Country report for SELFIE WBL piloting Poland Maria João Proença (EfVET) Miha Zimšek (Skupnost VSŠ) Anita Goltnik Urnaut (Skupnost VSŠ) Alicia Leonor Sauli Miklavčič (Skupnost VSŠ) Ralph Hippe (JRC) 2021 EUR 30769 EN This publication is a report by the Joint Research Centre (JRC), the European Commission’s science and knowledge service. It aims to provide evidence-based scientific support to the European policymaking process. The scientific output expressed does not imply a policy position of the European Commission. Neither the European Commission nor any person acting on behalf of the Commission is responsible for the use that might be ma de of this publication. For information on the methodology and quality underlying the data used in this publication for which the source is neither Eurostat nor other Commission services, users should contact the referenced source. The designations employed and the presentation of material on the maps do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the European Union concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Contact information Name: Yves Punie Address: Edificio Expo, C/ Inca Garcilaso 3, 41092 Sevil e, Spain Email: yves.punie@ec.europa.eu EU Science Hub https://ec.europa.eu/jrc JRC125795 EUR 30769 EN PDF ISBN 978-92-76-40322-7 ISSN 1831-9424 doi:10.2760/815307 Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2021 © European Union, 2021 The reuse policy of the European Commission is implemented by the Commission Decision 2011/833/EU of 12 December 2011 on the reuse of Commission documents (OJ L 330, 14.12.2011, p. 39). Except otherwise noted, the reuse of this document is authorised under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This means that reuse is al owed provided appropriate credit is given and any changes are indicated. For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not owned b y the EU, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders. Al content © European Union, 2021, except: cover image © j-mel - stock.adobe.com How to cite this report: Proença, MJ, Zimšek, M, Goltnik Urnaut, A, Sauli Miklavčič, AL, and Hippe, R. Country report for SELFIE WBL piloting. Poland, EUR 30769 EN, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2021, ISBN 978-92-76-40322-7, doi:10.2760/815307, JRC125795. Abstract: This report presents the results of the pilot study of SELFIE for work-based learning carried out in Poland between September and December 2020. The study aimed at testing the tool before its launch online. In total, 16 VET col eges and 16 companies (operating in different sectors) were engaged in the pilot, involving 2417 users (teachers, students, school leaders and in-company trainers). In addition, 304 individuals (students, teachers, school leaders, school coordinators and in-company trainers) participated in the qualitative research carried out after the pilot. This research included interviews and focus groups, with the purpose of col ecting further feedback. The overal results indicate that SELFIE WBL tool is user-friendly and easy to understand, wel designed, and inclusive with its 360 -degree reflection, as it engaged al those involved in WBL activities in the Hungarian WBL system. The SELFIE WBL tool and the report provided support to school leaders in the development and monitoring of the school’s digital strategy as wel as provide relevant information to al stakeholders in the SELFIE WBL pilot, contributing to increasing the effectiveness of learning in VET schools and companies. Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................... 1 Executive summary ........................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ............................................................................................. 4 2. Digital education and WBL policies.................................................................... 5 3. Set up of the pilot........................................................................................ 7 3.1 Methodology for selecting the pilot schools and companies............................................. 7 3.2 Methodology for translating and adapting SELFIE materials ........................................... 11 4. Pilot implementation .................................................................................. 12 5. Follow up: quantitative and qualitative analyses ....................................................... 15 5.1 Methodology ......................................................................................... 15 5.2 Quantitative results .................................................................................. 17 5.3 Qualitative results .................................................................................... 21 5.3.1 Initial motivation from participants............................................................... 22 5.3.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool ................................................ 22 5.3.3 Questionnaire, content and SELFIE WBL report ................................................... 23 5.3.4 Current and future use of SELFIE WBL ............................................................ 24 5.4 Overall findings....................................................................................... 25 6. Lessons learnt and suggestions for future development ................................................ 27 7. Implications of COVID-19 pandemic .................................................................... 30 8. Conclusions and recommendations .................................................................... 32 References ................................................................................................. 34 List of abbreviations and definitions......................................................................... 36 List of figures ............................................................................................... 37 List of Tables................................................................................................ 38 Annexes .................................................................................................... 39 Annex 1. Key information on the WBL system ............................................................ 40 Annex 2. Dominant economic sectors in Poland .......................................................... 45 Annex 3. Guidelines and templates for focus groups, semi -structured interviews, and list of challenges ... 46 Annex 4. Analysis of open question “Suggestions for improvement” and examples of questions........... 56 Annex 5. School report “Overview of areas” .............................................................. 58 Annex 6. Figures and tables with results of SELFIE WBL piloting quantitative data ......................... 60 Annex 7. Overview of SELFIE WBL results in Poland ....................................................... 65 Annex 8. Country fiche ................................................................................... 78 Annex 9. List of tools similar to SELFIE and other tools used in WBL ....................................... 80 Acknowledgements We would like to thank al vocational education and training (VET) schools and companies that, on a voluntary basis, have participated in the SELFIE for work-based learning (WBL) piloting experience during the most chal enging period of the last century. A word of appreciation goes to the national coordination team who, tirelessly, assured the engagement and continuous support to participating schools and companies and provided the valuable information without which the pilot experience and the report would not have been possible. We would also like to thank DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion and the European Training Foundation (ETF) for the effective col aboration al along the piloting phase and DG Education and Culture for the support. In addition, we would like to thank the national coordinators of al nine piloting countries for the fruitful exchanges and opportunities of mutual learning that have facilitated the piloting process. Final y, the active involvement and support of national VET and WBL stakeholders has been crucial in this endeavour of piloting SELFIE WBL during the COVID-19 crisis. Disclaimer The aggregated and anonymised data which is presented in this document has been extracted by the European Commission from SELFIE database and does not necessarily reflect an official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this document. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein. The views expressed in this report are purely those of the authors and may not in any circumstances be regarded as stating an official position of the European Commission. Note: This report was produced in the framework of the contract agreement 939681 – 2020 BE between European Forum of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (EfVET) and European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC)- "Piloting SELFIE for work-based learning contexts in VET (SELFIE WBL), Lot 3: Poland. 1 Executive summary SELFIE is an online self-reflection tool developed to support schools, including Vocational Education and Training (hereafter, VET), to reflect on their digital readiness and preparedness by looking at different dimensions such as VET school strategies, infrastructure, teaching practices, equipment and the experience of learners. The tool was developed in 2018 by the Joint Research Centre –JRC- and the Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture. In early 2020, in cooperation with the Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, it was adapted to include a module on work-based learning which adds the views of in-company trainers. The aim has been to help improving coordination between VET schools and training companies, and to discuss how they could jointly embed digital technology in their training and apprenticeship programmes. This also means bringing VET teachers and in-company trainers closer together. Throughout 2020, the JRC launched a pilot experience of SELFIE for work-based learning contexts in VET (SELFIE WBL) in nine different countries. EfVET in col aboration with JRC organised them in France, Poland, Hungary and Germany. In addition, JRC managed the pilot in Romania. Four additional non-EU countries (Georgia, Montenegro, Republic of Serbia, and Turkey) piloted SELFIE WBL managed by ETF and JRC. The piloting of SELFIE WBL in Poland was launched in July 2020 and effectively roled out in September 2020. It entailed three main phases: 1. Translation of al supporting documents and the tool itself 2. Selection and engagement of stakeholders (including VET schools and companies). 3. Piloting of the SELFIE WBL in the selected VET schools and companies. In addition: a. Qualitative research consisting of the organisation of focus groups with students and teachers in each one of the VET schools, in-depth interviews with school heads/principals and in-company trainers and additional desk research on similar self- reflection and other digital tools in use in the country. The main emphasis of the piloting experience was on the qualitative research as it al owed to col ect quality information with the view of contributing to practice development and improving the SELFIE WBL tool and its further development. 16 schools were involved in the qualitative research, 32 focus groups (total ing 133 teachers and 142 students) and 17 semi-structured interviews with school leaders and company representatives were organised which al ow the col ection of relevant feedback regarding the tool. It is necessary to say that the outcomes of the pilot are not representative at national level for the education and training systems. The pilot process was disturbed by the COVID-19 pandemic with the confinement measures taken by the government impacting on the data col ection process and requiring great effort from the national team and the school coordinators to assure the delivery, as planned, of al activities. This also had a massive impact on the educational community’s state of mind making it difficult to motivate and engage participants to fil out the SELFIE WBL tool. The overal feedback received was that the SELFIE WBL tool is user-friendly and easy to understand, wel designed, and inclusive with its 360-degree reflection, as it engaged al those involved in WBL activities in the Polish WBL system (students, teachers, school leaders and in-company trainers). The main chalenges for companies and VET schools proved to be pedagogical support, resources, the digital competences and knowledge of the teachers, the digital learning skil s of students and the overal implementation of digital technologies in the classroom. Likewise, for in-company trainers, the biggest chal enges mentioned were the continuing professional development (CPD) together with infrastructure and equipment. The SELFIE WBL tool and the report provided support to school leaders in the development and monitoring of the school’s digital strategy as wel as provide relevant information to al stakeholders, contributing to increasing the effectiveness of learning. School leaders have also expressed the intention to use it on a regular basis. 2 School leaders have also expressed their interest in the next steps of SELFIE WBL, to explore further opportunities to facilitate engagement of and impact on al stakeholders. Next to the technological aspect and competences, teachers’ attitudes towards the “digital world” and digitalisation in general have to be taken into consideration. School leaders shared their perspective regarding the importance of digitalisation not only because of the pandemic, but rather as encouragement for al stakeholders (schools, companies) to increase the effectiveness of teaching and learning. Feedback provided was that the SELFIE WBL pilot came at the right time, not only for schools and their leaders, but also for teachers, students, and in-company trainers. The next chal enge wil be to act based on the SELFIE WBL report results. 3 1. Introduction The pilot of SELFIE for work-based learning contexts was carried out in nine countries. The European Forum of Technical and Vocational Education and Training (EfVET) in col aboration with European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC) have organised them in France, Poland, Hungary and Germany. JRC has managed the pilot in Romania. In addition, the European Training Foundation (ETF) in col aboration with JRC has piloted the tool in four non-EU countries namely Georgia, Montenegro, Republic of Serbia, and Turkey. EfVET carried out the overal management of the SELFIE WBL pilot in Poland in colaboration with JRC. The pilot was coordinated at national level by Polska Fundacja Osrodków Wspomagania Rozwoju Gospodarczego (OIC Poland Foundation). The qualitative research and reporting of the pilot was led by EfVET member in Slovenia Skupnost višjih strokovnih šol Republike Slovenije (Skupnost VSŠ). Overal Management of SELFIE WBL in Poland - specific responsibilities alocated to each organisation were as fol ows: EfVET was the project coordinator and responsible for the overal project management, quality, and reporting. More specifical y, the Project Manager was responsible for the implementation of the work plan , for al administrative and financial management of the proposal and for assuring each member of the team was provided with the support needed to implement the tasks. EfVET had one member of the governance responsible for overseeing the piloting process and one project manager responsible for the operations, ongoing support to the national coordinators and the liaison with JRC. Skupnost VSŠ – Skupnost višjih strokovnih šol Republike Slovenije was a research partner. It was responsible for the qualitative research (including the conduction of the case studies) and for the final report, summarizing the process fol owed and lessons learnt from the piloting of SELFIE WBL in VET schools and companies and comprising the list of digital tools used in the work-based learning (WBL) sector for each country. Skupnost VSŠ had three members who were part of the research team (one senior plus one junior researcher and a senior WBL expert), working directly with EfVET and the national coordinators. OIC Poland Foundation – Polska Fundacja Osrodków Wspomagania Rozwoju Gospodarczego was the national coordinator for Poland. Its main responsibilities were the translation/adaptation of SELFIE WBL and supporting materials into Polish, reaching out and engaging the stakeholders, VET schools and companies, overseeing the piloting of the SELFIE WBL tool and supporting the research component. The national coordinator had a pivotal role in the piloting process for the ongoing support to VET schools and companies. OIC Poland Foundation had two members of staff dedicated to the SELFIE WBL pilot - one senior VET expert and one member responsible for overseeing the operations at national level. Management at national level - responsibilities were defined as folows: The national coordinator had a pivotal role in the SELFIE WBL piloting process and in the selection of VET schools and companies on national level. The national team was responsible for the ongoing support to VET schools, the engagement of national stakeholders and the preparation and delivery of planned webinars. It also acted as a liaison between Skupnost VSŠ and VET schools in everything related to the research component (including the translation of support materials developed for that effect). The national team was responsible for the conduction of the interviews with school leaders and company representatives. The school coordinators were the main organisational force on institutional level engaging and mobilising companies, school leaders, teachers and students and offering them ongoing support during the pilot process. The school coordinator was also responsible for the organisation of the focus groups that took place in schools – one with teachers and the other one with students. The school coordinators were also responsible for the management of the relationship with companies and the eventual support that might was required throughout the SELFIE WBL pilot. 4 2. Digital education and WBL policies The Polish education system has undergone a series of considerable changes since early 2017. The changes are based on 2 legal acts: Act of 14 December 2016 – Education Law (Polish Government, 2017a and 2017b). The reform influenced many aspects of the Polish education system, including the VET sector. With regard to the VET sector, the key changes are as fol ows (Chłoń-Domińczak, 2019): - Secondary education programs (general and vocational) were extended by 1 year; - 3-year Level I Vocational School was introduced (sectoral VET learning system, which al ows to obtain professional qualifications); - 2-year Level I Vocational School was introduced (students can attend this school after graduating from Level I Vocational School in order to improve their qualifications and prepare to take the Matura exam); - Dual vocation training in col aboration with the business sector was started to be more widely promoted; - The Fund for Vocational Education Development was established as a means of increasing the participation of employers in subsidizing vocational education. Nowadays, the VET system in Poland at the secondary level is implemented by means of the folowing programs (Chłoń-Domińczak, 2019): - 1st stage sectoral program (3 years) - 2nd stage sectoral program (2 years) - Vocational upper secondary program (5 years) - Special job-training program (3 years) - Work preparation classes - Post-secondary non-tertiary program (12-30 months) As far as Work-based Learning in Poland is concerned, special attention is placed on apprenticeships. It is provided in the fol owing forms (Chłoń-Domińczak, 2019): - Training for a profession – type of an apprenticeship. Theoretical training is provided at school (at Level I Vocational School) or outside the school system (by means of courses, etc.). Practical training is provided by an employer (an employment contract is concluded). Training for a profession lasts up to 36 months and ends with a state vocational exam. An employer may organize the practical training in the craft trades – in this case an employment contract is concluded for a maximum of 36 months. It ends with a journeyman exam. - Training for a specific job – it is an uncommon form, limited to a smal number of young people. The aim of the training is to prepare students to perform only certain tasks within a given job. It lasts 3 – 6 months and ends with a verifying exam. A juvenile employee is entitled to a pay for the duration of the training period (4 – 6% of the national average salary – it depends on the subsequent year of training), social security benefits, holiday leave. It is possible for an employer to be repaid for the costs incurred (juvenile employee’s salary and social security contributions) by the Labour Fund for the period of vocational training. However, the Ministry of Labour establishes financial limits on the repays (Chłoń-Domińczak, 2019). For more detailed information on the VET system in Poland see Figure 10, Annex 1. The Digitalisation Strategy for VET and WBL in Poland is under the auspices of the Ministry of Digital Affairs. The Ministry of Digital Affairs together with the Ministry of Development; Digitalization; Finance; Infrastructure and National Education developed a programme “From Paper to Digital Poland” in 2015. Its main objective was to develop the e-State and digitalization of the economy. The premise of this initiative was that the administration modernization is crucial to guarantee efficiency – an essential aspect of any sustainable country. The primary objective of services digitalization is to solidify the grounds for the development of a digital country, i.e., providing wide access to high-speed internet, efficient and user-friendly public e-Services and increasing the digital literacy level in society. Numerous actions and initiatives were undertaken under the “From Paper to Digital Poland” program framework. They proved that Poland’s position is much lower that other member states’ concerning the application of the ICT developmental possibilities, specifical y (European Commission, 2019): - Low-fixed broadband reception; - Quite low public administration efficiency; - Quite low e-Government usage level; 5 - Only a few percent of adults involved in long life learning. In the report, it was advocated to develop broadband networks and advance public services’ quality and efficiency through digitalization. The implementation of e-Services wil cover the fol owing approaches: mechanisms to prevent 'digitalization bureaucracy', enhancing the positive influence of projects on administrative processes, training as many people as possible to use ICT to improve the quality of their life and improve the competitiveness of the job market (European Commission, 2019). The digitalization strategy is a part of a more extensive program “Responsible Development” implemented by the Polish government. The primary aim of this initiative is to make Polish citizens wealthier and diminish the number of people who face or might face poverty and social exclusion by 2020. The modernization and digitalization of current systems constitutes measures ensuring that this investment was made to provide equal possibilities and access of the regions to various initiatives introduced by the gove rnment (European Commission, 2019). The “From paper to digital Poland” program covered 9 working fields and the folowing actions: Digital Public Services/e-Services; e-Reporting; Distributed Registers; e-Transport and e-Flow of goods; Increasing Cashless Turnover deals; e-Invoice and e-Receipt; e-Education; Artificial Intel igence and Internet of Things. The fol owing streams "e-Tribute and e-Benefits", "IT Architecture", "Digital Identity", "National Scheme", "Cybersecurity", "e-Health" achieved the expected outcome and are now being reviewed according to the information provided by the Ministry of Digital Affairs from 2019 (European Commission, 2019). The e-Education stream encompasses al stages of education (also VET) and advocates the introduction of a comprehensive education system modernization strategy. It does so by producing and circulating IT tools to enhance the effectiveness of the teaching and learning process of al engaged individuals: children, youth, adults, the elderly and the disabled. The e-Education stream was implemented under the “National Education Network” project. It was supported and assisted by the Scientific and Academic Computer Network, National Research Institute. E-Education was approved in 2017 and started in 2018. It concentrates on 2 primary actions (European Commission, 2019): - Equipping schools with access to the internet (100 Mb/s minimum) and security services. - Equipping schools with learning and teaching materials, providing support with regard to acquiring/improving digital skil s by students. The two actions reinforced the transition to the digital education system. They guaranteed that schools: - Have sufficient and good equipment; teachers and students have appropriate skil s and competences. - Implement new educational and teaching forms and schemes in order to improve digital competences and skil s (e-handbooks, e-learning platforms, etc.). - Even educational opportunities for al Polish students, especial y students who live in low-populated areas and attend schools with not many students. Access to updated sources and streams of knowledge is key to enhance the potential of such students. - Use modern technologies in order to provide and transfer knowledge between educational entities. It constituted an investment of PLN 320 milion (around 70 mil ion Euros), which was received from the Digital Poland Operational Program, and its operation (i.e., purchase of services from telecommunications operators to equip schools with free internet access) - over PLN 1.3 bil ion (around over 0,25 bil ion Euros) from the state budget planned for a 10-year period (European Commission, 2019). 6 3. Set up of the pilot 3.1 Methodology for selecting the pilot schools and companies Selection criteria for VET schools were set to capture and reflect the diversity of VET schools (see Figure 1) and their environment according to: - Size of VET schools (as defined in the SELFIE WBL tool), - Location (as defined in the SELFIE WBL tool), - Geographical coverage (result of agreement within the SELFIE WBL pilot team), - Programme area coverage (result of agreement within the SELFIE WBL pilot team) and - Number of VET schools (at least 12 VET schools). Figure 1. Selection criteria for VET schools. Source: Skupnost VSŠ. (2020) Regarding the school size and location, the decision was to apply the same criteria as defined by JRC in the SELFIE WBL tool. Regarding the different programmes offered by the different VET Schools, this was the result of a consultation with the SELFIE WBL pilot team in the 4 countries where the pilot is being overseen by EfVET. It does not intend to be an exhaustive list of al the programmes in the country but rather reflect the common areas identified by the SELFIE WBL pilot team. The agreed minimum number of VET schools to be engaged in the SELFIE WBL pilot was 12. One important consideration was the voluntary participation of schools in the pilots which meant, on a practical level, that the ultimate criteria would be the school’s availability and wil ingness to participate in the pilot and commitment to the proposed responsibilities. Mapping VET Schools in Poland was done by the national coordinator OIC Poland Foundation via the 16 Regional Education Offices in Poland who have, from the very beginning, expressed their interest and wil ingness to the piloting process. A cal for VET schools to engage in the pilot was launched by OIC Poland Foundation, via their website, that was further disseminated by the regional offices. Even though a public lists of VET schools in Poland1 exists, the above-mentioned approach consisting of reaching out to existing national networks of VET schools, was considered as best given the limited timeline of the SELFIE WBL pilot. CEDEFOP reports that there are almost 670,000 students in VET in 2018 (Chłoń-Domińczak, 2019). The number of VET students decreased by 40 % since 2005 (Chłoń-Domińczak, 2019). This is partly a consequence of a demographic trend and partly due to the increase of students enrol ing in general education. The registration process was managed by the national team under the patronage of the Ministry of National Education. The regional offices were fundamental in facilitating and providing access to VET schools and were contacted by the national SELFIE WBL coordinator. The ultimate decision to participate was made by VET schools. Outreach and Engagement – OIC Poland Foundation has established one-to-one communication with each VET school that expressed interest and availability to participate in the SELFIE WBL pilot, providing additional information regarding the piloting process and the qualitative research, explaining the advantages and benefits of the SELFIE WBL pilot and also providing information on the type of support available for the participating VET schools. This on-going communication was critical to assure VET schools’ engagement and commitment to participate in the SELFIE WBL pilot. The decision was to engage al VET schools that registered until the set deadline. A Memorandum of Understanding was sent to al VET schools to be signed, to formalize the cooperation between EfVET, OIC Poland Foundation and each of the VET schools. 1 The public list of VET schools in Poland is available at https://rspo.men.gov.pl/. 7 Overal , 16 VET schools from 7 different provinces have been engaged in the SELFIE WBL pilot, the majority of which with having up to 500 students in WBL. Although 63% of selected VET schools can be considered smal according to size, al of them are located in urban areas. In terms of programme areas ful diversity is almost achieved as no registered VET school covers the programme area of biotechnology. The summary of VET schools engaged in the SELFIE WBL pilot and the diversity of coverage according to above set criteria can be seen in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2. The diversity of selected VET schools according to size, location, and programme area. Source: Skupnost VSŠ. (2021) Figure 3. The diversity of selected VET schools and companies according to geographical coverage. 8 Source: Skupnost VSŠ. (2021) Selection criteria for companies were set to cover and reflect the diversity of companies prioritising the relevant national economic areas (see Annex 2) and the diversity thereof. The selection criteria for the diversity of companies (see Figure 4) were set to: - Company size (Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003, 2003) and - Economic sector coverage (result of agreement within the SELFIE WBL pilot team). Figure 4. Selection criteria for companies. Source: Skupnost VSŠ. (2020) Engagement of companies was managed by selected VET schools from the pool of companies each VET school works with. The above criteria were presented to each VET school by OIC Poland Foundation. The minimum requirement set for the SELFIE WBL pilot was to engage at least one company per VET school involved. Their engagement was based on their availability and wil ingness to participate and aligned with criteria set above, despite the additional measures taken as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The number of companies engaged was 16 and the diversity of coverage according to above set criteria can be seen in Figure 5. 9 Figure 5. Selected companies per selection criteria. Source: Skupnost VSŠ. (2021) Overal , there was an effort at national level to be as diverse as possible regarding the economic sectors. As Figure 5 reflects, a great diversity was achieved regarding the companies’ size but rather moderate diversity regarding economic sectors. Nevertheless, the most dominant sectors such as business services, tourism, logistics, machine industry, telecommunications, construction, and IT are represented (see Annex 2). Each VET school engaged one company resulting in 16 companies from 7 different provinces (see Figure 3). Initial y, it had been planned to have companies’ representatives signing a Memorandum of Understanding. Given the feedback received by the national coordinator regarding the chal enges may be faced in the process of having companies signing this document and the wish of VET schools to take responsibility for the management of the communication and relationship with the companies engaged in the SELFIE WBL pilot, EfVET decided not to proceed with this formalisation on the basis that it was not needed, and it was adding an unnecessary administrative burden. 10 3.2 Methodology for translating and adapting SELFIE materials The translation and adjustment of SELFIE WBL consisted of 3 main actions namely: (1) linguistic translation, (2) content-focused translation and (3) contextual adaptation and usability. The first one refers to the translation of the documents provided by JRC and was carried out by OIC Poland Foundation. The second and third actions related to the translation were carried simultaneously and brought together VET and WBL experts from 2 different VET schools and 1 expert representing the employers’ association. The involvement of external VET and WBL experts was done to assure the language and the terminology used were clear and understandable by al those involved and in line with the official ones used in the country. Initial y, the plan was to involve the Regional Department of Education in the process of review but due to the timing set for the task, overlapping with summer holidays, this was not possible. The linguistic translation took place in the first 2 months of the project. There was an initial misunderstanding regarding the deadlines set for the different actions and some delays were observed on steps 2 and 3. Figure 6: Translation process Source: Skupnost VSŠ. (2020) 11 4. Pilot implementation The SELFIE WBL pilot was implemented in the folowing steps (see Figure 7): Figure 7. Implementation process. Source: Skupnost VSŠ. (2020) Step 1) Translation of SELFIE WBL materials was done from August to September 2020 (see chapter 3.2 Methodology for translating and adapting SELFIE materials). Step 2) Mobilisation of VET schools and companies took place from July to September 2020 (see chapter 3.1 Methodology for selecting the pilot schools and companies). 12 Step 3) Selections of VET schools and companies were conducted from July to September 2020 (see chapter 3.1 Methodology for selecting the pilot schools and companies) and the Memorandums of Understanding were signed with each selected VET school defining roles and commitments of each VET school to formalize this cooperation after the selection in September 2020. Step 4) Preparatory webinar was organised by the national coordinator to bring together al national stakeholders, EfVET, JRC, European Commission as wel as VET schools, companies, and the research team on 15th September 2020. The main objective was to present the aim of the SELFIE WBL, provide an overview of implementation steps, school self-reflection report, personalized certificates and digital badges, schools’ and companies’ commitments and timeline. Furthermore, feedback from each representative on eventual concerns and expectations was discussed as wel as the mapping of digital tools for WBL used in the country, schools, and companies. Step 5) Piloting of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise began by VET schools registering into the SELFIE tool, planning the activation period, announcing the SELFIE WBL pilot within the school and among partner companies and motivating them to participate by explaining the benefits of their participation. When activating the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise, school coordinators monitored and reported the participation rate (40 % of WBL students, 40 % of VET teachers and at least 1 in-company trainer) and further motivated and promoted the participation among the target groups needed. Most difficult to motivate proved to be in-company trainers as they are not in school and under the management of the school. The SELFIE WBL process took place from September til October 2020, and the feedback from the exercise is presented in chapter 5.2 Quantitative results. Step 6) Follow-up and guidance webinar was organised by the national coordinator addressing only VET schools and company representatives on 15th October 2020. The aim was to fol ow-up the piloting experience, gather initial feedback from school coordinators, address eventual chal enges that may have arisen during the process, confirm the overal figures in terms of completion of the questionnaires and prepare school coordinators for the conduction of students and teachers focus groups and semi structured interviews for school leaders and company representatives. The school coordinators were asked to provide feedback on their experience during the implementation process through the list of chal enges provided by the research team. The research team also provided the guidelines and reporting templates for focus group implementation as wel as the list of chal enges to school coordinators, guidelines and reporting templates for semi-structured interview implementation to the national coordinator. The guidelines, report templates, and the list of chalenges can be found in Annex 3. Step 7) Focus groups were coordinated by school coordinators in November and December 2020. Two focus groups were organised per VET school, one with students and one with teaching staff, to reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the relevant report results. Due to COVID-19 pandemic the school coordinators struggled to organise focus groups and reach the agreed participation rate of 10 students/teachers per focus group (see chapter 7. Implications of COVID-19). In total 32 focus groups were organised involving 142 students and 133 teachers. The feedback from the focus groups is integrated in chapter 5.3 Qualitative results. Step 8) In-depth semi structured interviews were managed by national coordinators from November to December 2020. The aim was to conduct 16 interviews with 4 in-company trainers and decision-making staff in VET school (4 pedagogical managers/directors, 4 sector heads/managers, 4 board heads/directors) to reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the report results and to plan improvements based on those results. Interviews were conducted online. Due to COVID-19 pandemic the national coordinators struggled to engage in-company trainers (see chapter 7. Implications of COVID-19). In total 17 interviews were conducted involving 13 decision-making staff in VET schools and 4 in-company trainers. The feedback from the interviews is integrated in chapter 5.3 Qualitative results. Step 9) Evaluation webinar brought together al national stakeholders, EfVET, JRC and the research team on 15th December 2020. The main purpose was to evaluate the experience, col ect information and recommendations regarding the SELFIE WBL tool from policy makers and other institutional representatives at national level, the opportunities they see for the broader use of the tool in the WBL sector and identify possible dissemination actions that could take place. The research team presented the preliminary results and discussed those with the participants. The feedback from the webinar is integrated in chapter 5.3 Qualitative results. 13 Step 10) Quantitative and qualitative research was conducted simultaneously and upon the receipt of feedback from al above activities from September 2020 to January 2021. The research team prepared the quantitative analysis based on the results of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise provided by JRC and the qualitative analysis based on the feedback from focus groups (teachers and students), semi -structured interviews (school leaders and in-company trainers), the list of chal enges (school coordinators), the fol ow-up and evaluation webinars (for details see chapter 5 Fol ow up: quantitative and qualitative analyses). The timeline of the SELFIE WBL pilot was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic which delayed the implementation of focus groups, semi-structured interviews, the evaluation webinar and in consequence the qualitative and quantitative research. It also affected the engagement of participants (see chapter 7. Implications of COVID-19). 14 5. Follow up: quantitative and qualitative analyses 5.1 Methodology This project aimed to explore a broad scope of aspects of the SELFIE WBL tool to contribute to practice development and to improve the tool itself and its further development. To reach these aims and to increase the internal and external validity of the research results, the research design is based on methodological triangulation of using several different methods. The research team and its project partners used as approach of integrating the quantitative and qualitative methodology. Therefore, the fol owing methods and techniques were used (Majchrzak, 1990): — Analysis of primary sources: analysis of anonymized data provided by JRC. — Analysis of secondary sources prepared by JRC: 4 reports showing aggregated graphs of SELFIE WBL pilot data which were: Participation (numerus and percent according to different demographic variables), Satisfaction (percent and mean for values of overal score and further recommendations), Main Areas (percent of positive responses for area and each variable) and Additional Information (percent of answers). — Analysis of school reports generated by school coordinators, involved in SELFIE WBL pilot. — Semi-structured interview reports, involving 2 respondent groups (school leaders and in-company trainers) provided by the national coordinator. — Focus groups reports, involving the 2 other respondent groups (teachers and students). The quantitative data were col ected through the SELFIE WBL questionnaires, which were answered by school leaders, teachers, students, and in-company trainers. The SELFIE WBL tool provides state-of-the-art information as perceived by the respondent groups. Respondents were selected in a manner that it is possible to make a representative conclusion (Ragin, 2007) at institutional level. We used univariate methods in this study. They are primarily intended to present the distribution of variables’ values; hence the tables in chapter 5.2 and Annex 6 display the number of valid values and additional statistics that we selected: mean (the average value) and standard deviation. In our database, the number of valid responses varied between the variables. When answering the questions for which the quantitative analysis is presented, the respondents had a help text and answered mostly on a 5-level scale with the additional option “prefer not to say” or “not applicable” (and in two cases on a 10-level scale, one question being for al respondent groups and another for two respondent groups). For some questions they had the possibility to select the answer or not (multiple choice). In the folowing quantitative part (see chapter 5.2) we present frequency tables and descriptive statistics. The tables with descriptive statistics display: — N = number of valid responses from the respondents — Mean (M) = the average value of the data points or numbers — Standard deviation (SD) = a measure of the dispersion of a dataset relative to its mean The qualitative research component of the SELFIE WBL pilot had as goal to colect feedback in view of improving the SELFIE WBL tool before it is launched online. The qualitative data were col ected through desk research, feedback from school coordinators, focus groups and in-depth semi structured interviews. The main goal of the desk research was to map out existing similar self-reflection tools in the country used in WBL contexts and to identify other existing digital tools. This mapping and listing were done in two different ways. On the one hand the research team conducted a comprehensive online desk research on al official and available websites from governmental institutions responsible for overseeing WBL in the country. On the other hand, by col ecting this information from the different respondent groups engaged in the pilot (see Annex 8). Focus groups brought groups of people together with the main purpose to colect feedback regarding the SELFIE WBL tool from users’ perspective. The proposal was to conduct two separate focus groups in each VET school, 15 one with teachers involved in the pilot and the other with students (each gathering 10 persons). The selection of the students and teachers did not fol ow any criteria. The selection was left to the school coordinators according to the guidelines, they invited first 10 teachers/students who applied. Facilitators of focus groups were given guidelines (how to conduct focus groups, how and what to report) and templates for reporting the feedback of the focus groups (see Annex 3). The qualitative research method of in-depth semi structured interviews consisted in posing a series of open and closed questions to targeted individuals, i.e., pedagogical managers/directors, sector heads/managers, board heads/directors and in-company trainers, with the goal to gain some insight regarding their perspective on the topic of digitalisation, their wil ingness to further explore SELFIE WBL and to integrate the tool in their cur ent work, as wel as to gather recommendations regarding possible ways to improve it (see Annex 3). There were two open questions in SELFIE WBL for students (digital technology they find useful for learning and ideas and suggestions to further improve SELFIE WBL). We analysed them using thematic analyses. The thematic analysis is a method for examining the content of responses from data col ected from open-ended questions, focus group discussions, or interviews. It enables identifying emergent topics not explicitly stated in SELFIE WBL questions. It is based on organizing key issues in data and grouped under themes reflecting important relations in the research questions (Braun and Clarke, 2006). Results of the thematic analysis were included in the qualitative part of the report (see Annex 4). The qualitative research method of analysis of school reports generated by school coordinators consists of gathering chal enges, advantages of the implementation of SELFIE WBL, and further feedback on the SELFIE WBL process from the perspective of school coordinators, who organised and monitored the SELFIE WBL process within their institutions. To col ect feedback, a template was prepared and provided to school coordinators (see Annex 3). The data col ection took place from September 2020 until January 2021. The analyses started in December 2020. Al responses to the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise, focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and analysis of school reports generated by school coordinators remained anonymous and disconnected from contact details to ensure confidentiality. 16 5.2 Quantitative results Participants in the quantitative analysis were from 12 VET schools. There were 2417 respondents in the database. The participation of school leaders, teachers, students, and in-company trainers was as fol ows: — 41 school leaders — 277 teachers — 2084 students — 15 in-company trainers. In the SELFIE WBL pilot the sample of respondents from public schools prevail with 87.2% meaning only 12.5% of respondents originated from private VET schools. The respondents’ sample is very comparable with the national one where 88.8% of VET schools are public and 12.7% are private (Statistics Poland, Statistical Office in Gdansk, 2020). 53.6% of respondents were from schools located in cities (100,001-1,000,000 inhabitants), 43.8% of respondents from towns (15001-100,000 inhabitants), and 2.6 % of respondents from smal towns (3,001-15,000 inhabitants). Respondents were mainly (68.4%) from schools located in towns (15001-100,000 inhabitants), 20.8% were from cities (100,001-1,000,000 inhabitants), 5.5% from smal towns (3.001-15,000 inhabitants) and 5.3% from vil ages (1,000-3,000 inhabitants). The SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise consists of eight areas on a five-point Likert scale (1-5). Figure 8 displays the percentage of positive responses (i.e., responses on 4 and 5) by main areas. The most positive responses from al respondents are in the area “Pedagogy: Supports and Resources” (70.0 %), which is folowed by the area “Continuing Professional Development” (60.5 %). On the other hand, the least positive responses from the respondents are seen in the area “Leadership” (46.1 %) Figure 8. P ercentage of positive responses by area. Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. 17 Table 1 displays average values for main areas per respondent group. The number of questions in the areas differ between the respondent groups. There are some differences in the areas which different respondent groups rated the highest. The area with the highest mean in the group of school leaders and teachers is “Pedagogy: Supports and Resources” (school leaders M=4.2, teachers M=4.1). Students rated the highest “Pedagogy implementation in the classroom” (M=3.6) and in-company trainers “Infrastructure and networking” (M=3.8). The lowest mean is in the area “Assessment practices” for school leaders (M=3.5), for teachers and for in-company trainers in the area of “Leadership” (teachers M=3.4, in-company trainers M=3.0) and for students “CPD” (M=3.4). Average values per respondent groups for al variables are the highest from school leaders and teachers (M=3.7) and the lowest from students (M= 3.5). Table 1. Descriptive statistics for main areas per respondent group. School In-company Teachers Students leaders trainers Main Area N=262 N=2789 N=53 N=17 M SD M SD M SD M SD Leadership 3.3 1.3 3.4 1.3 / / 3.0 1.8 Col aboration and Networking 3.6 1.6 3.5 1.7 3.5 1.3 3.7 1.9 Infrastructure and equipment 3.7 1.1 3.5 1.2 3.4 1.9 3.8 2.1 Continuing Professional Development 4.1 1.8 3.8 2.0 / / 3.2 1.5 Pedagogy: Supports and Resources 4.2 0.7 4.1 1.8 3.4 1.5 3.5 1.7 Pedagogy implementation in the classroom 3.8 0.9 3.7 1.5 3.6 1.7 3.4 1.4 Assessment practices 3.5 1.8 3.5 1.9 3.5 1.9 3.3 1.6 Students’ digital competence 4.2 0.8 3.9 1.1 3.6 1.9 3.6 1.9 Al areas 3.7 1.4 3.7 1.7 3.5 1.9 3.6 1.9 Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. Note: M=mean, SD= Standard Deviation; Green: the highest score, Grey: the lowest score. Figure 9 displays means for overal satisfaction with SELFIE WBL on a 10-level scale per respondent group. The highest satisfaction is indicated by school leaders (7.3) and the lowest, yet stil above the middle of the 10-level scale, is given by students (5.6). Figure 9. Mean overall score for overall satisfaction with SELFIE WBL per respondent group. Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. The likelihood for further recommendation of the SELFIE WBL on a 5-level scale was the highest among school leaders (M=3.4) and the lowest among in-company trainers (M=2.6). The percent of positive responses (“Very likely” and “Extremely likely”) in the group of school leaders was 39.0%. On the other hand, the highest percent 18 of negative responses (“Not at al likely” and “Not very likely”) was given by in-company trainers (40.0%). The percent of answer “prefer not to say” was the highest among in-company trainers (20.0%). Students and in-company trainers were asked about their opinion about the questions included in SELFIE WBL (see Table 2 in Annex 6). They rated the relevance of questions on a 10 -level scale. Students’ average score was 6.3 and in-company trainers’ average score was 5.9. The SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise included also questions about respondents. Teachers indicated usefulness of Continuing Professional Development (CPD) activities on the pedagogical use of digital technologies. The percentage of positive responses (i.e., responses on 4 and 5) was the highest for “Learning through col aborating” (80.2%), fol owed by “Online professional learning” (73.4%) and “Face -to-face professional learning” (73.1%). “Study visit” was chosen with the lowest percent of positive responses (50.4%). The answer “Did not participate” was the most often used for “Accredited programmes” (54.2%). Teachers and in-company trainers were asked about their confidence in the use of digital technologies.2 Teachers feel the most confident in using technology for “Communication” (85.3%). In-company trainers feel the most confident in using technology for “Communication” and “Preparing lessons” (84.6%). Teachers are least confident in using digital technology for “Class teaching” (58.4%), in-company trainers for “Feedback and support” (76.9%). Teachers and in-company trainers were asked “For what percentage of teaching/training time have you used digital technologies in class in the past 3 months?” There were five possible answers.3 30.0% of teachers and 13.3% in-company trainers chose answer “11-25%” of teaching/training time. 30.8% of teachers and 13.4% of in-company trainers chose answer “51-75%” or “76-100%”. The students reported that they used technology in and out of school most frequently for fun (83.1%). 66.2% of students had access to technology outside the school. Answers to the question “Is teaching/training with digital technologies in your school/company negatively affected by the fol owing factors?”4 display some differences in evaluation among target groups. School leaders found “Lack of funding” as the most influential negative factor (21.9%), teachers “Insufficient digital equipment” (21.6%) and in-company trainers “Lack of time for trainers” (25.0%). The negative factor for teaching or training with digital technology which school leaders rated with the lowest share of positive responses was “Students’ space restrictions” (2.6%), teachers “Low digital competence of teachers” (5.9%) and in-company trainers “Low digital competence of trainers” (3.6%). Answers to the question “Is remote teaching and learning/training with digital technology negatively affected by the fol owing factors?”5 display that remote teaching and learning is most often negatively affected by “Limited student access to reliable internet connection” (school leaders 23.4%, teachers 21.4%) and “Limited student access to digital devices” (school leaders 18.2%, teachers 19.0%). In-company trainers chose most often “Limited student access to digital devices” (20.0%). For school leaders (3.9%) and teachers (4.8%) the least influential negative factor is “Teachers lacking time to provide feedback to students”. In-company trainers chose “Difficulties in supporting families in helping students” with the lowest share (6.7%). The percent of chosen positive factors for remote teaching, learning, or training6 displays disagreement between respondents from schools and companies. School leaders rated as the most positive factor “Teachers col aborate within the school on digital technology use and creation of resources” (20.0%). Teachers rated the same factor the highest (19.4%). In-company trainers chose “Company has access to wel organised online of digital resources” (20.7%) most frequently. School leaders and teachers agree that the positive factor that least affects remote teaching and learning is the “Bring your own device policy” while in-company trainers rated “The company has a digital strategy” lowest. 2 Teachers responded to the question regarding the situation in their school (teaching), in -company trainers regarding the situation in their company (training). 3 Answers: 0-10%; 11-25%; 26-50%; 51-75%; 76-100% of teaching/training time; Prefer not to say. 4 School leaders and teachers responded to the question regarding the situation in their school (teachers), in -company trainers regarding the situation in their company (trainers). 5 School leaders and teachers responded to the question regarding the situation at their school (teachers, teaching), in -company trainers regarding the situation in their company (trainers, training). 6 School leaders and teachers responded to the question regarding the situation in their school and teaching, in -company trainers regarding the situation in their company and training. 19 For more information on figures, tables, and data, see Annexes 6 and 7. 20 5.3 Qualitative results Al sixteen pilot schools were included in the qualitative part of SELFIE WBL. Based on the results of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise, it was not possible to determine by deviation the best and worst performing school as the results were quite similar or differed only in individual parameters. Therefore, we decided to present the results of al covered schools as study cases in this qualitative part. The colection of qualitative data was seriously affected by the second wave of COVID-19, which pushed the implementation of the qualitative phase of SELFIE WBL pilot down the priority list both in schools and among participants. This manifested itself in a difficult access to participants and less opportunities for participants to participate actively in focus groups (especial y teaching staff) as they had already dealt with cases of COVID-19, conducting live schooling, and preparing for the transition to remote learning. However, it was extremely chal enging to engage in-company trainers in semi-structured interviews as companies demanded their ful focus on preparing the company to the new situation. Nevertheless, the qualitative analysis was based on feedback from 32 focus groups, 17 semi-structured interviews, 12 school reports, the final evaluation webinar as wel as answers to open questions in the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise (see chapter 5.2 Quantitative results). The focus groups for teaching staff were moderated by a peer teacher and for students were run by a school tutor. In total, 133 teachers and 142 students participated in the focus groups (see Table 2). The semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 pedagogical managers, sector managers, and school directors as wel as with 4 company representatives that took part in the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise, al of them being moderated by the national coordinator. School coordinators reported on their coordination and administrator experience when launching and using SELFIE WBL. Table 2. Number of students, teachers, school leaders, in-company trainers and school coordinators involved in the qualitative analysis. Semi- Semi- structured School Focus groups Focus groups structured coordinators School interviews with with students with teachers interviews with (list of in-company school leaders challenges) trainers School 1 5 5 1 School 2 10 10 1 School 3 10 10 1 1 1 School 4 10 10 1 School 5 10 10 1 1 School 6 10 10 1 1 1 School 7 10 10 1 1 School 8 10 10 1 School 9 7 5 1 School 10 10 5 School 11 10 10 School 12 10 10 1 1 1 School 13 10 10 1 1 School 14 10 8 1 1 1 School 15 10 5 1 1 School 16 5 5 1 1 TOTAL 142 133 13 4 12 Source: Own analysis. For details on focus groups, semi structured interviews, and chalenges see Annex 3. 21 5.3.1 Initial motivation from participants During the focus groups the students were asked about their expectations from the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise and only 27 % of students did not have any prior expectations for the SELFIE survey. Students had a positive attitude expecting as a result the overal opinion on digitalisation at school, how their school compares to other schools in digitalisation, reliable and transparent reflection on digitalisation, and the state-of-the-art of digital equipment. Furthermore, students appreciated their inclusion into the SELFIE WBL exercise but expected it to be more entertaining. In conclusion, 100 % of students confirm their expectations were met and outline that it was a very detailed self-reflection exercise encompassing digitalization from many different aspects which makes the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise different from other surveys. The teachers had the same question as students. 75 % of teachers were looking forward to receiving feedback on the status of digitalisation, including al perspectives (teachers, students, school leaders and in -company trainers). Their expectations broadened to the digital readiness of teachers and the extent of disruption due to COVID-19 pandemic. Teachers also expected feedback on implementation of remote learning. Furthermore, teachers outlined the expectation that SELFIE WBL clearly highlighted weaknesses and strengths. Final y, it was expected that the SELFIE WBL would indicate areas in need of improvement and further development in the field of digital teaching authentical y il ustrating the current state at their school. 25 % of teachers did not have specific expectations but general y the approach was positive. In-company trainers proved to be chalenging to motivate. Nonetheless, their major motivation was to contribute to the close working relationship with the schools as their partners, help them to learn as wel as to gain an overview on the digitalization status from different perspectives. Their expectations were met. School leaders were highly motivated expecting an instantaneous overview of concrete results and the assessment of digitalisation and the state-of-the-art from various perspectives transparently. Their aim was to identify deficits in infrastructure and staff’s preparedness to use digital tool in their teaching. Additionaly, school leaders looked forward to how their effort on developing remote teaching was perceived, especial y from students’ perspective, and to experience how the SELFIE WBL tool functions. The expectations were fuly met in 92% of cases. Furthermore, school leaders indicated that the SELFIE WBL tool proved to be very satisfactory providing very useful information to determine further effective activities to be integrated into the strategy of the school. Final y, school coordinators reported that the attitude of al the four target groups was mostly positive although some faced difficulties to motivate participants due to the pandemic. To stimulate participation informational activities were undertaken, flyers displaying benefits disseminated and personalised certificates promoted prior to the SELFIE WBL exercise. The importance of digitalisation as the consequence of COVID-19 was correspondingly high and evident. One of the main chal enges was the mobilisation of students. Additional y, the pandemic negatively impacted the cooperation of in-company trainers and the direct outreach of the school to this specific group is proportionately lower. In general, there was a consensus that using a self-reflection tool like SELFIE WBL was beneficial. 5.3.2 Strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool Participants filed out the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise on various devices, mostly on computers and smartphones. The possibility to use smartphones was particularly appreciated, specifical y among students. 62% of students found SELFIE WBL understandable and transparent. They experienced no problems and confirm that nothing was left out. Further characteristics that work well were the supporting explanations to questions and the easy handling of the tool. Additional y, the appealing, detailed, and colourful user interface, the processing time as wel as the fact that in general, the SELFIE WBL process ran smoothly were considered as strengths. Nevertheless, some challenges were identified in displaying larger texts ful y on smartphones and tablets (only in landscape format). Furthermore, the participants pointed out that for such a detailed and lengthy self-reflection exercise it is essential to enable the option of saving the input for later finalisation or due to disruptions such as internet failure. 18% of students considered the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise too time consuming, tiring, exhausting and in some cases, there is no clear distinction among questions with 22 complex terminology (see Annex 4). They find the questions should be more interesting, specific, relevant to their study programme, and offering the opportunity to reflect the gap in digital proficiency among different teachers. In general, the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise should be conducted in the second semester of the study year to al ow students to gain experience and develop their own opinion of the digitalisation situation of the school as wel as the company. Regarding the SELFIE WBL tool registration process it was outlined that the navigation and data input were considered simple, quick, and easy. The layout and guidance were very clear and simply manageable. The possibility to customize the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise to the needs of the school by choosing from optional pre-prepared questions and by adding their own, self-created questions was very positive considered. As the biggest advantages of the SELFIE WBL tool were considered the inclusive factor overarching al four stakeholders and the information col ected from them, the opportunity to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the school and the opportunity to use SELFIE WBL as a self-evaluation tool. However, respondents miss more open questions to be able to add explanations as wel as the lack to edit any basic information (number of teachers, students, add companies/in-company trainers) once the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise was activated. The display of the list of companies could be improved by providing an easier way to register al companies schools work with. The answer scaling should be displayed neutral y avoiding tendency towards a larger displayed answer or towards the “middle” answer. On the other hand, the generation of a single link to access the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise per target group was welcomed and considered easy and fast. The participation monitoring is ful y and distinctly enabled for each target group. The help function is considered very welcome and useful. Technical y, the SELFIE WBL tool was easy to manage. Final y, most participants assess the SELFIE WBL tool as user-friendly, very easy to use, transparent, with a good structure, wel designed, and with a 360-degree reflection (lacking, according to few schools, only the perspective of parents). 5.3.3 Questionnaire, content and SELFIE WBL report The overal impression is that the questionnaire was clear, relevant, and wel -structured, with an appropriate mapping a variety of relevant areas such as leadership, infrastructure, teaching and learning. Nevertheless, the questions were too long, complex and seemed repetitive (see Annex 4). The questionnaire was considered long, extensive and time consuming. The SELFIE WBL pilot questionnaire was composed of standard VET questionnaires7 with additional new items and a new respondent group to get information also on specific WBL-related items. This made it likely that it was perceived as lengthy, but this was the only way to also test the new WBL items. JRC planned from the start to shorten the questionnaire for the final version. Some questions were irrelevant for some professions and could be better adjusted to company reality. There was a strong demand for more open questions to enable comments, suggestions and experience sharing. Questions integrating communication with parents and family are very much related to primary education and not to vocational schools and should be omitted8. On the other hand, a few schools suggested to include parents as a respondent group as wel . A few school leaders also suggested that SELFIE WBL is too much of a hassle for smal schools and did not contribute any new information. The content was prepared in such a way that the relevant subject areas were very wel mapped, comprehensive, detailed, extensive, diverse and multidimensional to cover a wide range of topics. On the other hand, there was no option of reducing the number of questions as it was too extensive, demanding and tiring for students. The terminology of questions was too complex and demanding for students. Additional y, as vocational fields differ vastly it would be appreciated to determine the professional field beforehand and only then ask the questions tailored to a specific profession. The evaluation of teachers should be enabled on individual basis as their digitalisation skil s differ vastly with some stil struggling with basic digital skil s and others being digitaly proficient. Participants outlined the necessity for additional themes such as student’s and teacher’s home equipment, internet access and stability (also at home), teacher training the use of information and communication technology (ICT) in the classroom and for what purpose and home-schooling in general. They miss a section to establish the difference in achievement of students and workload of students and teachers during face-to-face learning versus during remote learning processes. SELFIE WBL offers a range of questions addressing those issues among optional questions, so this is a reminder for school coordinators to include those 7 That is, the SELFIE VET questionnaires which are already available in the online SELFIE tool. 8 That is, “Difficulties in supporting families in helping students with remote learning.” and “Low digital competence of families.” 23 questions as wel if they have not done so yet. Additional y, the questionnaire should be better adjusted to company reality. Furthermore, some schools are convinced that students evaluated the teachers with surprisingly high rates as they did not distinguish among the evaluation of the teachers’ skil s and the available ICT equipment. Another reason for this might be that many students were from ICT study programmes. The SELFIE WBL report offers extensive, useful and clear feedback and documents the current state of digitalisation very wel , identifying strengths and weaknesses. The online report is dynamic and can be operated intuitively. It is a good base for analysis and further development steps. The report offers the school an official document with the reflection of digital processes per specific area and target group. The PDF format is c olourful and appealing yet difficult to understand as question texts are not displayed and some scores are not fuly visible (see Annex 5, areas C and H for in-company trainers, and areas D, E and H for school leaders). It is difficult to draw unequivocal conclusions from the report. Participants also expected the report to provide clear conclusions, recommendations, and a proposal for actions to be adopted. Final y, the report clearly highlighted the areas that need further attention and focus. 5.3.4 Current and future use of SELFIE WBL SELFIE WBL clearly exposed the current digital condition and performance with al its strengths and weaknesses. Most schools find the reflection accurate, detailed and somewhat surprising as in some parameters the results were better than expected. This is mostly the case for students’ reflection of the school and teachers’ digitalisation state which were better than teachers and school leaders expected. Although teachers estimated that the cause for a better result was not their good digital skil s but rather the fact that there is no option to indicate the extreme gap among the digital skil s of teachers which emerged and became more evident during the pandemic (some teachers stil struggling with digital basics while others displaying proficient digital performance within the same VET school) or that students confused teachers’ skil s and teaching equipment (see Chapter 5.3.3.). Yet in some cases it led to disappointment as the reflections proved to be more critical than expected. One school was extremely disappointed and considers the results not objective. Based on the SELFIE WBL report, the identified future steps were to share and discuss the results with al target groups and departments to gain a better and uniform understanding of the result. To analyse those and develop a coherent institutional digital strategy including an action plan, a sound pedagogical and didactical concept and a feasible financial plan with indicators for reflection of each criteria further support are needed. Many schools suggested the SELFIE WBL report should include conclusions and recommendations. Afterwards, it is essential to inform al the relevant target groups including in-company trainers and present the action plan. Solving infrastructural, continuing professional development capacity and the equipment of students at home are identified as urgent priorities. However, some smal schools find the SELFIE WBL exercise positive yet too much workload to receive information they are already are aware of as the information flow in a smal school runs smoother among different respondent groups than in larger schools. On the other hand, many schools tend to use SELFIE WBL reports to approach authorities in order to support them in addressing deficits that emerged in the exercise. Most schools plan to repeat SELFIE WBL in 1- or 2-years’ time to fol ow-up the impact and progress achieved in the meantime if the activation timeframe of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise is prolonged. Moreover, school leaders wil use the reports to present the authorities the momentary situation of digitalisation at their school and use the later SELFIE WBL fol ow-ups to present their effort and progress. Nevertheless, there is a strong desire for benchmarking on national and international level to get an impression of their position based on their own quantitative results in various areas and in a broader environment. Furthermore, participants pointed out the need of support in extracting the correct information from the reports as wel as a platform for good practice sharing. 24 5.4 Overall findings This chapter presents reflections and main findings from the pilot, gathered from both quantitative and qualitative analyses and the reflections from the participants. School coordinators confirm that the school registration process was considered very easy, smooth, fast, and clear once they read the instructions offering a thorough guidance through the process. The rigidity in editing data once the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise is activated emerged again in relation to the mobilisation of companies and in-company trainers (see chapter 5.3.1.). Four schools failed to mobilise in-company trainers of the agreed company and as such failed to be included in the quantitative results (see chapter 5.2). Moreover, some school coordinators invited more teachers to participate in SELFIE WBL than they declared during registration, which resulted in the participation rate over 100%. However, most schools considered the registration process, input of data and the generation of links very user friendly and easy and reached the set goals of target group participation. Additional y, the schools commented that to obtain a realistic feedback from in-company trainers, the recommended participation rate of a school’s partner companies should be set higher. Consequently, a substantial number of companies needs to be entered during the registration process which adds considerable extra workload. Schools would also appreciate a preview of data needed for the registration process in order to have time to prepare them before the registration process is started. School coordinators identified the option to customise the SELFIE WBL tool as one of the most beneficial features. Nevertheless, the preferred form of customised questions are open questions. Additional y, school coordinators reported several obstacles when reaching out to participants to take part in SELFIE WBL. Firstly, the pilot schedule was very intensive with little to no room for launching the SELFIE WBL exercise in a more convenient period for schools due to summer vacations. So, the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise was launched immediately at the beginning of the school year. There was very little time for an appropriate and thorough information campaign among the target groups. Secondly, the time of the activated SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise is limited to a maximum of three weeks. This was considered inappropriately short as vocational students have a shared schedule of time at school and in the company. Thirdly, autumn school vacations interrupted the immediate organisation of the fol ow-up activities. Therefore, the fol ow-up was conducted with a larger time-gap as foreseen, and the participants of focus groups and semi-structured interviews claimed they had difficulties recal ing detailed comments. Final y, as much as the first wave of COVID-19 boosted the interest in and importance of digitalisation in spring, the return of the pandemic in autumn resulted in teachers, students and in-company trainers being out of reach due to il ness or quarantine, new measures and restrictions that were imposed causing stress which resulted in SELFIE WBL drastical y faling on the priority list of participants. Consequently, difficulties were encountered in mobilising teachers and students to participate in SELFIE WBL exercise, the focus groups and concentrate on their SELFIE WBL experience as they were home-schooling, and apprenticeships were cancel ed. It is important to emphasize that If students are not in the classrooms, they are hard to reach as they do not have the equipment or have to share this with other siblings. School leaders considered the SELFIE WBL pilot came “just in time” due to the pandemic experience in spring and were therefore highly motivated to establish the authentic state-of-the-art of the school’s digital practices and recognized the added-value of the SELFIE WBL tool in this process. One school proposed extra promotional items with the SELFIE WBL logo (pens, caps, pencils, etc.) for further motivation of participants. On the other hand, some teachers and students perceived it as an additional burden in the difficult times when their main priority was on the implementation of remote provision of teaching and learning. On the contrary, most teachers and students were very motivated and looked forward to contributing with their opinion on digitalisation to the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise and its results. Some school coordinators organised informational sessions pointing out the benefits of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise and possible impacts on schools’ digital strategy and practices pointing out strengths and weaknesses finding out what works wel and what is less efficient. Many schools were looking forward to the comparison with other schools. Nonetheless, the enthusiasm of most students faded during the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise due to its length, complex terminology, tiring similar questions causing exhaustion and lack of interest. Some participants admit they ran through the survey without reading it, especial y towards the end of the survey. Likewise, teachers’ interest lowered focusing mostly on how to deal with the COVID-19 crisis and remote learning. However, the monitoring of participation was fast, transparent, colourful, and simple. 25 Participants find the online SELFIE WBL report useful and exhaustive as it pinpoints the expected needs for improvement like the necessity to improve students’ and teachers’ digital skil s as wel as the accessibility to a stable Wi-Fi network. The report furthermore offers a clear, informative, and a good starting point for discussion with al stakeholders (students, teachers, school leader and in-company trainers) as preparation to a new school digitalisation strategy. Participants agree that the online SELFIE WBL report highlighted strengths and weaknesses, yet the PDF format lacks information and as such is prone to various interpretations of results which can be misleading. To be able to discuss the report with the target groups a comprehensive feedback on the results would be essential in PDF version for sharing purposes. The existing PDF version can be used only as a supporting document and for printing. There was also a consensus among schools on the stimulative role of personalised certificates and digital badges. Regarding personalised certificates schools reported that they were available and easy to manage. Participants were happy and appreciated them, and school coordinators used them as a motivating instrument and even recognized a promotional opportunity in the personalized certificates. Nevertheless, some participants experienced difficulties upon login. On the other hand, digital badges proved to be awkward and complicated to manage and register as the registration had to be conducted with an external platform and it could only be downloaded without text. Schools also reported on a long waiting time to receive their digital badges while others gave up during the registration process. General impression among the research team is that participants and schools were not ful y aware of recognition possibilities. The research team set the question again at the final webinar and the participants confirmed that they did not encounter any problems with the personalised certificates. Some of them admit they have not tried to receive the digital badge yet. School leaders unanimously praised the SELFIE WBL tool as being very useful and would recommend it as a powerful self-reflection tool to assess digitalisation status and practices. The majority of participants found the SELFIE WBL tool very useful, relevant, easy to use and handle, user friendly, understandable, and transparent. As a major strength of SELFIE WBL school leaders identify the feature to fol ow the evolution of digitalisation of the school in each of the specified areas upon regular periodical use. SELFIE WBL al ows them to prepare their institutional strategies to be able to document the impact and effectiveness of their action plans approximately every 2 years. Other participants understand the usefulness of the SELFIE WBL tool to a lesser extent. School coordinators advocate the need for continuous SELFIE WBL self-reflection as it evidently points to areas the school needs to focus on. An essential activity in the aftermath of SELFIE were p resentations of results to target groups and an open dialogue on their interpretation. Teachers and students recognise the usefulness of SELFIE WBL, yet they hope that the questions wil be adapted specific to their needs and interest. Furthermore, participants claim it is not clear whether some questions relate to school or to company. The repetitiveness of questions that look the same, the complexity of questions and some terminology should be improved. Final y, based on the reports, most school leaders identified as a priority for investment the fol owing three areas: pedagogical supports and resources, students’ digital competences and CPD. Most participants pointed out the inadequacy of questions related to professions. They should be prepared sector-specific to be relevant. Finaly, the SELFIE WBL ecosystem is in its infancy. During the SELFIE WBL pilot a network of 16 pilot schools emerged on national level, creating a good basis for further evolution. The institutional ecosystem has been strengthened through the inclusive nature of SELFIE WBL and is a next step to setting up or renewing institutional digital strategies which wil serve as a basis when discussing with decision-makers the schools’ funding solutions. Under the auspices of OIC Poland Foundation and its regional offices a platform for sharing of good practices and experience is emerging. Nevertheless, schools have not specifical y identified companies as their stakeholder yet. On the other hand, companies have also taken the position of the outsider wil ing to support schools if their support is needed. However, SELFIE WBL has a support of the national Ministry of Education so it can be concluded that good foundations were built but further engagement and effort needs to be invested. 26 6. Lessons learnt and suggestions for future development Meticulous planning is needed to enable the SELFIE WBL process to be implemented smoothly and efficiently. Enough time needs to be envisaged before the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise to present the aim, importance, and benefits of SELFIE WBL accustomed to each target group of participants. Pre-prepared SELFIE WBL flyers, personalised certificates for participation, promotional items and presentations are useful tools for mobilisation of participants. A special short and comprehensive guideline should be prepared for students. The SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise should take place in the second semester to al ow participants enough time to be able to obtain an insight on the digitalization status of their school and/or company to answer the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise accurately and with confidence. To ensure representative results from in-company trainers a high participation rate should be achieved. Participants should be informed of the length and complexity of the questionnaire as wel as of the need to read attentively questions that seem repetitive and similar. To determine the most suitable activation period the availability of vocational students at school and in-company trainers should be verified, and vacations and holidays should be avoided (a week before, during, and after the activation period). The optional and self-created questions should be thoughtful y selected or designed. Participants should be reminded of the coming SELFIE WBL exercise in the week prior to the activation period and they should be aware that once they begin completing the SELFIE WBL questionnaires there is no option to save, check back and/or correct information as al information already fil ed in wil be lost. A plan should be prepared for the students within or additional to their existing schedule. During the activation period participation should be regularly monitored and participants reminded. Immediately after the closure of the SELFIE WBL exercise al participants should receive the report and be able to understand the results. The focus groups and interviews should be scheduled within a week after the SELFIE WBL closure to ensure detailed and relevant feedback from representatives of al target groups. Al col ected feedback should be analysed, an action plan should be developed, discussed, agreed with and presented to the participants. This process should be repeated on regular basis and trends closely fol owed. The above process is based on the experience and lessons learnt during the SELFIE WBL pilot. The COVID-19 pandemic was not considered in the above suggestion of the process as it is an unprecedented event. Nevertheless, it positively influenced the motivation and mobilisation process as participants’ awareness of the importance of digitalisation emerged as a direct consequence of the spring lockdowns and the sudden transition to remote teaching and learning. On the other hand, the autumn pandemic wave disrupted substantial y the implementation of the SELFIE WBL pilot, caused additional stressful situations, and undermined the participation in the fol ow-up focus groups and semi-structured interviews. In general, the SELFIE WBL tool proved to be easily manageable, clear and useful. However, the report is difficult to read on smartphones and participants experienced difficulties selecting a language on smartphones. The size of the displayed five options of the answering scale should be of the same size, otherwise participants tend to select the larger one and have the tendency towards selecting the middle an swer. Furthermore, no editing of data is possible once the SELFIE WBL exercise is launched which prevents the data to be corrected if a mistake is discovered later. For the very same reason, it is impossible to add a new company if a registered one does not respond. The suggestion in this case is for the school coordinator to take enough time to register al partner companies upon their first use of SELFIE WBL and the benefits of this workload should be made very clear in the introduction phase. Once a participant started to complete the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise it is impossible to save, check and/or correct the answers already completed as al data are lost. The same problem arises if suddenly the internet connection failed, which is extremely de motivational considering the length of the questionnaire. A “save option” or an automatic save solution is urgently needed. A few smal schools find to tool too time-consuming for and inappropriate for their use. The participants find the content of the SELFIE WBL questionnaire extensive, complex and tiresome. The participants were confused by questions that seemed repetitive although they were not. And upon going back through the already completed part of the SELFIE WBL questionnaire to verify they lost a l the complete answers. Some questions were too long and difficult to comprehend. The terminology used should be simplified for the students as they struggled to understand complex questions and some outdated terminology. Some participants found some questions confusing whether they are related to the school or to the company. The suggestion is to differentiate such questions with colours. As the questionnaire is already quite extensive very few schools decided to add own questions. Nevertheless, many participants expressed the need for more open questions to be able to share practices, experience and provide more detailed answers. Participants indicated the professional y oriented questions as irrelevant depending on the professional sector and suggested to enable an option to select the professional sector with the pre-prepared questions for that relevant to that sector. They also expressed the need for more questions on remote learning and the readiness of teachers and 27 students (skil s capacity and/or appropriate equipment) to implement quality remote learning. Furthermore, the participants expressed the need to differentiate among various teachers as the digitalisation gap within the same school might be extensive (i.e., some teachers struggle with the basic use of MS Office while others proficiently use and work in various professional programmes such as Catia, CAD, CNC). SELFIE WBL does not offer this detailed diversification. The outlay of the SELFIE WBL report is very appealing and dynamic, identifying strengths and weaknesses and providing good basis for analysis and development. The PDF version provides summary information and question texts are not displayed next to report results making it difficult to understand and interpret the information uniformly. Participants suggest providing in addition to the PDF summary version also the ful report in PDF version to be able to share with other relevant participants a comprehensive feedback. Additional y, the schools expect to be able to compare their results with the national and international average (not as a ranking list). This offers the opportunity for benchmarking and benchlearning. Final y, participants suggest the report should provide conclusions with recommendations as it would make the interpretation of data easier. SELFIE WBL personalised certificates and digital badges are appreciated by most schools and participants as a motivating factor for participation. Participants found it easy to download their personalised certificates for participation while schools had to go through a fastidious digital badge registration process and a long wait to receive the school’s digital badge. Therefore, it was proposed that the registration process for digital badges should either be integrated into the SELFIE WBL tool or Europass Digital Credentials (EDC) as a digital file to store in a wal et in Europass Library. With the SELFIE WBL data, known deficits with hardly any surprises for school leaders as wel as development potentials are now available in a report with clear data and in this way objectified. Nevertheless, charts without explanation are not very useful and lead to various interpretations and confusion. Therefore, the fol ow-up focus groups and semi-structured interviews proved to be essential for the correct interpretation of data. Furthermore, they contributed to the awareness and inclusion of al target groups into a dialogue which was a unique, awakening and very beneficial approach providing a 360 -degree perspective on digitalisation. Through the fol ow-up activities information that would have been lost was col ected as participants had the opportunity to explain the results and the reason why they reflected on items as they did and a dialogue among stakeholders is being strengthened. However, it is essential that participants are notified prior to the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise of the fol ow-up activities and that those activities take place immediately after the closure of taking SELFIE WBL (within a week). On the other hand, al schools expect to be able to benchmark on national and international level to obtain a notion on how these data project on a wider scale. Yet, SELFIE WBL is a self-reflection tool, not an external evaluation one and benchmarking data without background information, critical understanding and thought given to it might lead to misinterpretations. Therefore, a benchmarking opportunity is welcomed only after coherent guidelines on the extent of interpretation and understanding these benchmarking might al ow are provided. In contrast, many participants would like to see more open questions for them to be able to express and explain their answers which is in contradiction to the high demand of benchmarking based on the data. With the very appreciated inclusion of al target groups into SELFIE WBL a micro ecosystem was built on individual school level. Namely, each school is a micro system on its own but to become a micro ecosystem the stakeholders within the system need not only to assume each other’s opinions and beliefs, they have to discuss and understand each other’s views to be prepared to act successful y and transparently as an ecosystem towards improvements. The strengths and weaknesses in the field of digitalisation and digital education with regard to training companies have become more evident. In vocational schools, in-company trainers are an additional stakeholder that was mostly overlooked as such and this weakness was wel recognised by taking SELFIE WBL. In most cases, there is no existing systemic approach to dialogue with in-company trainers. Therefore, SELFIE WBL contributed to strengthen the school’s inner micro ecosystem and contributed to broaden it to the immediate local, and regional level by introducing companies (through in-company trainers) as a new stakeholder of their micro ecosystem. On the other hand, through the SELFIE WBL pilot a national ecosystem emerged composed of 16 schools sharing their experience and struggles through the pilot phase. This national ecosystem has high potential to grow into a community of practice for schools on digitalization under the auspices of OIC Poland Foundation and its regional offices, and with the support of EfVET and the national Ministry of Education. Local authorities (education departments) govern public schools, it is in their interest to support the digitalisation transformation among the schools through the SELFIE WBL integration into policies in order to be able to fol ow progress and efforts of schools based on solid data. This might incentivize the few smal schools to rethink their participation in SELFIE WBL again. The schools have expressed a clear need for a 28 good practice sharing and discussion platform and wil use the opportunity to promote SELFIE WBL on seminars and conferences to accelerate the formation of such a platform. 29 7. Implications of COVID-19 pandemic Measures were taken in the VET sector in Poland as a result of the lockdown in spring 2020 with the main purpose of securing the remuneration of apprentices, organizing the final examinations complying with the safety regulations and providing support to companies. From the overal feedback provided by the national coordinator, the consequences of COVID 19 in the implementation phase of the SELFIE WBL pilot were felt at different levels: - Even though there are clear regulations set at national level by the Ministry of Education, VET schools are responsible for the management of the specific situations that may arise which reflects different approaches to teaching and learning activities. In Poland, a new regulation has been approved recommending that depending on the zone in which the VET school is in regarding the pandemic (green, orange, or red), the type of approach wil vary. VET schools located in red zones wil provide education in the form of remote learning. VET schools located in orange and yel ow zones wil provide hybrid learning which had an impact on the mobilisation of participants during the SELFIE WBL survey phase as wel as during the fol ow-up phase (responsiveness of participants when they are not in school is quite low) causing delays and impacting the qualitative research component. - Cases of Covid-19 among students and teachers were observed already during the preparation and launch of the SELFIE WBL pilot, with quarantine periods and need for the management of VET schools to adjust which sometimes required the shift in terms of priorities. This has impacted the planning, the initial timeframe of the SELFIE WBL pilot and the reach of 40% of students and teachers enroled in WBL programmes as wel as the reach of in-company trainers. - Another aspect is related to the uncertainty caused by the situation and felt at VET school level which made the planning of teaching and learning very chal enging. - Regarding companies, it has been reported by the national team, the incre ase of safety measures which had, in some cases, led to the decrease of the number of apprentices al owed in each company and in others, the apprenticeships were completely suspended. This lock down has not only impacted the number of apprentices engaged in the SELFIE WBL pilot, but it has a rather massive impact on the VET system in the country overal . New adjustments to the SELFIE WBL work plan were required particularly concerning the organisation of the focus groups and semi-structured interviews by the national team in articulation with EfVET and the research team. It is evident that the pandemic wave in spring of 2020 stimulated awareness that digitalisation of schools is a subject that should be prioritized now and not sometime in the future. Even most teaching staff that stil hoped to escape the digital era prior to retirement and policy makers who avoided the discussion of a strategy and urgent investments into digitalisation of schools had to take notice as immediate solutions were demanded. Therefore, the pandemic accelerated the digitalization process as the immediate response was very much left to individuals who could rely only on their own skil s, knowledge and technical predispositions and were forced to solve issues in the sense of “as you see it fit”. There was mostly no uniform approach in how to deal with remote learning overnight. Many students reported that they had no opportunity to take part in apprenticeships as those were suspended. Others reported very low motivation to attend remote learning lessons due to issues with the equipment, need to share equipment with other siblings, lack of skil s of using technology and software in operating with different remote learning platforms and poor or no access to internet. Al these caused no interest in remote learning and they joined the lessons only because it was required for the purpose of confirming attendance. Furthermore, students missed mostly the communication to their peer schoolmates. In the aftermath of the spring pandemic, it became even more evident that the technical equipment alone does not guarantee any smooth transition to digitalisation or even remote learning proficiency. The lack of teachers’ skil s of using technology and software proved to be insufficient and this only aggravated when they encountered errors or any other technical obstacles. The latter proved to be one of the major chal enges for teachers as wel as students during lockdown, the major being accessibility and stability of internet. Consequently, it is important to have appropriate technical equipment (software, hardware, and Wi-Fi) but it is 30 fundamental that teachers as wel as students learn how to use it confidently and also how to work around minor obstacles when the equipment fails to work appropriately (i.e., regular upgrades, restarting the computer, …). For most schools SELFIE WBL came just in time as there is no uniform approach to digitalisation on institutional level and teaching staff need guided trainings. Students openly recognize the emerging necessity to use digital devices in class and the need for further training for teachers in this area. Many students reported they had to share their computers with their siblings which made the home-schooling experience even more chal enging. In many schools, the digital readiness gap between teachers of general subjects and those of profession-oriented subjects clearly emerged. The digital knowledge, skil s, and competences of teachers of professional subjects comprises profound insight and expertise in specific digital tools and the use of those for their profession which mostly completely differ from those used (and widely available and accessible) digital tools for general subjects. The lockdown lessons highlighted the importance of digitalisation on the one hand, but also the need for social interaction during and outside learning processes on the other. Additional y, the self-competence of the students regarding time-management, self-learning strategies and motivation proved to be very low. Students as wel as teachers have been spending long hours every day at their digital devices during the lockdown. The disparities between low and high achievers became even more evident and the need for communication between felow students as wel as fel ow teachers proved to be difficult during lockdown. The human informal contact with peers was not addressed and completely forgotten. Schools are not just about learning; at this age they are the social metropolis for most students. For some students this was the only bright time in the day when they have escaped a dysfunctional home atmosphere. And during the lockdown, the tensions in such homes only intensified and led to depression, anxiety, stress, and/or dropout. In consequence, new roles are being given to the teacher: in addition to the pedagogical and didactical knowledge of methods and lesson organization in remote learning also the one of online social and psychological support to students. Al those concepts have not been sufficiently addressed nor developed yet which evidently cal s for a coherent institutional strategy. A great deal of further training and motivation for teachers wil be necessary. Additional y, a lot should be learned and developed on time-management during remote learning as it is unacceptable for teachers and students to be overwhelmed with work for more hours than their normal workload demands. Nevertheless, the pandemic has strengthened the relationship and bound among staff because of dealing with struggles, difficulties and the opportunities of digital education. On the other hand, some schools postponed the digitalisation agenda due to the second pandemic wave and prioritized enabling teaching, learning, social and psychological support and the associated effort of the school staff and management. The SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise, report, results, and future actions based on them were given only low priority due to momentary lack of capacity. Undoubtedly, this is the major negative influence of the pandemic as many put aside their efforts on the development of digitalisation due to limited capacity during the second pandemic wave which resulted in low capacity to organise and attend focus groups and interviews. Nevertheless, al schools that were able to respond decided to take the SELFIE WBL self-reflection in one- or two-years’ time. Finaly, the pandemic has thoroughly changed al our lives and habits and many changes are here to stay which means that, to some extent, al professions are experiencing changes. What are those changes and how to include the knowledge to be able to address those changes into curricula for each specific profession? The whole extent of the aftermath of the pandemic is yet to be established but we can certainly confirm already now that it wil be much profounder and long-lasting than expected. 31 8. Conclusions and recommendations The SELFIE WBL pilot is considered to have come “just in time” due to the pandemic experience in spring 2020. Participants were highly motivated to establish the state-of-the-art of school’s digital status, practices and recognized the added value of the SELFIE WBL tool in this process. The SELFIE WBL tool is assessed as user-friendly, very easy to use, transparent, with a good structure, wel designed, and with 360-degree reflection. SELFIE WBL was tested on various devices. Supporting explanations to questions and the easy handling of the tool were praised as wel as the appealing, detailed, and colourful user interface and the fact that, in general, the SELFIE WBL self-reflection process ran smoothly. On the other hand, the maximum activation time of a SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise of 3 weeks was unanimously considered too short due to limited time vocational students are at school and the inability to edit any registration data during the exercise. There is no possibility to save, check or correct input and continue fil ing in the questionnaires later as it was considered too time consuming, tiring, and complex. The SELFIE team has long been aware of this issue but technical y it is currently not possible. The possibility to customize the questionnaires to their own needs was considered the great advantage of the SELFIE tool, however, as weakness more possibility to add open questions was identified as wel as the lack to edit any information once the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise is activated. The answer scaling had a tendency towards a larger displayed answer and towards the “middle” answer. Th e registration process, navigation and data input were considered simple, clear, and easy. The layout and guidance were clear and simply manageable and generating a single link to access the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise per target group was welcomed. The questionnaire was clear, relevant, unambiguous, and wel -structured, mapping a variety of areas very wel . Nevertheless, the questions were too long, complex and seemed repetitive. The questionnaire was considered long, extensive and time consuming. Some questions were irrelevant for some professions. The SELFIE WBL report offers extensive, useful, clear feedback and is exclusively available only to the school. The results al ow different interpretations which clearly requires further support to be a ble to come to conclusions and recommendations. Some were clarified through the fol ow-up focus groups and interviews. Personalised certificates were available and easy to manage while digital badges proved to be awkward, complicated to manage and register. The SELFIE team has been working on an easier, user-friendly, and automatic new system to generate digital badges for schools which wil go live around mid-2021. The SELFIE WBL ecosystem is in its infancy. The SELFIE WBL pilot strengthened the discussion s among schools and companies as in-company trainers are an additional stakeholder that was mostly overlooked as such and this weakness was wel recognised by the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise. Finaly, the national ecosystem has high potential to grow but further engagement and effort needs to be invested with the support of OIC Poland Foundation and the national Ministry of Education. Schools expect to be able to benchmark on national and international level to obtain notion on how these data project on a wider scale. Most schools plan on repeating SELFIE WBL in 1- or 2-years’ time to fol ow-up the impact and progress achieved in the meantime. School leaders praised the SELFIE WBL tool as being very useful and would recommend it as a unique powerful self-reflection tool. Recommendations: - A short, easy to read, comprehensive and attractive guide for students on SELFIE WBL should be prepared in order to easily awake their interest, to better understand the purpose of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise and the benefits of it. - A preview of al data needed during the registration phase would be appreciated in order for the coordinators to be able to prepare al required data before they start the registration process. - The prolongation of the maximum activation period of the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise is required due to specific schedule of vocational schools. - There should be two versions of the SELFIE WBL PDF report as the existing summary PDF version is easily misinterpreted. Additional y, it is recommended to create a ful PDF report for sharing, offering the user an option to decide whether to download a ful extensive version or a concentrated summary PDF version. - Further support should be offered on how to translate report results into conclusions, recommendations and final y into an institutional action plan or integrate conclusions and recommendations already as part of report. 32 - The simplification of the registration process of companies in order to ensure representative results from in-company trainers. - Some questions were found confusing (i.e., whether they are related to the school or to the company). Therefore, a noticeable visual effect is suggested to differentiate such questions by colour. - Open questions are desired to enable participants to ful y express their opinion (e.g., to be able to share comments, suggestions, and experience). - An automatic reminder for school coordinators would be appreciated to make the participation monitoring easier. - The SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise should take place in the second half of the study year to alow students enough time to obtain an insight in the digitalization status to be able to answer the questionnaires accurately and with confidence. - The answer scaling should be displayed neutral y avoiding tendency towards a larger displayed answer as wel as an even scaling avoiding the tendency towards the “middle” answer. - The questionnaire should be shorter, and questions simplified, avoiding repetitive similar questions with the terminology adapted for students. Furthermore, questions very much related to primary school should be omitted and the outdated terminology reviewed. - There is the need to determine the professional field beforehand and afterwards ask the questions tailored to a specific profession as there is vast difference among professional sectors. - A benchmarking opportunity on local, regional, national and EU level would be very welcomed not as a ranking list but rather a comparison tool against the average with coherent guidelines on the extent of interpretation and understanding these benchmarking might al ow. This option would attract also some smal schools to participate in the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise again as it would provide comparative results which cannot be provided otherwise. - The registration process for digital badges should either be integrated into SELFIE WBL tool or Europass Digital Credentials (EDC). By integrating both, SELFIE WBL personalised certificates and digital badges, into EDC the added value of both grows and becomes more evident and practical. - An option to differentiate among teachers’ digital proficiency and capacity should be enabled as the digitalisation gap among them within the same school are extensive. - Student’s and teacher’s home equipment, internet access and stability at home, teacher training and the use of ICT in the classroom, digitization of schoolbooks, home-schooling vs. face-to-face teaching, and remote learning in general should be selected by school coordinators from the pool of provided optional questions. The option of designing own questions should also be used to tackle targeted themes. - A “save option” or an “automatic save” solution to enable later finalisation, checking and correction of previous answers or in case of unexpected internet failure should be enabled without loss of previous input. - The editing of registration data during the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise without resetting the whole process and losing already received questionnaires should be enabled. - Schools should establish the difference in achievement of students and workload of students and teachers during face-to-face learning and remote learning processes. SELFIE WBL offers a range of questions addressing those issues among optional questions, so this is a reminder for school coordinators to include those questions as wel if they have not done so yet. - The whole extent of the aftermath of the pandemic is yet to be established but we can certainly confirm already now that it wil be much profounder and long-lasting than expected. SELFIE WBL should also encompass the emerged changes due to the pandemic that influenced professions and as a result new digital knowledge and skil s. These new knowledge and skil s need to be identified to be able to integrate them into curricula of each specific profession. - Schools should provide al respondents the report immediately and organise fol ow-up events to discuss the interpretation of results with al stakeholders. Furthermore. Al stakeholders should be included in the planning of actions to progress. Only if al stakeholders are regularly included in al phases SELFIE WBL wil become digital culture of a school. - Schools and authorities should use SELFIE WBL as a transparent tool for recording actions towards a successful digital transformation of al involved stakeholders. 33 References Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Available: http:/ dx.doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa CEDEFOP. (2018). Apprenticeship schemes in European countries. Luxembourg: Publications Office. Available: http:/ data.europa.eu/doi/10.2801/722857 CEDEFOP. (2020). Digital gap during COVID-19 for VET learners at risk in Europe. Synthesis report on seven countries based on preliminary information provided by Cedefop’s Network of Ambassadors tackling early leaving from VET. Available: https:/ www.cedefop.europa.eu/files/digital_gap_during_covid-19.pdf Commission Recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, smal and medium-sized enterprises. (2003). Official Journal, L 124, 36-41. Available: https:/ eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX:32003H0361. Chłoń-Domińczak, A. et al. (2019). Vocational education and training in Europe – Poland. Cedefop ReferNet VET in Europe reports 2018. Available: http:/ libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2019/Vocational_Education_Training_Europe_Poland_2018_C edefop_ReferNet.pdf European Commission. (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. European Commission. (2020). Anonymous SELFIE WBL school report. European Commission (2019). Digital Government Factsheet. Available: https:/ joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/inline- files/Digital_Government_Factsheets_Poland_2019_4.pdf Figgou, L. & Pavlopoulos, V. (2015). Social Psychology: Research Methods. In: International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition), Elsevier, Pages 544-552. Available: https:/ www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pi /B9780080970868240282 Majchrzak, A. (1990). Methods for policy research. Applied social research methods series. v.3. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications. OECD. (2019). OECD Skil s Strategy Poland: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skil s Studies. OECD Publishing, Paris. Available: https:/ www.gov.pl/web/edukacja/system-informacji-oswiatowej Polish Government. (2017a). Journal of Laws No: 59/2017. Educational Law. Available: https:/ isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20170000059 Polish Government. (2017b). Journal of Laws No: 60/2017. Implementing Provisions - Educational Law. Available: https:/ isap.sejm.gov.pl/isap.nsf/DocDetails.xsp?id=WDU20170000060 Ragin, Charles C. (2007). Družboslovno raziskovanje: enotnost in raznolikost metode. Ljubljana: Fakulteta za družbene vede. SAGE Publications. 2019. Thematic Analysis of Survey Responses from Undergraduate Students. SAGE Research Methods Datasets. Available: https:/ methods.sagepub.com/base/download/DatasetStudentGuide/thematic-analysis-students- technology Skupnost VSŠ. (2020). Guide and Work Plan for National Coordinators. Available: https:/www.skupnost- vss.si/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Guidelines-and-Work-Plan-for-National-Coordinators_V5.pdf Skupnost VSŠ. (2021). SELFIE WBL Poland – Preliminary Results. 34 SPIRIT Slovenija. 2020. Gospodarske panoge Poljske. Available: https:/ www.izvoznookno.si/drzave/poljska/gospodarske-panoge/ Statistics Poland, Statistical Office in Gdansk. (2020). Education in the 2019/2020 school year. Warsaw, Gdansk. Available: https:/ stat.gov.pl/obszary-tematyczne/edukacja/ 35 List of abbreviations and definitions CEDEFOP The European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training CPD Continuing professional development EfVET European Forum of Technical and Vocational Education and Training EQF European Qualification Framework ETF European Training Foundation ICT Information and communication technology IT Information technology ISCED International Standard Classification of Education JRC Joint Research Centre, European Commission N Number of valid responses from the respondents M Mean - the average/central value of the data points or numbers PLN Polish zloty (official currency in Poland) SD Standard deviation - a measure of the dispersion of a dataset relative to its mean Skupnost VSŠ Skupnost višjih strokovnih šol Republike Slovenije/Association of Slovene Higher Vocational Col eges SME Smal and medium-sized enterprises VET Vocational education and training WBL Work-based learning 36 List of figures Figure 1. Selection criteria for VET schools. 8 Figure 2. The diversity of selected VET schools according to size, location, and programme area. 9 Figure 3. The diversity of selected VET schools and companies according to geographical coverage. 10 Figure 4. Selection criteria for companies. 10 Figure 5. Selected companies per selection criteria. 11 Figure 6. Translation process. 12 Figure 7. Implementation process. 13 Figure 8. Percentage of positive responses by area. 18 Figure 9. Mean overal score for overal satisfaction with SELFIE WBL per respondent group. 19 Figure 10. Vocational education and training in Poland. 45 Figure 11. Digital Government Factsheet - Poland. 47 Figure 12. Distribution of economic sectors in Poland. 49 Figure 13. Overview of areas snapshot from the school report. 62 Figure 14. Mean score for al variables in main areas per respondent group. 64 Figure 15. Mean likelihood for further recommendation of SELFIE. 66 Figure 16: Negative factors for technology use in school and company - percent per respondent group. 66 Figure 17. Negative factors for technology use for remote teaching, learning, and training – percent per respondent group. 67 Figure 18. Positive factors for remote teaching, learning, and training - percent per respondent group. 68 37 List of Tables Table 1. Descriptive statistics for main areas per respondent group. 19 Table 2. The number of students, teachers, school leader and in-company trainers involved in the qualitative analysis. 22 Table 3. Thematic analysis of open question responded by students. 60 Table 4. Overal satisfaction with SELFIE - percentage distribution per respondent group. 64 Table 5. Relevance of questions per respondent group. 65 Table 6. Likelihood for further recommendation of SELFIE tool - percent per respondent group. 65 38 Annexes Annex 1. Key information on the WBL system Annex 2. Dominant economic sectors in Poland Annex 3. Guidelines and templates for focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and list of chal enges Annex 4. Analysis of open question “Suggestions for improvement” and examples of questions Annex 5. School report “Overview per areas” Annex 6. Figures and tables of SELFIE WBL piloting quantitative analysis Annex 7. Overview of SELFIE WBL results in Poland Annex 8. Country fiche Annex 9. List of tools similar to SELFIE and other tools used in WBL 39 Annex 1. Key information on the WBL system WORK-BASED LEARNING IN POLAND The Polish education system has undergone a series of considerable changes since early 2017. The changes are based on 2 legal acts: Act of 14 December 2016 – Education Law (Polish Government, 2017a and 2017b). The reform influenced many aspects of the Polish education system, including the VET sector. With regard to the VET sector, the key changes are as fol ows (Chłoń-Domińczak, 2019): - Secondary education programs (general and vocational) were extended by 1 year; - 3-year Level I Vocational School was introduced (sectoral VET learning system, which al ows to obtain professional qualifications); - 2-year Level I Vocational School was introduced (students can attend this school after graduating from Level I Vocational School in order to improve their qualifications and prepare to take the Matura exam); - Dual vocation training in col aboration with the business sector was started to be more widely promoted; - The Fund for Vocational Education Development was established as a means of increasing the participation of employers in subsidizing vocational education. The VET system at the secondary level in Poland is divided into the following programs (Chłoń- Domińczak, 2019): - 1st stage sectoral program ( Level I Vocational Schools, ISCED 353, EQF 3) – lasts 3 years, started in 2017 as a result of the introduced reform. Students who graduated from primary school may participate in this program (15-year-old students). This program provides general and vocational education, contributes to obtaining professional qualifications and general knowledge. It ends with a state vocational exam. Upon passing the exam, students obtain a diploma confirming vocational qualifications for a single-qualification occupation. The scope of work-based learning is determined by a school head teacher (not less than 60% of al vocational practical and theoretical classes). Students can continue their education in Level I Vocational School or at general upper secondary schools for adults. - 2nd stage sectoral program ( Level I Vocational School, ISCED 354, EQF 4) lasts 2 years, started in 2020/21 as a result of the introduced reform. Students who graduated from Level I Vocational School (18-year-old students) may participate in this program in order to improve their skil s and gain further qualifications. It ends with the state vocational exam. Upon passing the exam, students may obtain a diploma confirming vocational qualifications for occupations consisting of 2 qualifications. This program is primary concentrated on vocational training (general school subjects are limited). The scope of work-based learning is determined by a school head teacher (not less than 50% of al vocational practical and theoretical classes). Students who graduate from Level I Vocational School are alowed to go to university as long as they passed the Matura exam. - Vocational upper secondary program ( technical schools, ISCED 354, EQF 4) lasts 5 years. Students who graduated from primary school (15-year-old students) may participate in this program. This program provides general and vocational education, contributes to obtaining professional qualifications and general knowledge. It ends with the state vocational exam. Upon passing the exam, students obtain a diploma confirming vocational qualifications consisting of 2 qualifications. The scope of work-based learning is determined by a school head teacher (not less than 50% of al vocational practical and theoretical classes). Students who graduate from the Technical School are al owed to go to university as long as they passed the Matura exam. - Special job-training program ( special school preparing for work, ISCED 243) lasts for 3 years. This program is directed to students with special educational needs (SEN) – with moderate and severe degree of intel ectual disability or multiple disabilities. Upon completing this program, students obtain a job readiness certificate. This program is adjusted to the needs of people with disabilities and thus offers a wide range of different classes e.g. personal and social functioning, communication, development, creativity development, physical education and job training classes. Job training classes cover over half al the classes and activities in this program. - Work preparation classes ( units preparing for work, ISCED 244, EQF 2) are special type of classes directed to students with special educational needs (SEN). The students can participate in the classes in the 7th and 8th grade of primary school (15-year-old students). The classes provide general education and prepare for work. Special attention is paid to the needs and possibilities of learners. 40 Figure 10. Vocational education and training in P oland. Source: Chłoń-Domińczak, A. et al. (2016) Additionaly, students can also obtain vocational qualifications after completing secondary education (through the post-secondary non-tertiary programs). The programs last from 12 to 30 months, are implemented in post-secondary schools (ISCED 453) and develop solely vocational skil s. Students who participated and completed general and vocational upper secondary programs (19- and 20-year-old students) may attend this school. This program does not provide general education. The scope of work-based learning is determined by a school head teacher (not less than 50% of al classes). 41 Practical training in VET9 Summing up, there are few issues that characterize the Polish VET system. At the secondary level, the programs offered provide general and vocational education, whereas the post-secondary programs provide only vocational education. Vocational education in al programs is provided by means of practical and theoretical classes as wel as work-based learning. Work-based learning in Poland is a relatively new concept. Nevertheless, it is implemented in a variety of ways. It can be performed in school workshops, continuing education centres, practical training centres or with an employer (an apprenticeship). Apprenticeships can be performed in different ways, part-time or ful -time at companies (also dual training). Students may also serve traineeship at an employer’s premises, cal ed “on the job training.” This form is compulsory for secondary and post-secondary programs. It lasts 4 – 12 weeks – the duration depends on the type of job. Another form of practical training if juvenile employment – professional preparation of juvenile employees (15 – 18 years old), who graduated from a primary school. Juvenile employment is also a type of apprenticeship, a contract is concluded between a student and an employer. As far as Work-based Learning in Poland is concerned, special attention is placed on apprenticeships. It is provided in the fol owing forms: - Training for a profession – type of an apprenticeship. Theoretical training is provided at school (at Level I Vocational School) or outside the school system (by means of courses, etc.). Practical training is provided by an employer (an employment contract is concluded). Training for a profession lasts up to 36 months and ends with a state vocational exam. An employer may organize the practical training in the craft trades – in this case an employment contract is concluded for a maximum of 36 months. It ends with a journeyman exam. - Training for a specific job – it is an uncommon form, limited to a smal number of young people. The aim of the training is to prepare students to perform only certain tasks within a given job. It lasts 3 – 6 months and ends with a verifying exam. A juvenile employee is entitled to a pay for the duration of the training period (4 – 6% of the national average salary – it depends on the subsequent year of training), social security benefits, holiday leave. It is possible for an employer to be repaid for the costs incurred (juvenile employee’s salary and social security contributions) by the Labour Fund for the period of vocational training. However, the Ministry of Labour establishes financial limits on the repays. Source: Chłoń-Domińczak, A. et al., 2019. DIGITALISATION STRATEGY FOR VET AND WBL IN POLAND The Digitalisation Strategy for VET and WBL in Poland is under the auspices of the Ministry of Digital Affairs. The Ministry together with the Ministry of Development; Digitalization; Finance; Infrastructure and National Education developed a programme “From Paper to Digital Poland” in 2015. Its main objective was to develop the e-State and digitalization of the economy. The premise of this initiative was that the administration modernization is crucial to guarantee government efficiency – an essential aspect of any sustainable country. The primary objective of services digitalization is to solidify the grounds for the development of a digital country, i.e., providing wide access to high-speed internet, efficient and user-friendly public e-Services and increasing the digital literacy level in society. Numerous actions and initiatives were undertaken under the “From Paper to Digital Poland” program framework. They proved that Poland’s position is much lower that other member states’ concerning the application of the ICT developmental possibilities, specifical y (European Commission, 2019): - Low-fixed broadband reception; - Quite low public administration efficiency; - Quite low e-Government usage level; - Only a few percent of adults involved in long life learning. 9 Chłoń-Domińczak, A. et al. (2019). Vocational education and training in Europe – Poland, Cedefop ReferNet VET in Europe reports 2018, retrieved from http://libserver.cedefop.europa.eu/vetelib/2019/Vocational_Education_Training_Europe_Poland_2 018_Cedefop_ReferNet.pdf OECD (2019, OECD Skil s Strategy Poland: Assessment and Recommendations, OECD Skil s Studies, OECD Publishing. Paris, retrieved from https://www.gov.pl/web/edukacja/system-informacji-oswiatowej 42 In the report it was advocated to develop broadband networks and advance public services’ quality and efficiency through digitization. The implementation of e-Services wil cover the fol owing approaches: mechanisms to prevent 'digitization bureaucracy', enhancing the positive influence of projects on administrative processes, training as many people as possible to use ICT to improve the quality of their life and improve the competitiveness of the job market (European Commission, 2019). Figure 11. Digital Government Factsheet – P oland. Source: European Commission (2019) The digitalization strategy is a part of a more extensive program “Responsible Development” implemented by the Polish government. The primary aim of this initiative is to make Polish citizens wealthier and diminish the number of people who face or might face poverty and social exclusion by 2020. The modernization and digitalization of current systems constitutes measures ensuring that this investment was made to provide equal possibilities and access of the regions to various initiatives introduced by the g overnment (European Commission, 2019). The “From paper to digital Poland” program covered 9 working fields and the folowing actions: Digital Public Services/e-Services; e-Reporting; Distributed Registers; e-Transport and e-Flow of goods; Increasing Cashless Turnover deals; e-Invoice and e-Receipt; e-Education; Artificial Intel igence and Internet of Things. The fol owing streams "e-Tribute and e-Benefits", "IT Architecture", "Digital Identity", "National Scheme", "Cybersecurity", "e-Health" achieved the expected outcome and are now being reviewed according to the information provided by the Ministry of Digital Affairs from 2019 (European Commission, 2019). 43 The e-Education stream encompasses al stages of education (also VET) and advocates the introduction of a comprehensive education system modernization strategy. It does so by producing and circulating IT tools to enhance the effectiveness of the learning and teaching process of al engaged individuals: children, youth, adults, the elderly and the disabled. The e-Education stream was implemented under the “National Education Network” project. It was supported and assisted by the Scientific and Academic Computer Network, National Research Institute. E-Education was approved in 2017 and started in 2018. It concentrates on 2 primary actions (European Commission, 2019): Equipping schools with access to the internet (100 Mb/s minimum) and security services. Equipping schools with learning and teaching materials, providing support with regard to acquiring/improving digital skil s by students. The two actions reinforced the transition to the digital education system. They guaranteed that schools: Have sufficient and good equipment; teachers and students have appropriate skil s and competences. Implement new educational and teaching forms and schemes in order to improve digital competences and skils (e-handbooks, e-learning platforms, etc.). Even educational opportunities for al Polish students, especial y students who live in low-populated areas and attend schools with not many students. Access to updated sources and streams of knowledge is key to enhance the potential of such students. Use modern technologies in order to provide and transfer knowledge between educational entities. It constituted an investment of PLN 320 milion (around 70 milion Euros), which was received from the Digital Poland Operational Program, and its operation (i.e., purchase of services from telecommunications operators to equip schools with free internet access) - over PLN 1.3 bil ion (around over 0,28 bil ion Euros) from the state budget planned for a 10-year period (European Commission, 2019). 44 Annex 2. Dominant economic sectors in Poland Gross domestic product (GDP) structure Figure 12. Distribution of economic sectors in P oland. Source: SPIRIT Slovenija (2020) Agricultural sector The agricultural sector generates 2% of GDP and employs about 10% of the active population. More than 60% of the total land area of Poland is occupied by agricultural land, and the country is self-sufficient in terms of food supply. The main agricultural crops are rye, potatoes, beets, and wheat. Important segments are milk production, pig breeding and sheep breeding. Service sector The service sector accounts for 65% of GDP and employs 58.6% of the active population. The sector is booming, especial y in the financial services, logistics, IT, and tourism segments. Tourism in particular has experienced remarkable growth in recent years. Industrial sector The industrial sector generates 33% of GDP and employs 31.3% of the workforce. The main industries are machine industry, telecommunications, construction, food processing and IT. Some traditional sectors have shrunk sharply, such as steel and shipbuilding. The Polish car industry is mainly export-oriented and highly resilient to the effects of the economic crisis. Source: SPIRIT Slovenija. 2020. 45 Annex 3. Guidelines and templates for focus groups, semi-structured interviews, and list of challenges Focus Group Guidelines Objective The main objective of the focus groups is to spend some time with each of the 2 key target groups for the SELFIE WBL project - learners and teachers - and to discuss the “how” and “why” behind the main questions and answers of the survey. We want participants to elaborate further on the key questions of the survey (Pilot of SELFIE WBL tool) and explore participants’ views about the tool, the main chal enges they faced in using SELFIE tool and whether it helps them assess where they stand with learning in the digital age. We want them to speak freely and not be swayed by pre-conceived notions they may have about what are deemed desirable answers as there are no wrong answers. Moderators The focus group for teaching staff should be moderated by a peer teacher and the focus group for learners should be moderated by a tutor to create a comfortable and trustful atmosphere which enables open reflection and discussion. We advise that a note-taker is also assigned to each moderator to enable fluent moderation. Participants Each VET school organises 2 focus groups. One exclusively with teachers as participants and the other with learners. The diversity in terms of school’s size shal be taken into account. The only pre-condition to become a participant is that they have taken part in the SELFIE WBL pilot survey. The optimal size of each focus group is 10 participants which al ows al members to participate, and enables the moderator, i.e., institutional coordinator or learners’ tutor time to be able to tease out the nuance behind participants’ answers. For online focus groups where plenary discussions/interactions are less straightforward a slightly lower number of participants (minimum of 5) is acceptable to ensure there is opportunity for al participants to have their say, remain engaged, and reduce strain on the moderator. Duration Typical y, a focus group lasts between 60–90 minutes. This gives enough time to al ow for deeper conversations to take place but does not run too long which can lead to participant fatigue. In the case of online focus groups, it is advisable to keep the session time to maximum 60 minutes as it is just that little bit harder for people to stay focused. Moderation The focus group wil need to be wel moderated in order to guide the discussion, using a combination of questions and further probes. The participants should be encouraged to interact with each other as wel as to generate deeper insights about the different subtopics. With an online focus group, it is probably not possible to get the same type of feedback or interplay between participants as with face-to-face focus groups, so the role of the moderator is here even more important. The moderator wil give an overview of the project and its purpose, ask questions, fol ow up with more questions, and keep the conversation on track and on subject. Make sure to keep it relaxed, that participants are at ease and feel comfortable and safe in opening and sharing their thoughts. Reminding participants that there are no right or wrong answers is a good way to make sure they are not self-censoring. Make sure that the moderator also takes enough time for introductions and for participants to become comfortable in the session to ensure individuals to engage with one another. 46 Normal y, al discussions can take place in a normal plenary form, but if the moderator feels the need for it, they might use smal exercises like brainstorm activities in which the participants write down ideas on (virtual) post-it notes, plotting these post-it notes in a matrix or map to prioritize items, or simply keeping track of inspiration and solutions that come up during the session in a visual way. Themes/questions Based on experience with similar focus groups, we should have time to address three to four different themes with open-ended questions, fol ow-up questions and, especial y, discussion between participants. The topics that we would suggest are: The strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool Questions to the participants can include: − What works particularly wel in SELFIE tool? What does not? − What would you see as most important chal enges for an optimal functioning SELFIE tool? Discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, shared experiences regarding strengths and weaknesses, concrete tips & tricks on how to make improvements. Discussion on relevant survey results Participants shal reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the relevant survey results, for example going into different elements of SELFIE tool (e.g., Leadership, Infrastructure and Equipment, Teaching and Learning etc.). Further fol ow-up questions can be asked about the reasons why they took part in the SELFIE survey if it is optimal or more out of necessity and if there are intentions to become either more or less involved in SELFIE tool in the future. Areas where further support is needed/useful Questions to the participants can include: − What are the areas of SELFIE tool where more information, knowledge, guidance, training etc. would be welcome for them and/or col eagues in similar roles? − What potential changes do you anticipate based on the survey results? Again, discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, experiences and visions. Equipment/facilities Chairs set up in a circular pattern around a table is the most ideal set up for a focus group as you want al the participants to be able to easily see each other. In case of online focus group, a Zoom room can be set up by the Research Team (contact us10 at least 1 week prior to the event providing exact date and timeslot). The amount of information that is shared in focus groups is not easily captured by a note-taker, as there are numerous side conversations that happen. The best way to scrutinize data at a later time is to audio and video record the focus group sessions. Please do not forget to get a consent from the participants to be recorded and let them know their responses wil remain anonymous and no names wil be mentioned in the report. 10 Research Team contacts: miha.zimšek@skupnost-vss.si and/or alicia.miklavcic@skupnost-vss.si. 47 Focus Group Report Date: Country: School: Moderator(s): Participant Name and Surname Teacher/Student Subject/Programme 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 48 Discussion Themes - Discussion 1: Icebreakers - Discussion 2: The strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool - Discussion 3: Discussion on relevant survey results - Discussion 4: Areas where further support is needed/useful Theme 1: Icebreakers Suggestions for discussion: Questions to the participants can include: - What were your expectations of Selfie WBL? - Do you think your expectations were met? Common responses/general consensus: Areas of disagreement/lack of consensus: Other notes & observations Theme 2: The strengths and weaknesses of the SELFIE WBL tool Suggestions for discussion: Questions to the participants can include: − What works particularly wel in SELFIE WBL tool? What does not? − What would you see as most important chal enges for an optimal functioning SELFIE WBL tool? Discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, shared experiences regarding strengths and weaknesses, concrete tips & tricks on how to make improvements. Common responses/general consensus: Areas of disagreement/lack of consensus: Other notes & observations Theme 3: Discussion on relevant survey results Suggestions for discussion: Participants shal reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the relevant survey results, for example going into different elements of SELFIE WBL tool (e.g., Leadership, Infrastructure and Equipment, Teaching and Learning etc.). Further fol ow-up questions can be asked about the reasons why they took part in the SELFIE survey, if it is optimal or more out of necessity and if there are intentions to become either more or less involved in SELFIE WBL tool in the future. 49 Common responses/general consensus: Areas of disagreement/lack of consensus: Other notes & observations Theme 4: Areas where further support is needed/useful Suggestions for discussion: Questions to the participants can include: − What are the areas of SELFIE WBL tool where more information, knowledge, guidance, training etc. would be welcome for them and/or col eagues in similar roles? − What potential changes do you anticipate based on the survey results? − What kind of technology you are using when you are working in the company? (state specific examples about the use of technology in company and in school?) − Did you start with digital learning because of COVID-19? − What problems did you face because of COVID-19? − Did you include blended learning? − Did you perform apprenticeships during the lockdown (remote mode/distance mode)? − Wil you use SELFIE WBL in the future? Again, discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, experiences, and visions. Common responses/general consensus: Areas of disagreement/lack of consensus: Other notes & observations Additional themes/discussions/ideas/observations (Only if the content does not fal into any previous categories/themes above) Notes & observations: 50 In-depth Semi Structured Interviews Guidelines Objective In-depth, semi-structured interviews intend to elaborate further on the report results and foreseen improvements based on those results. The interviews are verbal interchanges where the national coordinator attempts to elicit information from 4 in-company trainers and decision-making staff in VET school by asking questions. Even though the national coordinator shal prepare a list of predetermined questions, in-depth, semi-structured interviews usual y unfold in a conversational manner offering participants the chance to pursue issues they feel are important. In-depth interviews are conducted in order to gain a thorough insight about a particular issue, in our case future improvements. Interviews are conducted individual y and focused on each organization separately. Interviewer The interview shal be done by national coordinator. People wil talk more when they feel more relaxed and at ease, so the questions are not asked in any given order, rather they are asked in a way that develops the conversation. Interviewee In-depth semi structured interviews are done with 4 in-company trainers and decision-making staff in VET school (4 Pedagogical Managers/Directors, 4 Sector Heads/Managers, 4 Board Heads/Directors). The pre-condition to become an interviewee is that they have taken part in the SELFIE WBL pilot survey. Duration Typical y, a semi-structured interview lasts between 30–60 minutes. This gives enough time to al ow for deeper conversations to take place but does not run too long which can lead to interviewee fatigue. Before the interview When recruiting interviewees, indicate that you would be happy to conduct the interview at a time and place which best suits them. Do not forget to remind the interviewee of the time, date, and location of the interview (online). Before the interview commences national coordinator should ask the interviewee if they consent to the interview being digital y recorded. Informed consent can be confirmed by the interviewer reading the consent form and the interviewee verbal y indicating that they agree. During the interview You need to listen careful y to what the interviewee is saying, for their response might not actual y answer the question. Alternatively, the interviewee may give you a vague response, to which, you might have to ask for clarification or further explanation. The most important thing to remember when conducting an interview is not to rush through the questioning. Also, do not interrupt participants when they are in the middle of a sentence or when they stop in order to col ect their thoughts. “Could you tel me” is always a good way of starting an interview or asking an interviewee to explain a particular point of view. Do not disclose the details or discuss the comments of another interviewee during an interview. This not only breaches past interviewees’ confidential y, but the present interviewee wil doubt your ability to maintain their confidence. This is not to say that you cannot talk in generalities (e.g., if an interviewee asks you “what have other people said” in relation to particular point, you could say “wel , a lot of interviewees have indicated that” etc.). 51 Have your notepad and pen ready because sometimes interviewees can say the most insightful things when the digital recorder has been switched off. After the interview It is extremely important that you write the report immediately after the interview, whilst you can stil remember vividly al the aspects of the interview. The recorded audio of the interview should help you prepare an accurate report. Use your experience from each interview to improve the next interview. Themes/questions A semi-structured in-depth interview is usual y one in which the interviewer has a checklist of topic areas or questions. The themes that we would suggest are: - Icebreakers Questions to the interviewees can include: − What were your expectations of the participation in the survey? − Do you think your expectations were met? - Discussion on relevant survey results Interviewees shal reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the relevant survey results, for example going into different elements of SELFIE tool (e.g., Leadership, Infrastructure and Equipment, Teaching and Learning etc.). Further fol ow-up questions can be asked about the reasons why they took part in the SELFIE survey if it is optimal or more out of necessity and if there are intentions to become either more or less involved in SELFIE tool in the future and/or use its results. - Future improvements After interviewees discuss pilot results, they should consider implementing proposed solutions. This means that they (plan to) improve process/WBL and continue to look for ways to make it even better for their organization. Questions to the interviewees can include: − What would be your potential reactions based on the survey results? − Is there an action plan to support the implementation of the proposed solutions? − How wil you prioritize your reactions to the results? Wil resources (e.g., financial, capacity etc.) play a role in prioritization process? Equipment/facilities In case of online interview, a Zoom room can be set up by the Research Team (contact us11 at least 1 week prior to the event providing exact date and timeslot). 11 Research Team contacts: miha.zimšek@skupnost-vss.si and/or alicia.miklavcic@skupnost-vss.si. 52 In-depth Semi Structured Interviews Report Date: Country: School: Facilitator(s): Interviewee: Discussion Themes - Discussion 1: Icebreakers - Discussion 2: Discussion on relevant survey results - Discussion 3: Areas where further support is needed/useful Theme 1: Icebreakers Suggestions for discussion: Questions to the interviewees can include: - What were your expectations of the participation in the survey? - Do you think your expectations were met? Common responses/general consensus: Areas of disagreement/lack of consensus: Notes & observations: Theme 2: Discussion on relevant survey results Suggestions for discussion: − What kind of technology you are using when you are working in the company? (state specific examples about the use of technology in company and in school?) − Did you start with digital learning because of COVID-19? − What problems did you face because of COVID-19? − Did you include blended learning? − Did you perform apprenticeships during the lockdown (remote mode/distance mode)? − Wil you use SELFIE WBL in the future? − What are the things you liked about SELFIE WBL? What could be improved? Interviewees shal reflect and discuss their interpretation and in-depth understanding of the relevant survey results, for example going into different elements of SELFIE tool (e.g., Leadership, Infrastructure and Equipment, Teaching and Learning etc.). Further fol ow-up questions can be asked about the reasons why they took part in the SELFIE survey, if it is optimal or more out of necessity and if there are intentions to become either more or less involved in SELFIE tool in the future and/or use its results. 53 Common responses/general consensus: Areas of disagreement/lack of consensus: Notes & observations: Theme 3: Future improvements Suggestions for discussion: Questions to the participants can include: − What would be your potential reactions based on the survey results? − Is there an action plan to support the implementation of the proposed solutions? − How wil you prioritize your reactions to the results? Wil resources (e.g., financial, capacity etc.) play a role in prioritization process? Again, discussion should be encouraged comparing different situations, experiences, and visions. Common responses/general consensus: Areas of disagreement/lack of consensus: Notes & observations: Additional themes/discussions/ideas/observations (Fil in only if the content does not fal into any previous categories/themes above) Notes & observations: 54 List of Challenges The fol owing tables are to be fil ed in by the corresponding participants in the pilot process from the beginning of their engagement til the November 15th, 2020. They wil serve to the research team to identify advantages and positive reflections to SELFIE WBL but foremost to identify chal enges and possibilities of improvement. School Coordinator/Leadership Country: School: Process Advantages Challenges School registration process Supporting materials and info Input of School data Customising survey Motivating participants - Students - Teachers - Leaders - Companies Generating links Survey content Survey technical issues Monitoring participation - Students - Teachers - Leaders - Companies SELFIE WBL Report - Usefulness - Features lacking Reaching objectives (40% of students and 40% of teachers) Certificates/Digital badges - Participants - School Findings (unexpected issues) Lessons learnt How Covid 19 affected /experience with blended learning, Covid 19 impact description of the profile of school, remote teaching and learning Other Add rows, as necessary. Source: Skupnost VSŠ, 2020. 55 Annex 4. Analysis of open question “Suggestions for improvement” and examples of questions Thematic analyses, defined as a method for identifying, analysing, and reporting patterns (themes) within data (Braun and Clarke, 2006) was used for analysing open-ended question on “Suggestions for improvement” provided by students. Description of process: We read al answers from students to open question: »How can we improve SELFIE further? Share your ideas and suggestions with us. « We have got familiarised with the data and prepared list of key issues/themes and codes. Text answers of students was tabulated, and each answer was classified in themes (code). Then we counted the number of answers with the same code and prepared the Table 3. Categories/themes: S – about SELFIE TOOL (satisfaction, critics, missing themes) Q – opinion about questions (length, repeating, complicated) A – opinion about answers (number of answers, option others: ____ …) L – language (terminology, understandable, more languages) D – devices – problems with using tool for SELFIE T – timing of involvement I – design W – internet connection DT – digital technology P – praises 0 – nothing to change K – critics F – feedback Prefer not to answer C – linked with COVID-19 X - not sorted Table 3. Thematic analysis of open question responded by students. Cod Key word, answer Frequenc e y S SELFIE (too many questions->fewer questions, to long, provide short tutorial for students, 23 add explanation, add filters, divide survey into parts about students, teachers, companies, too long, audio description instead of reading of questions, increase anonymity – not asking year of birth) Q Questions (more interesting and diverse questions, more specific questions, more creative, 58 clearer, shorter, better formulated, Better structured, the questions about companies were not understandable, not relevant to the type of school. Add questions: about teaching staff, whether schools are practicing or preparing to use digital technologies for educational purposes at al ; about education not related to school, e.g. learning foreign languages / programming etc. through internet platforms and the use of these platforms by educational institutions, »Have you been taught the correct posture in front of a computer / laptop?«; »To what extent the technology you use is modern?«, »What do you use digital technology for?”, „How much do we remember from classroom and how much from online lessons?” More questions about how to teach and how to approach a student. A Answers: add more answers, other scale, even scale, 11 3 should be impartial or add the option "I rather disagree", add profession IT Specialist, »More answers could be added to some of the questions, e.g., those in section 6«, add option "I have no opinion" L Language, vocabulary (add other languages: Russian; “pathetic”: I do not recommend, 2 goodbye) 56 D Devices 2 T Timing 0 I Design (various app, improve the layout of app, make it more entertainment, add colours, 9 marked answers not easy visible, ugly interface, other background, dark mode) W Wi-Fi (bad) 2 DT Digital technology (equip the school, laptops for students, more DT for teaching, week Dt 5 at home, classes should be more related to IT and programming) P Praises (good, OK, cool, fine, understandable, no problems, nothing left out, transparent, 101 clearly explained) 0 No, no comments, I do not know, nothing missing, no proposals, nothing left out, no need 99 for changes, no ideas K Critics 2 F Feedback: present results, faster replies 3 Prefer not to answer 3 C Linked with COVID-19 0 X Not sorted: I do it because I was forced to, monitoring vocational classes in a given school 2 Other: add the winning game 1 total 323 Source: Skupnost VSŠ (2020) Examples of questions considered repetitive: In our school, I have access to the internet for learning In my company, I have access to the internet for learning In our school, there are computers or tablets for me to use In my company, I can learn operating the relevant (digital) equipment In our school, I use technology in different subjects In our school, we use technology for projects that combine different subjects Examples of questions considered too long and complex: In our school, I have access to a database of companies providing traineeships, apprenticeships and other opportunities In our school, teachers give us different activities to do using technology that suit our needs In our company, in-company trainers use digital technologies to tailor the training to our individual needs In our company, I gain experience in using digital technologies, which makes me more prepared for my future profession In our school, we talk with teachers about the advantages and disadvantages of using technology for learning In our school, I use technology to understand my strengths and weaknesses as a learner In our company, I use digital technology to understand my strengths and weaknesses as a learner In our school, I use technology to keep a record of what I have learned relevant to my field of study Questions/statements that should be included: Whether schools are practicing or prepared to use digital technologies for educational purposes at al ? About education not related to school, (e.g., learning foreign languages/programming etc.) through internet platforms and the use of these platforms by educational institutions? More questions about how to teach and how to approach a student. Have you been taught the correct posture in front of a computer/laptop? To what extent the technology you use is modern? What do you use digital technology for? How much do we remember from classroom and how much from online lessons? 57 Annex 5. School report “Overview of areas” Figure 13. Overview of areas snapshot from an anonymous SELFIE WBL school report. 58 Source: Anonymous SELFIE WBL school report (2020) 59 Annex 6. Figures and tables with results of SELFIE WBL piloting quantitative data Figure 14 displays average values per respondent group for al variables. The mean on a five-point Likert scale (1-5) was the highest for school leaders and teachers (M=3.7), and the lowest for students (M=3.5). Figure 14. Mean score for all variables in main areas per respondent group. Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. Table 4 displays the percent of answers on overal satisfaction with SELFIE WBL on a 10-level scale per respondent group and means for satisfaction with SELFIE WBL per respondent group. The percent of scores above the middle of the scale is the highest for the group of school leaders (82.5%) and the lowest in the group of in-company trainers (60.0%). The highest satisfaction is in the group of school leaders (M=7.3) and the lowest, yet stil above the middle of the 10-level scale, is in the group of in-company trainers (M=5.6). Mean of al respondents’ satisfaction is 6.4. Table 4. Overall satisfaction with SELFIE - percentage distribution per respondent group. School leaders Teachers Students In-company Total Score trainers N=40 N=259 N=1943 N=2257 N=15 1 0% 0.4% 5.2% 6.7% 4.6% 2 2.5% 2.7% 2.4% 6.7% 2.4% 3 0% 4.2% 3.8% 6.7% 3.8% 4 2.5% 6.9% 6.2% 6.7% 6.2% 5 12.5% 19.3% 15.8% 13.3% 16.1% 6 12.5% 14.7% 14.1% 20.0% 14.1% 7 22.5% 17.0% 17.6% 13.3% 17.5% 8 22.5% 18.9% 17.1% 26.7% 17.5% 9 15.0% 10.0% 7.7% 0.0% 8.0% 10 10.0% 5.8% 10.2% 0.0% 9.6% Summary 1-5 17.5% 33.6% 33.4% 40.0% 33.2% Summary 6-10 82.5% 66.4% 66.6% 60.0% 66.8% Mean 7.3 6.5 6.4 5.6 6.4 Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. 60 Students and in-company trainers were asked about their opinion of the questions included in the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise (Table 5). They rated the relevance of questions on a 10-level scale. Students provided 63.4% of responses in the range of 6-10 (M=6.3), and in-company trainers in 61,5% of responses in the range of 6-10 (M=5.9). Table 5. Relevance of questions per respondent group. Students N=1831 In-company trainers N=13 Score Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 1 107 5.8% 1 7.7% 2 49 2.7% 0 0.0% 3 88 4.8% 2 15.4% 4 143 7.8% 0 0.0% 5 284 15.5% 2 15.4% 6 236 12.9% 1 7.7% 7 280 15.3% 3 23.1% 8 322 17.6% 4 30.8% 9 136 7.4% 0 0.0% 10 186 10.2% 0 0.0% Summary 1-5 671 36.6% 5 38.5% Summary 6-10 1160 63.4% 8 61.5% Mean 6.3 5.9 Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. Table 6 presents the percent of answers about the likelihood for further recommending SELFIE WBL per respondent group on a 5-level scale. The highest percent of positive responses (“Very likely” and “Extremely likely”) is in the group of school leaders (39.0%). In the group of teachers, the share of positive responses is 27.6% and in the group of in-company trainers 13.3%. There are 40.0% negative responses “Not at al likely” and “Not very likely”) in the group of in-company trainers. The percent of answer “Prefer not to say” is the highest among in-company trainers (20.0%). The average likelihood for further recommending the SELFIE WBL self-reflection exercise is the highest for school leaders (M=3.4) and the lowest for in-company trainers (M=2.6). Table 6. Likelihood for further recommendation of SELFIE tool - percent per respondent group. Recommending School leaders Teachers In-company Total SELFIE N=41 N=277 trainers N=15 N=333 Not at al likely 0% 1.1% 6.7% 1.2% Not very likely 7.3% 15.2% 33.3% 15.0% Somewhat likely 43.9% 47.3% 26.7% 45.9% Very likely 31.7% 24.9% 13.3% 25.2% Extremely likely 7.3% 2.9% 0% 3.3% Prefer not to say 9.8% 8.7% 20.0% 9.3% Mean 3.4 3.2 2.6 3.2 Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. 61 Figure 15 displays the likelihood for further recommending SELFIE WBL. Means in al groups are above the middle of the 5-level scale. School leaders have the highest mean (3.6) and in-company trainers the lowest (2.6). Figure 15. Mean likelihood for further recommending SELFIE. Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. Figure 16 displays the shares of factors which negatively affect digital technologies’ use in schools and companies. School leaders rated “Lack of funding”, teachers “Insufficient digital equipment” and in -company trainers “Lack of time for trainers” the most negative factor. The negative factor for teaching or training with digital technology which school leaders rated with the lowest was “Students’ space restrictions”, teachers “Low digital competence and in-company trainers “Low digital competence of trainers”. Figure 16. Negative factors for technology use in school and company - percent per respondent group. 62 Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. Figure 17 displays the shares of factors which negatively affect remote teaching, learning, or training. There was quite an agreement between school leaders and teachers about the importance of “Limited students access to reliable internet connection and digital devices”. In-company trainers rated “Limited students access to digital devices” as the most influential negative factor. However, in-company trainers chose “Difficulties in supporting families in helping students with remote learning” as the least relevant factor. School leaders and teacher chose “Teachers/Trainers lack of time to provide feedback to students” as the least relevant factor. Figure 17. Negative factors for technology use for remote teaching, learning, and training – percent per respondent group. 63 Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. Figure 18 displays the shares of factors which positively affect remote teaching, learning, or training. There was quite an agreement between school leaders and teachers about the importance of “Teachers and trainers’ col aboration on digital technology use”. In-company trainers rated as the two most relevant positive factors “School’s and company’s access to wel organised online digital resources” and “School’s and company’s col aboration with other”. School leaders and teachers agreed that the least influential factor of use of technology for remote teaching and learning was the “Bring your own device” policy, while in-company trainers rated as the least relevant “Teachers and trainers’ col aboration on digital technology use” and “School’s and company’s digital strategy”. Figure 18. P ositive factors for remote teaching, learning, and training - percent per respondent group. 64 Source: European Commission (2020). SELFIE database, special extraction for SELFIE WBL national coordinators. Annex 7. Overview of SELFIE WBL results in Poland The outcomes of the pilot are not representative of the national education and training systems. They provide useful insights for schools and companies participating in the pilot and, overal , for schools and companies providing similar WBL programmes and belonging to the specific economic sectors covered by the pilot. Details on al questions can be found in the questionnaires on the SELFIE tool website. 65 User participation Note: The six participation categories were answered by school coordinators during school registration. Categories for ‘disadvantaged homes’ and ‘different language’ are: fewer than 10 %, 10-25%, 26-50%, above 50 %, I don’t know. ‘Didn’t answer’ is also possible, as the questions were optional. 66 SELFIE - Main areas Note: positive responses = answers on 4 or 5 on a five-point scale 67 68 69 SELFIE WBL - Additional areas Note: positive responses = answers on 4 or 5 on a five-point scale 70 71 72 73 74 75 Satisfaction Note: Satisfaction with SELFIE WBL, on a scale from 1 to 10 76 Likelihood of recommending SELFIE Note: on a scale from 1 to 5 77 Annex 8. Country fiche 78 79 Annex 9. List of tools similar to SELFIE and other tools used in WBL The goal was to map out existing self-reflection tools and other existing digital tools in the country and schools used in WBL contexts. This mapping and listing shal include official and available websites from Governmental Institutions responsible for overseeing the WBL in the country and with different stakeholders engaged in the pilot. Name of WBL tool Link Aim Advantages SELFIE is a free, online SELFIE al ows a school https:/ ec.europa.eu/educ tool to help schools to monitor its progress SELFIE WBL ation/schools-go- assess how they use over time and can help digital_en digital technologies for start a dialogue within innovative and effective the school on potential learning. areas for improvement. Labirynt zawodów https:/ doradztwo.ore.ed Non-verbal electronic (labyrinth of u.pl/narzedzia- test of predispositions diagnostyczne-dla- and professional professions) doradcow-zawodowych/ interests A diagnostic electronic https:/ doradztwo.ore.ed tool enabling the DIAPREZAMUS u.pl/narzedzia- examination of diagnostyczne-dla- predispositions and doradcow-zawodowych/ professional interests of students. A electronic tool for the diagnosis and self- diagnosis of https:/ doradztwo.ore.ed u.pl/narzedzia- professional interests of MŁOKOZZ diagnostyczne-dla- students, in particular - students of the last doradcow-zawodowych/ grades of primary school, middle school and 18-year-old youth. Diagnostic electronic Questionnaire of https:/ doradztwo.ore.ed u.pl/narzedzia- tool for examining the professional predispositions and predispositions diagnostyczne-dla- professional interests of doradcow-zawodowych/ learning adolescents. https:/ doradztwo.ore.ed An electronic adventure Talent game u.pl/narzedzia- game supporting diagnostyczne-dla- students in choosing a doradcow-zawodowych/ profession. A tool and a package of methodological materials for the https:/ doradztwo.ore.ed diagnosis of QUO VADIS? u.pl/narzedzia- diagnostyczne-dla- predispositions, doradcow-zawodowych/ professional interests and entrepreneurial skil s of students / learners 80 KJ-NA -30769 -EN -N GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THE EU In person Al over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https:/ europa.eu/european-union/contact_en On the phone or by email Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can contact this service: - By freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these cal s), - At the fol owing standard number: +32 22999696, or - By electronic mail via: https:/ europa.eu/european-union/contact_en FINDING INFORMATION ABOUT THE EU Online Information about the European Union in al the official languages of the EU is available on the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en EU publications You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https:/ publications.europa.eu/en/publications. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en). KJ-NA -30769 -EN -N Kataložni zapis o publikaciji (CIP) pripravili v Narodni in univerzitetni knjižnici v Ljubljani COBISS.SI-ID 72834819 ISBN IS BN 978-92-76-40322-7 doi: 10.2760/815307 978-92-76-40322-7 (PDF)