PractiCAL- Practice Culture and Language

Project financed by the European Commission

Overall Report
First PractiCAL Project Mobility
14 17 December 2011 Cluj-Napoca, Romania

About PractiCAL Project

The project is implemented by a partnership of 6 institutions from 6 different countries. All the partner-institutions provide adult education and teach their own national, less widely used (LWULT) language as a foreign language. Our partnership is based upon subject areas of mutual interest of the participating organisations: promotion of cultural and linguistic diversity, improvement of cultural dialogue and idea exchange, emphasizing the importance of LWULT languages among adults of the countries implied and improving the teaching skills of language teachers. Our partnership is based upon the following objectives: To evaluate the approaches by organizations to promote and organize LWULT language courses in each of the different partner-countries; To observe, compare and evaluate the way in which LWULT languages are taught and learned in all partner countries by the following criteria: o observing and comparing teaching methods, materials and curricula used during the language lessons; o teaching techniques applied, approach and motivation of teachers and students; o techniques and methods of testing and evaluation of students during language classes; o techniques and methods of final testing and examinations; To experience learning LWULT languages of the countries involved and to promote linguistic diversity among learners, teachers and the representatives of the partner-institutions; To develop pedagogical skills and improve teaching competences of the language teachers throughout the partnership; To increase acknowledgement and appreciation for other countries cultural heritage and to promote cultural diversity among learners and teachers; To produce electronic (website, DVD/CD ROM, PDF) and paper versions of the results obtained throughout the project.

Report of the First PractiCAL Mobility Visit Cluj Napoca, 14 17 December 2011 The first mobility visit in Cluj-Napoca was organized by Bridge Language Study House, the Romanian representative of the project. In total, we welcomed 12 visitors from Turkey, Italy, Poland and Hungary. The Greek partners could not join us this time. The demographical distribution of the group is as follows:

The activities of the mobility covered the three main fields of the project: 1. LWU language classes, in this case Romanian classes; 2. Cultural activities; 3. Workshop for improving teaching skills of teachers.

ROMANIAN LANGUAGE CLASSES 15 hours of Romanian language classes were provided to the visitors at beginner level, by two of our Romanian language teachers: Ioana Brtan and Lavinia Gheorghi.

The visitors had different roles during language classes, as some of them were learners and others were observing the teaching methods, techniques, materials during classes, motivation of teachers and learners, or the used progress evaluation and knowledge testing methods. The group distribution was as follows: Learners 8 5 3 Class-observers (visitors) 4 3 1 Class-observers (local) 4 3 1

Number of persons Gender - Female Gender - Mail

The language classes ended with a final test and with evaluating the results of the classes from a learner point of view. The results of the final tests showed us that the language classes achieved their aims. All learners achieved more than 19 points from the maximum of 26 and the success rate was between 73 - 94.23%. The obtained points at the tests and the success rates are presented bellow: Obtained points (From a maximum of 26) 23 22 19.5 21 24.5 24.5 20.5 19 Success Rate (In percentage, from a maximum of 100%) 88.46 84.62 75.00 80.77 94.23 94.23 78.85 73.08

Also, the evaluation questionnaires revealed that the needs and expectations from the course were achieved at a very high level. The results of the evaluation questionnaires (Evaluation Questionnaire - Language Course) are the follows: Part A. Evaluation of teachers Is this course(s) taught in a classroom setting by a certified teacher? Yes: 8 persons, 100% No: 0 persons, 0% Is the instructor trained in teaching methodologies?

Yes: 8 persons, 100% No: 0 persons, 0% Is the course(s) satisfactory? Yes: 8 persons, 100% No: 0 persons, 0% Part B. Evaluation of the Course(s) Total points obtained Success rate (In (from a maximum of 40 percentage, from a total points) of 100%) The course improved my language skills in Romanian. The course improved my comprehension skills. The assignments were useful. There was a range of learning activities. I gained factual knowledge about Romania. I gained knowledge about Romanian culture. The amount of grammar and exercises was sufficient. The teachers used useful teaching materials. The teachers used useful teaching methods. 35 35 35 38 33 31 30 40 40 87.5 87.5 87.5 95 82.5 77.5 75 100 100

Improvement of Romanian in the following fields: Listening Obtained points (from a total of 16 points) 11 Success rate (In percentage, from a total of 100%) 69 Speaking 12 75 Reading 15 94 Writing Spelling Pronunciation 14 88 16 100 15 94

The strengths of the course: 100% of the learners said Communication Opportunities were the strengths of the course, while 37.5% thought also Visuals as the second strengths of the course. The strengths of the instructor/s: Clear and understandable 87.5% Patient 100% Flexile 75% Other 37.5% In the Other category, the respondents listed the follows: The teachers are great, even if I had to be in the classroom 6 hours a day, I never got bored because of the great teachers and the activities that they choose. Clear instructions (but in English), activities very well adjusted to the group. All instructors were nice to us. So we had fun while we were learning Romanian language. In the learners opinion learning Romanian is: Easy 25% Average 75% Difficult 0% CULTURAL ACTIVITIES The cultural activities were developed according to needs and expectations of visitors, analysed within pre-evaluation questionnaires. Most of the participants in the survey (60%) wanted to learn cultural aspects about the region, city and/or its surroundings and have a tour of the city. In order to fulfil these needs, the first day began with introductory activities, during which we have tested the initial cultural knowledge of visitors. We continued then with ice-breaking activities in order to meet each other and to memorise our names and the country from which we come from. After this, the participants took part in a cultural group-contest, which revealed to be educating and interesting. During this contest visitors could learn more about the history and geography of Romania and of Transylvania and learned about famous Romanians. The contesting groups won prices according to the achieved number of points.

After this, Gyngyvr Pillich-Wright, the head of Bridge Language Study House introduced the visitors in the cultural aspects of Transylvania and Cluj-Napoca.

Our further cultural activities also related to the expectations of visitors. 40% of the respondents wanted to learn traditional trades, handicrafts or art and to learn traditional songs. 30% of our visitors also applied for learning of seeing traditional folk dances. In this context, during the second mobility day we offered our participants the chance to learn furniture-painting, one of the most important traditional art of Clata, a region from the surroundings of Cluj-Napoca. Kovcs Minyka Erzsbet, one of the most talented furniture painters of Clata, teached our visitors how to paint traditional motives on wood.

Later on that day, the visitors could participate in the Night of Traditions. During this cultural activity, a local ensemble, Szarkalb, and their musicians-band sang traditional Romanian songs from Suceag and offered us a memorable Hungarian Szkely (minority region in Romania) dance show. After seeing the dance show, the visitors could also learn specific traditional games and dances together with the members of the ensemble.

During the last evening, the 12 visitors joined the team of Bridge Language Study House in their Christmas party. As the Santa Claus came to everybody, our visitors were also gifted.

During the mobility, the visitors were also offered tour-guides in order to visit the main tourist attractions of Cluj-Napoca. Lunches and dinners were mainly chosen so to try traditional drinks and meals, like for example uic, sarmale, mmlig, vinete or zacusc.

The success of the organised cultural activities was analysed using questionnaires. The results obtained during analyses are presented bellow: The first thoughts of visitors about the Romanian/Transylvanian culture, after the mobility: I saw historical buildings (O.D., Turkey); Colorful, relaxed, friendly (Zs. K., Hungary); Is very rich, but I did not see many Romanian things, but mostly Hungarian (S.G., Italy); Interesting culture with a huge diversity of regions, super folk dances (M.D., Poland); I think it is partially similar and partially very different to my own. For example we do not have such strong, good folk dance and music (D.B., Italy); Cluj is very colourful and alive city, because of the people's thinking. It's a part of their culture (G.B.SZ., Hungary); I visited your country two month ago, so in this visit I had already learnt about Romania, but I know that it is a wonderful country to visit (A.G.A., Turkey); They know, how to have fun. At traffic, drivers are very respectful to others. I liked their buildings (O.K., Turkey); Drivers are nice. I liked folk dance. It was nice (A.E., Turkey); They are respectful of others. They are always smiling at all (E.I., Turkey); Your houses are very historical, they are nice. Your people are very nice toward us and they obey traffic rules (Y.A., Turkey); The Romanian culture is rich, like a mixture of mediterrian cultures (M.Sz.E., Poland). The main differences and similarities that the visitors had observed, between their culture and Romanian culture: A lot of word is the same (O.D., Turkey); Romanians are more easy going (Zs. K., Hungary); I can't find many differences. I think the food and other things like the music and dances. Maybe also architecture (S.G., Italy); Folk art is quite similar (M.D., Poland); I think in Romania the tradition of people is more present than in Italy where we have lost most of traditional costumes and habits (D.B., Italy); Fold dancing and songs are quite similar, also the meals, like pork-meat. The traditional meals (mamaliga, vineta) are very unique for foreigners (G.B.SZ., Hungary); We take off our shoes, before going into a house (I read the brochure you've prepared). We have some similar clothes and hand-made. But the only difference is religions differences normally (A.G.A., Turkey); Romanian language is similar with Turkish. Romanian people eat pork but we don't (O.K., Turkey); Romanian is similar with Turkish (A.E., Turkey); They do wood paintings and we do it in our country too (E.I., Turkey); Similarities: some words, art, friendly people. Differences: traffic, Christmas party (Y.A., Turkey); The Romanian culture is still celebrated by young people (M.Sz.E., Poland). Cultural activities that our visitors liked most:

Activities Learn/try the traditional foods Cook traditional meals Learn/see traditional folk dances Learn/see traditional trades, handicrafts or arts Learn/listen to traditional songs Learn cultural aspects about the region, city and/or its surroundings Have a tour of the city Participate in cultural contests, quizzes or games Traditional dinners or parties Watch specific movies or videos

Number of people Percentage 6 50.00 Not Applicable 11 91.67 8 66.67 5 41.67 1 8.33 6 50.00 5 41.67 8 66.67 Not Applicable

When asked how they liked our cultural programmes, the participants answered the following: The cultural programmes were very good and different, interesting (O.D., Turkey); They were well prepared, both (handicraft workshop and the night of traditions) (Zs. K., Hungary); I loved specially the night of traditions because of the music and dances. Was fantastic! I think in general was well organized (S.G., Italy); Very much, especially the dances. Got to know quite a lot about the country (the aspects that have been included in the programme (M.D., Poland); Very much :) (D.B., Italy and G.B.SZ., Hungary); I liked it so much, especially your dances. Also the Christmas Party was a very nice experience for us (A.G.A., Turkey); It was nice (A.E., Turkey and O.K., Turkey); It was cool (E.I., Turkey and Y.A., Turkey); The night of tradition was really well organized and extremely interesting. The meals served during our stay were not only delicious, but also tradition, so I think it is a good way to present culture (M.Sz.E., Poland). The most important/interesting things that our visitors have learned about Romanian culture during this mobility: Romanian language has a lot of verbs (O.D., Turkey); Orthodox Romanians take very seriously their religion (Zs. K., Hungary); Maybe this strong combination with Hungarian culture, it is important and I didn't know about that before (S.G., Italy); Men are clapping on the legs and fast feet movement in the folk dances. The other aspects are quite similar (M.D., Poland); About the way different nationalities coexist in the territory (D.B., Italy); Very open-minded all, and we got very warm welcome (G.B.SZ., Hungary); In Romanian language there are two much verbs (O.K., Turkey); That is worth meeting and connected with other European cultures (M.Sz.E., Poland). At the end of the mobility, the cultural-knowledge questionnaire was applied again to our visitors, so to be able to compare what they have known before and what they have learned during the mobility. The results of comparison between pre and post evaluation of cultural knowledge showed us improvement in the following areas:

Naming the borders of Romania- the average point obtained previously was 2.67, while after the mobility the average became 3.92, from a total of 5 points; Naming the capital city of Romania previously the group obtained an average of 0.5 points from 1, while after the mobility they achieved 0.92 points. Naming famous people from Romania and what they were famous for from a total of 6 points, the average achieved previously was 1.5, which after the mobility increased to 2.54 points; When the visitors had to tick on the map of Romania the place in which Cluj-Napoca is situated, they achieved a much higher average point at the end of the visit that on the first day of mobility. From a total of 12 people, only one ticked the place correctly before the mobility, while after 7 persons could fulfil this task already. Listing minorities that live in Romania at the beginning, the group obtained an average of 1.71 points out of 3, while after the mobility they achieved the average of 2.50 points. At the beginning, the total number of points obtained per group was 85 (33%), out from a total of 252, while after the mobility visit the group as a whole achieved a total of 135 points (53%). WORKSHOP FOR IMPROVEING TEACHING SKILLS OF TEACHERS The PractiCAL project aims to develop pedagogical skills and improve teaching competences of the language teachers throughout teacher trainings or workshops. For this reason, during the Romanian mobility we offered a 4 hour workshop designed for language teachers. 4 visitors and one local language teacher joined our workshop, which was conducted by two trainers of Bridge Language Study House: Kups Emese and Victoria Jumbei. The aim of this program was to learn and share experiences about interactive activities that teachers can use during language classes. The teachers could try each and every activity/game on the interactive white board. Participants were also provided a database with networks, where they can find interactive activities for language teaching.

The workshop ended with evaluating the participants opinions, comments and impressions. The obtained results reveal, that 100% of the participants strongly agree, that during the workshop they learned new teaching techniques, new teaching methods and that they gained knowledge in teaching materials. 96% of the learners agree, that the workshop offered them the chance to share their experiences with others, while 80% of them think, that they have seen how others fight problems/issues connected to language courses/students/teaching. The lowest percentage, 76% was associated with learning new approaches during the workshop. As the main strengths of the workshop, participants listed the following: In short time there were presented many interactive methods; They were open for our experiences as well; Interesting;

New activities presented, applicable to any language; Interaction among the colleges; Practice activities; It was clear, gave practical clues and all of the materials were sheared, so we can use them or adapt them to teaching different languages; There were no unnecessary details about teaching a foreign language. It was short, accurate and very useful. I can apply what I've learnt to my courses; New techniques, exercises on interactive white board and discussions with other teachers - how they prepare lessons at their countries. The teachers didnt list any additional features that could have been applied to make the workshop more useful or efficient.