This project has been funded with
support from the European
Commission. This product reflects the
views only of the author and the
Commission cannot be held responsible
for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein.
Teachers’ views on Case Forest pedagogy
- summary of all eight national teacher course evaluations
Suvi Pessala
1. Participants of the Case Forest teacher courses
Total there were in eight countries 120 participants, who filled the evaluation form. Most of these
participants, 84 %, were women, had been a teacher for more than 10 years (Figure 1A and 2A) and
worked as a teacher in a secondary school and (Figure 1B and 2B).
1A)
less than
5 years
(21)
17 %
5 to 10
years (18)
more than
15 %
10 years
(81)
68 %
1B)
13 %
2%
teacher in pre-school (3)
teacher in primary school: children age 6-12 (6-16) years (42)
35 %
teacher in secondary school: children age 11-19 years (59)
50 %
other: teacher student, university teacher/professor, forest peagogue,
leader of nature camp/club etc. (15)
Figure 1A) Teaching experience in years (total number of answers in bracelets)
1B) Professions of the participants (total number of answers in bracelets).
2A)
2B)
less than 5 years
5 to 10 years
more than 10 years
teacher in pre-school
35
teacher in primary school: children age 6-12 (/6-16) years
30
teacher in secondary school: children age 11-19 years
20
15
10
5
0
20
Number of answers
Number of answers
other
25
15
10
5
0
Figure 2A) Teaching experience in years of the participants per country
2B) Professions of the participants per country.
Participants were a bit more experienced in teaching about forests than sustainable development
(Figure 3). Only 7% of the participants had never taught about forests and 14 % about sustainable
development.
7
6
Mean value
5
Have you taught about forests
before?
4
3
Have you taught about
sustainable development before?
2
1
0
Bulgaria Czech Estonia Finland Latvia Liettua
(n=12) Republic (n=14/15) (n=8) (n=39/42) (n=16)
(n=8)
Slovakia Sweden
(n=15)
(n=8)
Total
(n=120)
Figure 3 Teaching experiences of the participants in forest issues and sustainable development.
(Scale: 1 No, never - 7 Yes, many times)
2. Teachers’ views on Case Forest methodology
Altogether the stance towards the methodology among participant was very positive (Figure 4). Next
are presented more precisely the results of each tree questions in Figure 4. In the questionnaire the
questions were asked to answer in a number scale from 1-7. To ease the interpretation of the results
there are added verbal explanations for numeric values 2-6 (mentioned in bracelets after the number)
in the figures 4, 5 and 7. It has to be noticed that the person, who has answered the question might
have interpreted the numeric scale differently.
7
6
Did you learn something new? (1 No
nothing - 7 Yes, everything was new
to me)
mean value
5
What do you think about the Case
Forest methodology ( 1 Very bad - 7
Very good)
4
3
Will you use something you learned
during the course in your work? (1
No, nothing was usefull - 7 Yes, I will
try everything)
2
1
Bulgaria
(n=12)
Czech
Republic
(n=8)
Estonia
(n=14/15)
Finland
(n=8)
Latvia
(n=39/42)
Liettua
(n=16)
Sweden
(n=8)
Slovakia
(n=15)
Total
(n=120)
Figure 4. Mean values of the questions per country and in total:”Did you learn something
new?” mean of all answers 5.7 and standard deviation 1.1; ”What do you think about the Case
Forest methodology? mean of all answers 6.0 and standard deviation 1.0; ”Will you
use something you learned during the course in your own work? mean of all answers 6.1
and standard deviation 1.0.
According to the questionnaire all the participants learned something new during the course (Figure
5). The learning might here mean either the pedagogic content of the course or forest and sustainable
development issues or both of them. Even 60 % of the participants answered that everything was
new for them or that they learned a lot (values 6-7). Only 2 % answered they learned just a little or
quite a little (values 2-3).
100 %
90 %
2
1
1
1
3
1
1
80 %
21
1
16
2
9
3
6
30
70 %
4
60 %
10
50 %
2
10
40 %
6
2
4
39
10
1 No, nothing
2 (a little)
3 (quite a little)
4 (some)
5 (quite a lot)
6 (a lot)
7 Yes, everything was new to me
12
30 %
2
20 %
7
7
3
33
2
10 %
1
6
2
0%
Bulgaria Czech Estonia
(n=12) Republic (n=15)
(n=8)
Finland
(n=8)
Latvia Lithuania Sweden Slovakia Total
(n=39) (n=16)
(n=8)
(n=15) (n=121)
Figure 5 Answers to the question:” Did you learn something new during the course?”
The numbers in the columns indicate the amount of answers in that value class.
After the course and “learning by doing” experiences of the Case Forest methodology most of the
participants thought the method has potential (Figure 6). 77 % thought the method is either very
good or good (values 6-7). 9.5 % gave number 4 for the methodology which can be interpreted as a
neutral answer or they had no opinion about the methodology. Only one participant thought that the
methodology is quite bad (value 3).
100 %
1
2
2
11
6
90 %
3
1
80 %
1
1
1
14
5
4
70 %
3
2
6
60 %
50 %
45
12
20
9
1 Very bad
2 (bad)
3 (quite bad)
4 (-)
5 (quite good)
6 (good)
7 Very good
5
40 %
10
30 %
4
20 %
44
10
10 %
2
4
Sweden
(n=8)
Slovakia
(n=15)
2
0%
Bulgaria
(n=12)
Estonia
(n=14)
Finland
(n=8)
Latvia
(n=42)
Lithuania
(n=16)
Total
(n=115)
Figure 6 Answers to the question: “What do you think about the Case Forest methodology?”
The numbers in the columns indicate the amount of answers in that value class.
It was asked also with an open question what is good with the Case Forest methodology. In the
answers the method was described to be interesting for pupils and teachers, an innovation, new way
of learning and teaching, clearly structured, it combines different subjects, brings research closer and
enhances creative working.
“1. ready system, structure to follow 2. can be used in different subjects –for my opinion even
in grammar one could start with asking questions 3. Activates the pupil and encourages the
teacher to ask instead of giving answers. It is research. In the research arises alive interest to
the subject.
(Evaluation of teacher course in Finland)
In more than half of the country reports was also mentioned that the method is flexible, can be used
widely and it combines nicely theory and practice. It is a child central method, which makes pupils
more interested in the learning process and motivated, when it all starts from the child. Also
improvement of computer skills and learning to work in teams were mentioned in the answers.
“The pupils become more active and interested which make them learn more. We learn in
different ways and this gives something for all the pupils.”
(Evaluation of teacher course in Sweden)
“Students can explore, study things that interest them. Students have more independence,
they have to think and make decisions themselves.”
(Evaluation of teacher course in Estonia)
3. Teachers’ views on applying the methodology in their own school
In total a bit more than half of the participants (53 %) thought that there are no problems in using the
Case Forest method at their school (Figure 6).
100 %
90 %
80 %
70 %
60 %
50 %
40 %
30 %
20 %
10 %
0%
2
2
7
8
4
16
9
64
16
6
4
NO
YES
6
5
4
23
6
56
2
Bulgaria Czech Estonia Finland
(n=12) Republic (n=12) (n=8)
(n=8)
Latvia Lithuania Sweden Slovakia Total
(n=39) (n=18) (n=8) (n=15) (n=120)
Figure 6. Answers to the question: “Can you see any problems using the Case Forest
methodology at your school?” The numbers in the columns indicate the amount of answers in
that value class.
The biggest obstacles listed to hinder the use of the method at school were lack of time and
restrictions of the curriculum. These were mentioned in the evaluation summaries of each country.
Only once was mentioned too big group sizes as a reason not to have enough time to support all the
pupils in the method like Case Forest. In about half of the summaries was mentioned lack of
financial resources, technical equipments or bus transportation, as a problem (Czech Republic,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Sweden). Teachers’ limited IT skills were also seen as possible
hindering factor (Czech Republic, Slovakia). In half of the teacher course evaluation summaries were
mentioned, that the use of method depends on co-operation with other teachers and/or their attitudes
(Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Sweden). Therefore these can be seen as possible obstacles in
applying the method. For example not all teachers are interested in leaving the classroom or are too
tired to try new things. Also the attitude of school administration and pupils were mentioned.
The answers to the question, will you use something you learned during the course in your work,
give more support for the positive stance towards the methodology (Figure 7). 76 % of the
participants answered that they will try everything or quite a lot of what they’ve learned during the
course (values 6-7). 9.5 % thought they will only try quite a little or some of what they’ve learned.
Some tought that the method could better fit in project working and hobby clubs after school. Some
answers were very confident: everything is possible if you want. The teacher has a great pedagogic
freedom.
100 %
1
90 %
1
1
1
2
1
8
1
1
4
3
2
20
80 %
1
2
13
70 %
60 %
38
8
50 %
12
5
4
10
40 %
30 %
7
13
5
20 %
6
4
10 %
1 No, nothing was usef ull
2 (a little)
3 (quite a little)
4 (some)
5 (quite a lot)
6 (a lot)
7 Yes, I will try everything
2
53
11
0%
Bulgaria Czech Estonia Finland
(n=12) Republic (n=14)
(n=8)
(n=8)
Latvia Lithuania Sweden Slovakia Total
(n=39)
(n=16)
(n=8)
(n=15) (n=120)
Figure 7. Answers to the question: “Will you use something you learned during the course in your
work?” The numbers in the columns indicate the amount of answers in that value class.