidelines
Lack of technical supportFactors
Mean
5.1.4 Time spent during EPICT
Table 10 shows that the majority of the respondents (41,2%) spent about 4 hours per week in online
learning. 37,3% of the total sample spent more than 5 hours per week and a minority of 21,6% spent about
2 hours per week. Figure 11 shows that the great majority of the sample used to work at home for EPICT.
Table 10. Personal time spending in online training
Frequency Percent
About 2 hours per week (50 hours
in total)
11 21,6
About 4 hours per week (100
hours in total)
21 41,2
More than 5 hours per week
(more than 130 hours in total)
19 37,3
Total 51 100,0
Figure 11. Place of study during online learning
Teachers' responces
Collegue' homeSchoolHome
Percent
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0 4
29
67

5.2. Evaluation of the online learning process
Results discussed in this section focus on respondents’ perception of the effectiveness of the
EPICT on-line learning process. The learners views are organized around the four axes of effective on-
line learning (knowledge centered, learner centered, community centered and assessment centered)
forming the framework used throughout the evaluation process. The assumption of knowledge centered
learning is evaluated through the scale of personal development. The assumption of learner centered
learning evaluated through the scales of independent learning and educational materials. The third
assumption, community centered learning, is evaluated through the relevant scales of collaboration and
peer-collaboration. The assumption of assessment centered learning is evaluated through the scales of
support and system management. Finally, the scale of teacher’ satisfaction is also discussed.
A first descriptive presentation of the results is shown in Table 11. These results indicate that the
scales of satisfaction and interaction have reached the highest mean value, followed by the scales of
independent learning, support, personal development, collaboration, educational material and system
management. We can then assume, prima fasciae, that learners’ satisfaction from EPICT participation
and their admitted positive view on the effectiveness of the EPICT mode of interaction are depicted as
the strong attributes of the project.
Table 11. Mean values and standard deviation of the eight scales
Variables N Mean Std. Deviation Min Max
Personal development 51 4.37 0.52 3 5
Independent learning 51 4.47 0.54 3 5
Educational material 51 4.00 0.63 3 5
Interaction 51 4.51 0.67 3 5
Collaboration 51 4.29 0.61 3 5
Support 51 4.46 0.62 3 5
System management 51 3.91 0.67 3 5
Satisfaction 51 4.58 0.49 3 5
5.2.1 Personal development (Knowledge centered)
Data from the questionnaire show that EPICT has had a distinct impact on the participating teachers’
personal development on ICT. The results presented in Table 12 indicate that the items 4 (“I am able to
develop pedagogic scenarios using ICT in teaching process”) and 1 (“I learned useful thing for my
work”) present the highest mean, followed by the items of 3, 2 and 5.
Table 12. Teachers’ perceptions about Personal Development
1. I learned useful things for my work 51 4.02 0.62 3.0 5.0
2. I learn how to apply educational software
packages during my lessons
51 3.88 0.66 3.0 5.0
3. I study real cases related to my class 51 3.94 0.78 1.0 5.0
4. I am able to develop pedagogic scenarios
using ICT in teaching process
51 4.14 0.75 3.0 5.0
5. I would change my existing teaching
practice to use ICT in my lessons
51 3.86 0.85 2.0 5.0
In more detail:
 As showed in Figure 12, the great majority of the respondents (78%) state that they can use ICT to
develop pedagogic scenarios.
 Figure 13 shows that 83% of the respondents state that they learn useful things for their work
during EPICT.
 A majority of 77% of the respondents agrees that they study real cases related to their classrooms
during EPICT as showed in Figure 14.
 73% of the respondents, as shown in Figure 15, state that they learn how to apply educational
software packages during their lessons, and finally,
 69% of the respondents state that they would change their existing teaching practice to use ICT in
my lessons after EPICT. Figure 16 also shows that a minority of 6% of the respondents states that
they will not change their existing practices to use ICT in teaching.

22
Figure 12. I am able to develop pedagogic scenarios using ICT in teaching process
Teachers responces
Strongly agreeAgreeNeutral
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
35
43
22
Figure 13. I learned useful thing for my work
Responces
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
20
63
18

23
Figure 14. I study real cases related to my class
Teachers responces
Strongly agreeAgreeNeutralStongly Disagree
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
22
55
22
Figure 15. I learn how to apply educational software packages during my lessons
Teachers' responces
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
16
57
27

24
Figure 16. I would change my existing teaching practice to use ICT in my lessons
Teachers' responces
Strongly agreeAgreeNeutralDisagree
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
24
45
25
6
5.2.2 Independent learning and educational material (Learner centered)
Table 13 shows item 1 (“I am given the opportunity to take an active role in my training”) presents
the highest mean, followed by item 2 and item 3.
 Figure 17 shows that actually, the great majority of respondents (94%) stated that they had taken
an active role during online training.
 A majority of 84% of the respondents agree that was working during times he found convenient, as
shown in Figure 18.
 Finally, as shown Figure 19, the 75% of the respondents stated that the provided educational
materials were appropriate for online training.
A more detailed analysis on the appropriateness and the effectiveness of the educational material is
given in Section 7 of this report.
Table 13. Mean values and standard deviation of independent learning items
Items N Mean Std. Deviation Min Max
1. I am given the opportunity to take an
active role in my training
51 4.35 0.59 3.0 5.0
2. I was allowed to work during times I
found convenient
51 4.22 0.70 3.0 5.0
3. The educational materials were
appropriate for on line learning
51 3.38 0.86 1.0 5.0
Figure 17. I am given the opportunity to take an active role in my training
Teachers' responses
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
41
53
6
Figure 18. I was allowed to work during times I found convenient

25
Teachers' responces
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
37
47
16
Figure 19. Educational material were appropriate for on line learning
Teachers' responces
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Stongly Disagree
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
18
57
18
6
5.2.3 Interaction and Collaboration (Community centered)
Table 14 indicates that items 3 (“I work with my team effectively”), 4 (“I learn many thinks
through group work”) and 1 (“The facilitator responds promptly to my questions”) present the highest
mean, while item 2 (“I am given the opportunity to discuss my ideas with members from other teams”)
differs significantly.
 Figures 20 and 21 show that the great majority of the respondents enjoyed the collaborative work
(94%) and found they learned many thinks during this collaboration (92% of the respondents).
 A great majority of respondents (90%) found positive the interaction with the facilitator as shown
in Figure 22.
 On the other hand, as Figure 23 shows, the majority of the respondents didn’t use the on line forum
and mail facilities of EPICT web site to communicate with other teams.
These results were actually confirmed by the interviews and by the focus group discussion. One very
interesting finding is that participating teachers did work collaboratively and enhanced their learning
interacting with other team members. Given that collaborative work is marginal in the Greek school
culture, and it is not promoted by the Greek curriculum, their answers actually reveal that Greek

26
educators would enjoy and benefit from collaborative work. The EPICT project could serve this
attitude change towards collaborative school culture.
Table 14. Mean values and standard deviation of community centered items
Items N Mean Std. Deviation Min Max
1. The facilitator responds promptly to
my questions
51 4.51 0.67 3.00 5.00
2. I am given the opportunity to discuss
my ideas with members from other
teams
51 2.61 1.47 1.00 5.00
3. I work with my team effectively 51 4.59 0.61 3.00 5.00
4. I learn many thinks through group
work
51 4.53 0.64 3.00 5.00
Figure 20. I work with my team effectively
Teachers' responses
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
57
37
6
Figure 21. I learn many thinks through group work
Teachers' responces
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
61
31
8

27
Figure 22. The facilitator responds promptly to my questions
Teachers' responces
Percent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
61
29
10
Figure 23. I am given the opportunity to discuss my ideas with members from other teams
Teachers' responces
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Stongly Disagree
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
18
8
25
16
33
5.2.4 Support and System management (Assessment centered)
Table 15 indicates that items 1 (“The facilitator gives me comprehensive feedback on my
assignments”) and 2 (“The facilitator encourages me”) present the highest mean, followed by items 5,
6, 4 and 3.
 Figure 24 shows the great majority of the respondents (93%) found important the provision of
timely and clear feedback from their facilitator.
 Figure 25 shows that the majority of the respondents (93%) are satisfied from the facilitators’
performance and encouragement.
 In addition, as shown in Figure 26, respondents appeared to be reluctant to ask for more regular
face-to-face contact with their facilitator during the online training, although those who would like
to meet with their facilitators more often (45%) are triple than those who would deny such an
option (15%).
 On the other hand, only the 55% of the responders found effective and helpful the EPICT
introduction seminars (Figure 27).
These results reveal that the participants adapted well to the on-line training process and to the EPICT-
specific support scheme, although they would probably be positive to more frequent face-to-face

28
contact. On the other hand it is obvious that they the introductory seminar did not fulfill their
expectations and it should, perhaps, be rearranged to meet the participants’ demands. There will be
more comments on the subject both in the Open Question and the qualitative results section, since the
effectiveness of the introductory seminar was one of the themes mentioned by the respondents and the
interviewees.
 Figure 28 shows that the majority of the teachers (65%) seem to be satisfied with the interface of
the online learning environment they were using.
 As shown in Figure 29, the 75% of the responders appeared to agree that through the online
environment it was easy for them to find information and to communicate with their colleagues.
Table 15. Mean values and standard deviation of assessment centered items
N Mean Std.
Deviation
Min Max
1. Facilitator gives me comprehensive
feedback on my assignments
51 4.67 0.63 3 5
2. Facilitator encourages me 51 4.66 0.62 3 5
3. Introduction seminars helped me to attend
the online training
51 3.27 1.05 1 5
4. I need regular face-to-face contact with my
facilitator
51 3.39 0.93 1 5
5. The interface of online training
environment was friendly
51 3.86 0.80 2 5
6. It was easy for me to find course
information and to communication with
others
51 3.81 0.98 1 5
Figure 24. The facilitator gives me comprehensive feedback on my assignments
Teachers' responces
Percent
80
60
40
20
0
69
24
8

29
Figure 25. The facilitator encourages me
Teachers' responces
Percent
80
60
40
20
0
75
18
8
Figure 26. I need regular face-to-face contact with my facilitator
Teachers' responces
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Stongly Disagree
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
12
33
39
14
Figure 27. Introduction seminars helped me to attend the online training
Teachers' responces
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Stongly Disagree
Percent
40
30
20
10
0
12
33
29
22
4

30
Figure 26. The interface of online training environment was friendly
Teachers' responces
Strongly agreeAgreeNeutralDisagree
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
24
41
33
Figure 27. It was easy for me to find course information and to communication with others
Teachers' responces
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Stongly Disagree
Percent
50
40
30
20
10
0
24
47
18
10
5.2.5 Satisfaction
Table 16 reports the means and standard deviation of the five items consistent of the scale of
satisfaction. From the range of the means it can be argued that the responders appeared to enjoy the
EPICT in-service training, found online training fun and interesting (see also Figure 30). A constant
theme emerging from the different items in this evaluation is the sense of the development of an online
community and the acceptance of collaborative learning. The vast majority of the teachers (92%), as
Figure 31 shows, appeared to enjoy the course because it gave them the opportunity to collaborate and
discuss views with their colleagues. This is crucial, first, for retaining trainees on the in-service training
process and making them willing to complete the course and, second, for equipping them with the
skills and attitudes towards ICTs that would enable them to incorporate new technologies and
collaborative learning in their daily practice.

31
Table 16. Mean values and standard deviation of satisfaction scale’ items
1. Distance education is fun 51 4.49 0.54 3.0 5.0
2. I was able to pursued topics that
interest me
51 4.35 0.59 3.0 5.0
3. I found effective the learning through
collaboration with others
51 4.29 0.61 3.0 5.0
4. I enjoyed in-service training 51 4.51 0.54 3.0 5.0
5. I prefer online training than training
in a laboratory
51 3.96 0.97 2.0 5.0
Figure 30. Factors of teachers’ satisfaction
4,49
4,35
4,29
4,51
3,96
3 3,5 4 4,5 5
Distance education is fun
I was able to pursued topics that
interest me
I found effective the learning through
collaboration with others
I enjoyed in-service training
I prefer online training than training in
a laboratory
Mean
Figure 31. I found effective the learning through collaboration with others
Teachers' responces
Percent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
37
55
8
5.3 Data from Open Question
The questionnaire concluded with an open question asking participating teachers for general
comments and suggestions on EPICT and the online training process. Their comments generally refer
to three themes: (a) Their views about EPICT and the online training process, (b) the most pressing
problems they encountered during training, and, (c) their suggestions for the betterment of the training
process.
A. Trainees’ views about EPICT and Online Training
The participating teachers generally expressed positive attitudes towards EPICT and the
online training process. No negative comments were collected under this rubric.

32
Most usual comments characterized the EPICT Project as “very interesting”, “convenient for the
teachers” and “helpful for the teaching practice”. Here are some examples of comments which are
characteristic of the respondents’ attitudes:
 “Through this training program I have acquired the experience I need to use new technologies to
support my instructional practice and I was convinced for the need to introduce and take advantage
of ICTs at school”
 “The program assisted me to organize my knowledge about ICTs and to learn more on ICT
activities and computer applications that can be used in the classroom”
 “It was very important for me to learn how to develop learning scenarios which I can use in my
class”
(b) Problems encountered by the trainees during online training with EPICT
Not many comments were received referring to the problems which the teachers encountered
during the training process. In fact, many trainees preferred to refer to the difficulties they confronted
by making relevant improvement suggestions under the next thematic rubric. The few comments which
directly referred to problems, dealt mainly with technical difficulties, which were identified and
resolved during the training process, such as:
 “Slow” or “impossible” access to the EPICT web site, “slow download of training materials”.
 “Delays in delivering the assignments because of problems in uploading”
In the semi-structured interviews, the trainees explained that these comments referred mainly to
the early days of EPICT and these difficulties were resolved as the program progressed.
(c) Trainees suggestions for making the training process more effective
Most received comments included suggestions for making the training process more effective.
The evaluators think that most of these suggestions imply solutions to the difficulties which the trainees
encountered during the training process and attempted to pursue their arguments further during
interviews and the focus group. As a result some of the themes mentioned under this rubric are
analyzed further in the qualitative results section.
The suggestions of the trainees have been grouped under four categories: (i) Program
organization, (ii) work environment, (iii) collaboration and team-work, and, (iv) online learning
material.
I. The first two themes have generally received few and non-analytic comments. Some trainees
suggested that the EPICT should include more “detailed” and “advanced” subjects (but they
did not mention which ones), that the program time span should be expanded “to give
trainees more time to deliver their assignments without pressure” and that the web site /
working environment of EPICT should be made “more operational”.
II. There were many comments / suggestions referring to the collaboration process developed
during EPICT.
 Some trainees suggested that there should be “more (two or three) interim face-to-face
team meetings with the facilitator”. This suggestion was also put forward by some
interviewees. A cross-tabulation of the questionnaires including this kind of suggestions
with Learner and Assessment Centred scales did not reveal a statistically significant
relevance with other answers given by the trainees. The evaluation team believes that
most of these people had adapted fairly well to the EPICT collaboration / support
scheme, but would prefer the traditional way.
 There have been suggestions concerning the EPICT trainees’ workgroups. Some
suggested that the number of team members should change (“two instead of three for
better collaboration”) or that they should not be exclusively school-based.
 Some trainees suggested that all trainees should have access to other teams’ assignments
“for improving / raising the standard of everybody’s work”.
III. A significant number of the received comments / suggestions referred to the online learning
material. The trainees’ concern about the EPICT learning material was confirmed during
interviews and the focus group discussion. Many of the comments presented share the same
concern and point to the same direction for learning material improvement.
 Some participants suggest that some units of the learning material should be revised “to
become more suitable for distance learning use” and to “be more relevant” and “provide
more concrete instructions” for the required assignments.
 The learning material should “place more emphasis on the development of learning
scenarios ‘step-by-step’”.
 It should include “self-evaluation criteria” for the trainees.

33
6. Qualitative results
The qualitative data on the pilot implementation of EPICT in Greece were gathered by the
evaluation team with the use (a) of fourteen (twelve teachers and two facilitators) semi-structured
interviews based on the same theoretical premises as the questionnaire which was used to obtain the
quantitative data, and, (b) a two-hour focus group discussion of one of the evaluators with people
representing every group involved in the project (trainees, facilitators, educational material experts and
web administrators).
The evaluation team has tried to interview or include in the focus group discussion, educators
specializing in diverse fields (primary and secondary education teachers, theoretical and positive
subject specialists, educators possessing remarkable expertise in ICTs or educators with little prior ICT
knowledge).
The results of the qualitative evaluation instruments are presented here according to the eight
scales used to determine effective online learning throughout this evaluation process. There is an
attempt to include in brackets the comments that express the views of the majority of the people
involved in the project, or present characteristic and interesting ways of thinking about EPICT.
Satisfaction
The groups involved in the project were generally very much satisfied of their participation. They have
acknowledged that EPICT is and advanced ICT learning project, “modern and effective” bringing a
“fresh view on ICTs in Greek education”. They also feel that most of the stated aims of EPICT training
were accomplished
They noted that it contained the “right balance between technical and pedagogical subjects” and, it
could “help Greek educators to organize more effectively their knowledge if ICTs and develop new and
effective approaches to their every day practice”.
They extensively mentioned the use of collaborative learning methods and the attempt “to introduce the
collaborative culture in Greek schools”, which is certainly an innovative feature.
Along with expressions of satisfaction from EPICT participation, all groups have made suggestions for
the improvement of EPICT implementation in Greece. These are included in the “Suggestions” rubric
of this section of the Evaluation Report.
Personal development
The trainees have acknowledged EPICT’s contribution to their personal / professional development.
Many have stated that the course gave them the means and the motive “to use their computers for more
than word processing” and gave them a clear perspective of “the potential of ICT use for their classes”.
What came as a pleasant surprise to the evaluation team was that many secondary education teachers,
who allegedly possessed little pedagogic knowledge, stated that the felt they were able to develop
“their own pedagogic scenarios” and modify their instructional and learning practices to incorporate
ICTs.
Participants also showed they could talk about and use in their every day practice specific educational
software packages and use the Internet more often to find the information they needed.
Several interviewees, both from primary and secondary education, thought that the pedagogical
dimension should be more explicit in the course. One interviewee stated he had expected the course to
include “more advanced topics and techniques”.
Independent learning
The majority of the participants agreed that the EPICT course “improved their potential for
independent learning”. They found positive the fact that they could organize their study hours at the
times that were most convenient to them, that they were given the opportunity to access new software
packages and new web sites, that they were given assignments and were expected to work them out
with their group colleagues, which gave them confidence in themselves.
On the other hand, many interviewees expressed their concern because in some cases they were not
given functional or specific instructions to fulfill their assignments; they were confused by the provided
or suggested learning material; they felt that what they were doing was irrelevant concerning the
specific conditions in Greek schools; they thought that the given assignments were not of interest to
them.
While several participants have called for a reconsideration of some of the assignments, in order to
make them more clear and specific and closer to the realities of the Greek schools, others have
suggested that if they did not want to work they could have the opportunity to find similar assignments

34
in other web sites and use them as their own. They, among others, suggested that each module should
include instruments for individual testing and self-evaluation of the effectiveness of the EPICT
learning.
Educational material
The learning material of EPICT gathered the most controversial comments. The remarks of the
majority of the participants, concerning the learning material in toto, were that it was well organized; it
gave the learners a clear view of its aims and was up to date concerning its technological and
pedagogical premises. On the other hand most interviewed participants stressed the need to include in
the material examples relevant to the Greek education practices and the Greek curricula, thus posing
the question of the adequate localization of the material, not only its translation.
Most interviewees were reluctant to mention specific modules, but the evaluation team has decided to
include their comments, which although containing generalities and aphorisms about the learning
material in general, can serve as indications for specific interventions for the learning material
improvement. The modules which present the most problems for the trainees can easily be identified by
comparing the comments made in this section with the answers of the trainees concerning the learning
material which are presented in the next section of this report.
Some very interesting comments, made during the focus group discussion were met with general
consent:
 The quality of the learning material varied. There were several very well written units (the
participants mentioned the Optional Modules 5 (Databases) and 9 (Working Methods and ICTs)),
while there also were some (less) poorly written ones (the participants mentioned the Compulsory
Module D (School Innovation)).
 The comprehensive translation, but also the adequate localization (relevance of given examples,
from everyday situations to school practices and reference to school infrastructures) is crucial for
the quality of the learning materials.
 The learning material would need more editing, so it would acquire a consistent linguistic and
conceptual style.
 There should be developed a library / archive / data base of past trainees’ assignments, containing
materials from all participant countries.
Several interviewees expressed similar views. Some of their comments were concerned with the
features of the educational material which affect collaboration and independent learning, such as:
 In several cases there was little relevance between the provided instructions and the demanded
assignments or the provided instruction were limited in view of the tasks demanded by the module
(some interviewees mentioned the Optional Module 10 (Leaning Games) as a demanding Unit
with little and non analytic instructions).
 The predefined length of most assignments to 2-3 pages is not enough for the trainees to provide
adequate answers to the posed questions and leaves little room for effective collaboration instead
of division of tasks.
 Some think there should be included self-evaluation tests for the trainees.
 While there are many interesting aspects in the modules, the learning material does not focus in all
of them and in some cases it leaves out several point of interest to the trainees.
 The learning material does not explicitly involve skill development techniques.
 In some units there is excessive additional material.
Interaction
During EPICT several modes of interaction were developed. The modes of interaction which are most
thoroughly examined in this report concern interaction between trainees, between trainees and
facilitators, between trainees and the Project management. All other modes of interaction are not
overlooked, but since they were not brought up during the interviews and the focus group discussion
the comments on them are limited.
In general the different groups involved in the project did not face insurmountable difficulties in their
interaction. The climate was always positive and any problem that came up was usually solved quickly
and effectively by the group in charge.
The evaluation team was surprised to find out that while all groups involved mentioned that interaction
between participants was rich, there were very few messages published in the web site’s forums and
there was reported little use of the chat rooms. During interviews and the focus group discussion the
trainees revealed that they felt reluctant to channel their communication through the EPICT web site.
They allegedly preferred the use of private e-mail accounts or the phone to communicate with their
facilitators or the project management. They also used these alternative channels and face to face

35
communication and interaction during assignment collaboration. While this practice was at first
assigned to occasional problems with the accessibility of the EPICT web site, the participants finally
admitted that, especially at the beginning of the course, they did not feel confident to open up their
communication to the eyes of others. This trend was diminished as the course progressed but the
evaluation team believes that the providers should work more to promote communication and
interaction through the EPICT web site, since this serves better the philosophy and the aims of the
course.
A. Interaction between trainees:
Most interviewees and focus group participants have stated that interaction with their group mates was
“very good” or “excellent”. Most groups managed to function collaboratively and contributed to the
enhancement of learning of their members, something that will be reaffirmed when we will discuss
“collaboration” in the EPICT course. But there were some groups (probably one or two out of the
eighteen) in which the personal relations of the group members were highly problematic and this
showed in the poor quality and the delayed delivery of their assignments. To this end some trainees
proposed that there should be some flexibility in the formation of the working groups if things do not
“work out” between group mates.
B. Interaction between trainees and facilitators:
The evaluation team also formed a very positive opinion about the quality and the status of interaction
between trainees and facilitators. It was characterized “very good”, “excellent” or “impeccable” by
those interviewed although several trainees mentioned that it was clearly affected by the personal
communication style of each facilitator. This comment leads the evaluation team to suggest that there
should be paid more attention during the facilitators’ training seminars as to the need to have a more
standardized and consistent way of behavior towards trainees, that is to deal with similar problematic
situations using similar patterns of behavior.
While most trainees stated that distance did not affect the quality of their interaction with their
facilitators, they also eagerly repeated that there should be more face-to-face meetings (two or three)
with them. Some facilitators agreed that the introductory seminar was too short to cover all aspects
needed to be discussed face to face, and proposed an interim face-to-face meeting, when trainees and
facilitators would be ready to present their views regarding the betterment of the course.
C. Interaction between the course management group and trainees / facilitators:
All participants agreed that the management group did a very good job facilitating and managing
interaction between other groups. On the other hand they mentioned, as has already been reported
above, that in the beginning of the course, there were some problems with the web site, which was very
slow or impossible to access, thus impeding their interaction. The evaluators’ experience is that many
innovative ICT projects fail to fulfill their aims because of technological maladies, which distract
trainees and impede their learning. The pilot EPICT course was not one of these, since the
technological problems were taken care of very shortly and there was no lack of trust of the trainees to
the technologies used.
Collaboration
For most trainees’ groups collaboration between team members and between team members and
facilitators was, as already mentioned above, “very good” to “excellent”. This is a very positive and
inspiring fact about the EPICT project, since the Greek schools do not adequately promote
collaborative learning, nor are collaborative learning techniques are widely used in Greek schools,
especially in secondary education. Educators seem to have well adapted themselves to the demands of
the collaborative learning and have, in broad terms, expressed a positive view about this alternative
learning approach and were eager to test it in their classes. Several interviewees mentioned that it was
actually difficult for them to embark on this innovative approach to learning starting with distance
collaboration, but they also managed to adapt, with the help of their team mates and their facilitators.
Most stated that where collaboration worked out “all team members did benefit and gained knowledge
and expertise and did better in the units’ assignments”.
On the other hands, as was revealed through the interviews and the focus group discussion, there have
been some cases where collaborative learning did not work out. There were mentioned two different
reasons for this: One had to do with the fact that the team members did not care to work collaboratively
and simply divided the tasks and the assignment requirements, acting contrary to one of the basic
premises of the course. The second had to do with intrinsic problems in some teams, where some
trainees felt that the others did not contribute as much as they should in the common tasks, because

36
they did not have the same level of ability. In this case the mixed ability grouping was questioned and
some trainees argued against it. In both cases, issues of trainees’ accountability were raised and there
should be some discussion about this in the EPICT development fora. Participants in the focus group
discussion agreed that communication / interaction with others and collaboration for learning should be
a major theme in the EPICT introductory seminars.
Another subject that came up during interviews and the focus group discussion concerned the
formation of the working groups. Some trainees mentioned that there should be allowed teams from
different schools, while others said that their optimum size would be two instead of three members.
The evaluators think that both of these proposals run contrary to the philosophy and the premises of the
EPICt project and should be dealt with, with care. On the other hand the EPICT course should actively
provide for communication and collaboration between working groups, something that did not happen
during this pilot implementation and was brought up by the trainees.
Support
The EPICT trainees stated that in broad terms they are satisfied by the support they have received
during the course. Some of their comments concerning their suggestions about the EPICT support
scheme have already been mentioned above, in the “interaction” and “collaboration” rubrics of this
section of the report:
There should be more face-to-face meetings with the facilitator; there were times when they needed to
contact the facilitators immediately but were reluctant (or unable due to technical problems) to use the
mail, forum and chat functions of the EPICT web site; there were variations in the ways different
facilitators dealt with similar situations.
While, then, the trainees were positive about the EPICT support, there are several points made during
interviews and the focus group discussion that are noteworthy:
Some interviewees think that the facilitators’ potential for trainee support was not were not fully used
in the course. They explained that at times the facilitators functioned more as receivers and correctors
of assignments than trainers. This made things difficult for those trainees that needed support to start
doing their assignments, as they did lacked confidence in their abilities. In several cases the trainees
felt that the facilitators demanded more than what they should while at times they felt that they did not
demand as much as they should.
What the evaluators got out of such discussion is that the facilitators and the whole support structure
were also learning how to become more functional as the course developed. This is acceptable for a
pilot implementation but should be resolved in the regular implementation of the course.
The other groups responsible for the course support, the web site management and the secretariat
worked very well during the course. As we have already mentioned, the technical problems of the web
site were resolved before they became obstacles to the trainees’ learning.
System management
The issue of more face-to-face meetings of the trainees with their facilitators, the development of a data
base of past assignments and the extension of the time spent in the introductory seminar were again
brought up in discussions about the system management.
In broad terms the trainees were satisfied about the EPICT work environment, once the technical
problems were resolved. Some mentioned it could be made more “pleasant” but did not specify what
they meant. The most significant complaint had to do with the limited mail space, which made it
impossible for them to upload large assignment files. Some said they resorted to delivering their
assignments to their facilitator in CD-ROM. Some also complained about the download times but they
admitted that this was also resolved during the course.
Another group of comments referred to the duration of the course and the time available for work in
each module and deliver the required assignments. Several participants thought that the time was not
sufficient for those trainees who did not have a high level of IC knowledge. They suggested that the
limitations In the duration of the course could be compensated if the introductory seminal was longer,
if there were some interim seminars and if the provided course materials included more relevant and
practical assignment scenarios.
Most interviewees and focus group discussants made suggestions for the improvement of the EPICT
course. While some of them have already been incorporated under the relevant headings in this section,
there were some suggestions that were related to more general issues. These are presented below.
Suggestions

37
The suggestions included in this heading could be summed up un two categories: Those which concern
the structure and the implementation of the EPICT course and those which state the trainees’ concerns
about accreditation continuation issues of EPICT in Greece.
I. Suggestion on the EPICT course:
 The thematic of the module exercises and assignments should be more closely related to the Greek
educational realities. The evaluation team, having in mind that many Secondary Education
Teachers do not feel that they possess adequate pedagogical training, adds to this suggestion that in
some cases, especially when an innovative pedagogic approach is involved, the modules could also
include some form of pedagogic background advice to the trainees.
 Some trainees and facilitators have suggested a different module sequence that would secure that
everybody has the skills needed to access more advanced compulsory and optional modules.
 Some others commented on the thematic structure of the course, which is organized around
different software packages. An alternative view would be to organize the modules according to
pedagogic approaches and uses of ICTs.
 Platform independent descriptions in the learning material are sometimes incomprehensible or to
general to be of functional use. Some trainees and members of the course designers’ team think
that they should be diminished.
All these suggestions could be discussed before the broader implementation of the EPICT course in
Greece, but could also provide food for thought for the development of the platform in general.
II. Suggestions on issues concerning Greek EPICT trainees
 Several trainees have suggested an advanced EPICT course cycle for those wishing to develop
even further their knowledge on ICT implementation in education.
 Many trainees have brought up the issue of accreditation and recognition of the EPICT course, in
relation to similar state-initiated courses in Greece and other European ICT initiatives involving
teachers.
Both issues have to be discussed as part of the development and expansion of the EPICT initiative.
7. Learning Materials
The evaluation of the EPICT learning materials was based (a) on a questionnaire asking for the
trainees’ views about the learning material used in each module and their assessment of the quality and
relevance of the learning materials, exercises, assignments, and manuals they used; (b) on the responses
of those interviewed and the participants of the focus group discussion and especially views of selected
people from the group that prepared and localized the EPICT learning material; (c) on the evaluators’
examination of the provided learning materials.
The modules offered during the pilot implementation of the course were:
A. Compulsory modules
• CA. Lets find something on the net: The Internet and the search for information
• CB. Type a text: Texts and writing
• CC. Where are we now? Communication and collaboration on the Internet
• CD. School development and innovation: School reform and ICTs
B. Optional modules (trainees had to choose four of these modules)
 O1. Pictures tell the story – working with images on the computer
 O2. It does its own calculations - spreadsheets
 O3. Information on the screen – presentation tools and interactive stories
 O4. Get it out on the net – web pages and dissemination on the Internet
 O5. Into the database – internal databases
 O6. The dice is cast – models and simulation
 O7. Columns? – layout and desktop publishing
 O8. Is it not possible to learn it on the computer? – educational software
 O9. It is easy on a computer? – working methods and ICT
 O10. Games and edutainment in education
There was also a prerequisite module which focused on the creation of the learning ICT scenarios.

38
The EPICT participants received paper based material including an overview and introduction of
ICT-pedagogical content, and were given access to the EPICT web portal, where every module
contained, in different digital content forms (pdf, doc, html, etc) learning material including:
 The course provided Module Manual
 Texts, Articles, Cases, Relevant Links
 Best practices
 Exercises, platform independent
 Module Assignments
 Platform dependent ICT manuals
The prerequisite module (ICT scenarios) did not contain any additional material, just the EPICT
manual.
7.1. The learning material Questionnaire
The 274 questionnaires concerning learning materials which were gathered provide a good basis for the
evaluation of the trainees’ views on several aspects of the learning material.
Question 1 In this particular module how have you divided your effort between pedagogy and ICT
skills?
Table 17. Pedagogy or technological skills
Answer Freq Percent
Much more time on pedagogy than on ICT skills 46 16,8
A little more time on pedagogy than on ICT skills 53 19,3
Equal time on pedagogy and ICT skills 100 36,5
A little more time on ICT skills than on pedagogy 47 17,2
Much more time on ICT skills than on pedagogy 28 10,2
Total 274 100,0
The respondents confirm the balanced character of the EPICT course. The percentage of those devoting
equal time on pedagogy and ICT skills is double that those of devoting “a little more time” either on
ICTs or in pedagogy.
Question 2. How do you assess the texts and articles of this particular module?
On average trainees stated that course materials were relevant and effective in helping their learning.
The questionnaire data show that the majority of the trainees found the texts and articles provided with
the modules “relevant / good” (58,4%) or “highly relevant /excellent” (23,4%). A minority of 14,2 %
found the materials “less relevant / poor” or “not relevant / very poor” (1,1%).
The evaluators believe that the most significant element of the trainees’ responses lays with the
variations of their evaluation of the learning materials in individual modules, in Table 18. There are
modules (like Compulsory D and Optionals 1, 2 and 8) where one out of three trainees characterizes
the provided materials as excellent, while in others (like Compulsories A and C and Optional 9) where
less than one out of five give the same credit.
This shall be further elaborated in the part containing the module-specific comments from trainees and
other groups.

39
Figure 32. How do you assess the texts and articles of this particular module
23,4
58,4
2,9
14,2
1,1
0,0
10,0
20,0
30,0
40,0
50,0
60,0
70,0
Excellent Good Neutral Poor Very poor
Table 18. How do you assess the texts and articles of this particular module?
Modules
Excellent Good Neutral Poor Very poor Total
Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq % Freq %
Compulsory A 3 8,8 26 76,5 2 5,9 3 8,8 0 0,0 34 100,0
Compulsory B 8 23,5 21 61,8 1 2,9 4 11,8 0 0,0 34 100,0
Compulsory C 4 11,8 20 58,8 2 5,9 8 23,5 0 0,0 34 100,0
Compulsory D 8 32,0 14 56,0 1 4,0 2 8,0 0 0,0 25 100,0
Optional 1 9 33,3 15 55,6 0 0,0 3 11,1 0 0,0 27 100,0
Optional 2 8 32,0 11 44,0 2 8,0 3 12,0 1 4,0 25 100,0
Optional 3 8 25,8 17 54,8 0 0,0 6 19,4 0 0,0 31 100,0
Optional 4 3 18,8 10 62,5 0 0,0 3 18,8 0 0,0 16 100,0
Optional 5 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 50,0 1 50,0 2 100,0
Optional 6 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 50,0 1 50,0 2 100,0
Optional 8 6 31,6 11 57,9 0 0,0 2 10,5 0 0,0 19 100,0
Optional 9 1 16,7 5 83,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 6 100,0
Optional 10 3 25,0 7 58,3 0 0,0 2 16,7 0 0,0 12 100,0
Prerequsite Mod. 3 42,9 3 42,9 0 0,0 1 14,3 0 0,0 7 100,0
Figure 33. Responses related to the texts and articles in each module

40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency
CA CB CC CD O1 O2 O3 O4 O5 O6 O7 O8 O10 pr
Modules
Excellent Good Neutral Poor Very Poor
Question 3. Have you used one or more of the exercises for this particular module??
Generally, the 60,9 % of the teachers (N=167) stated that they used the module exercises. The
modules in which the trainees used the provided exercises more are Compulsory A and C and
Optionals 3, and 1 and 2.
Figure 34. Have you used any of this modules’ exercise?
No
39,1%
Yes
60,9%
Table 19. Have you used any of this module’s exercise?
Modules Freq Percent Freq Percent
Compulsory A 24 14,4 10 9,3
Compulsory B 18 10,8 16 15,0
Compulsory C 22 13,2 12 11,2
Compulsory D 11 6,6 14 13,1
Optional 1 17 10,2 10 9,3

41
Optional 2 16 9,6 9 8,4
Optional 3 21 12,6 10 9,3
Optional 4 10 6,0 6 5,6
Optional 5 2 1,2 0 0,0
Optional 6 2 1,2 0 0,0
Optional 7 13 7,8 6 5,6
Optional 8 3 1,8 3 2,8
Optional 10 4 2,4 8 7,5
Prerequsite Mod. 4 2,4 3 2,8
Figure 35. Responses about the use of exercises in each module
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency
Modules
Yes No
Question 4. How do you find these exercises?
The data from the questionnaires reveal that most teachers expressed a positive attitude towards
the module exercises they used. A total of 17% of the teachers found the exercises “Highly relevant /
excellent”, 53% found exercises “Relevant / good”, and only 15% found it “Less relevant / poor” and a
minority of 1% found it “Not relevant / very poor”. Again, there were significant module-specific
variations consistent with the variations observed in previous questions.
Figure 36. How do you find the modules’ exercises?

42
Excellent
17%
Very poor
1%
Poor
15%
Good
53%
Neutral
14%
Table 20. How do you find the exercises in each module?
Modules
Compulsory A 3 8,8 26 76,5 2 5,9 3 8,8 0 0,0 34 100,0
Compulsory B 8 23,5 21 61,8 1 2,9 4 11,8 0 0,0 34 100,0
Compulsory C 4 11,8 20 58,8 2 5,9 8 23,5 0 0,0 34 100,0
Compulsory D 8 32,0 14 56,0 1 4,0 2 8,0 0 0,0 25 100,0
Optional 1 9 33,3 15 55,6 0 0,0 3 11,1 0 0,0 27 100,0
Optional 2 8 32,0 11 44,0 2 8,0 3 12,0 1 4,0 25 100,0
Optional 3 8 25,8 17 54,8 0 0,0 6 19,4 0 0,0 31 100,0
Optional 4 3 18,8 10 62,5 0 0,0 3 18,8 0 0,0 16 100,0
Optional 5 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 50,0 1 50,0 2 100,0
Optional 6 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 50,0 1 50,0 2 100,0
Optional 8 6 31,6 11 57,9 0 0,0 2 10,5 0 0,0 19 100,0
Optional 9 1 16,7 5 83,3 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 6 100,0
Optional 10 3 25,0 7 58,3 0 0,0 2 16,7 0 0,0 12 100,0
Prerequsite Mod. 3 42,9 3 42,9 0 0,0 1 14,3 0 0,0 7 100,0

43
Figure 37. Distribution of the respondents about the exercises in each module
0
5
10
15
20
25
Frequency
Modules
Question 5. Did you use the ICT manuals of this module?
Generally, 62,5 % (N=176 answers) of the teachers stated that they used the provided ICT manuals
of the modules. The evaluators expected this percentage to be higher and again noted the module-
specific variations. Compulsory modules C, and A and Optionals 2 and 3 were the ones presenting the
most frequent Manuals’ use. In Optional 1, those who answered that they did not use the manual were
slightly more than those who did use it.
Figure 38. Did you use any of the ICT manuals?
No
37,5%
Yes
62,5%
Table 21. The use of manuals in each module
Modules Freq Percent Freq Percent
Compulsory A 21 11,8 13 13,5
Compulsory B 20 11,2 14 14,6
Compulsory C 26 14,6 8 8,3
Compulsory D 17 9,6 8 8,3
Optional 1 13 7,3 14 14,6

44
Optional 2 16 9,0 9 9,4
Optional 3 20 11,2 11 11,5
Optional 4 10 5,6 6 6,3
Optional 5 2 1,1 0 0,0
Optional 6 2 1,1 0 0,0
Optional 7 11 6,2 8 8,3
Optional 8 5 2,8 1 1,0
Optional 10 10 5,6 2 2,1
Prerequsite Mod. 5 2,8 2 2,1
Figure 39. Responses about the use of manuals in each module
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Frequency
Modules
Yes No
Question 6. How do you assess the ICT manuals of this module?
Data from the questionnaires show that the trainees have expressed positive opinions for the
manuals. A total of 21,2% of the teachers found the manuals “Highly relevant / excellent”, 56,6%
found manuals “Relevant / good”, and only 9,9% found it “Less relevant / poor” and a minority of
4,7% found it “Not relevant / very poor”. The facts on the module-specific assessment of the provided
manuals concert with relevant comments on the modules’ quality. Again Compulsory modules A, B
and C scored higher than Compulsory module D, and Optionals 3 and 4 scored higher than other
Optional modules.
Figure 40. How do you assess the ICT manuals of this module?

45
Excellent
21,2%Very poor
4,7%
Poor
9,9%
Good
56,9%
Neutral
7,3%
Table 22. How do you assess the ICT manuals of this module??
Modules
Compulsory A 4 11,8 26 76,5 1 2,9 1 2,9 2 5,9 34 100,0
Compulsory B 10 29,4 18 52,9 1 2,9 3 8,8 2 5,9 34 100,0
Compulsory C 7 20,6 18 52,9 1 2,9 7 20,6 1 2,9 34 100,0
Compulsory D 4 16,0 14 56,0 3 12,0 4 16,0 0 0,0 25 100,0
Optional 1 7 25,9 12 44,4 3 11,1 3 11,1 2 7,4 27 100,0
Optional 2 5 20,0 12 48,0 3 12,0 3 12,0 2 8,0 25 100,0
Optional 3 5 16,1 20 64,5 4 12,9 1 3,2 1 3,2 31 100,0
Optional 4 4 22,2 11 61,1 1 5,6 1 5,6 1 5,6 18 100,0
Optional 5 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 50,0 1 50,0 2 100,0
Optional 6 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 1 50,0 1 50,0 2 100,0
Optional 8 5 35,7 11 78,6 2 14,3 1 7,1 0 0,0 14 100,0
Optional 9 2 28,6 5 71,4 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 7 100,0
Optional 10 5 38,5 6 46,2 1 7,7 1 7,7 0 0,0 13 100,0
Prerequsite Mod. 5 62,5 3 37,5 0 0,0 0 0,0 0 0,0 8 100,0

46
Figure 41. Distribution of the respondents about manuals in each module
0
5
10
15
20
25
30Frequency
Modules
Question 7. How do you assess the module assignment suggestions?
Data from the questionnaires show that teachers also thought positively on the quality of the
modules’ assignments. A total of 17,9% of the teachers found the assignments “Highly relevant /
excellent”, 65,3% found assignments “Relevant / good”, and only 13,5% found it “Less relevant /
poor” and a minority of 2,6% found it “Not relevant / very poor”. Note again the module-specific
variations. While the trainees downplayed the quality of the manual and the exercises in Compulsory
module D compared to other Compulsory modules, they value the suggested assignments higher that
those of the other three. With the exception of Optional Module 4 the trainees give similar, not so high
credits to the highest relevance of provided assignments, rating them as “good / relevant” rather than
“excellent / highly relevant”. This is consistent with their remarks mentioned in the previous section of
the problems they encountered with assignment instructions in some modules.
Figure 42. How to you assess the module assignment suggestions?

European Pedagogical ICT License - Evaluation Report 2005

European Pedagogical ICT License - Evaluation Report 2005

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (18)

En vedette

En vedette (20)

Similaire à European Pedagogical ICT License - Evaluation Report 2005

Similaire à European Pedagogical ICT License - Evaluation Report 2005 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

European Pedagogical ICT License - Evaluation Report 2005