• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Evalution Feedback of the Project Partners
 

Evalution Feedback of the Project Partners

on

  • 298 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
298
Views on SlideShare
286
Embed Views
12

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 12

http://etm.lllprojects.eu 12

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Evalution Feedback of the Project Partners Evalution Feedback of the Project Partners Presentation Transcript

    • Every Trainee Matters / 2010-1-ROI-LE004-0677111 Every Trainee Matters Evaluation Feedback Prague 21th – 22th June 2012 Leonardo Da Vinci – PartnershipGeorge Stefas Strategic Management Unit
    • Project ManagementLeadershipCommunicationTraining ApproachOrganisations
    • PurposeInternal Evaluation process • Improve capacity – Staff – Organication’s operation • Better implementation of future projects • Improve managers capacity in project management • Lessons learned, deal with problems or obstacles • Assist the final report • Provide added value to the project
    • • Were the language competencies of your organisation taken into account?• Did you find all topics relevant during the project meetings?• Did you agree with the initial strategy developed and proposed?• Did the LP provided efficient support and expertise so as to ensure quality implementation of the training tasks and consequently improvement of the participating institutions?
    • Were you able to contribute to the same extent as the other project partners? yes no 17% 83%
    • Were all relevant information available in due time? Availability of relevant information 29% yes no 71%
    • Were all the Coordinators in the different partner institutions authorized to take decisions? Decision making 43% yes no 57%
    • Do you agree with the dissemination actions of the project results? Dissemination actions 29% yes no 71%• Some wanted less dissemination• Some did not make any dissemination
    • Please rate the quality of the portfolio made. Rating of the quality of the portfolio made 5 4 4 4 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6• Average: 3.8
    • How would you rate the motivational accelerator applied by the project coordinator. Rating of the motivational accelator applied by project coordinator 5 5 5 5 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 6• Average: 4.5
    • • Did you find clear the division of tasks between the project partners?• Would you describe the workplan and timetable clear?• Was there a clear distribution of responsibilities among the project partners?• Did you believe you had your saying in the decision-making procedure?• Did you find the contribution of your organisation to be valued?• Would you choose to cooperate again with the Project coordinator?
    • Do you have a clear view of the main goals and results being aimed at? View of the goals & results 17% yes no 83%• More explanation required
    • • Did the project coordinator respected the deadlines?• Were the technical communication levels of all project partners taken into account?
    • During the project implementation did you have in your possession a timetable? Possession of a timetable yes no 33% 67%
    • Please rate the clearness timetable of activities for your organisation in the context of the project. Clearness of timetable 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6• Average: 3.8
    • Please rate the means and frequency of communication among the partnership? Rating of the means and frequency of communication among the partnership 6 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 1 4• Average: 3.8
    • How do you rate the overall professional development impact through the training approach? Overall professional development impact 5 5 5 4 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6• Average: 4.2
    • To what extent were you able to contribute to the online training course according to your strategic goals as an organisation? Contribution to the training course 5 5 4 4 3 3• Average: 4.0 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • In what level were you able to develop skills team work for the activity of the training approach? Level of team work skills developed 5 5 4 4 3 3• Average: 4.0 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • In what level were you able to develop communication skills in English through the training courses? Level of English communication skills developed 5 5 4 4 4 3• Average: 4.2 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • Please rate the communication between the participants and trainers during the lifetime of the testing period? Rating of the communication among the participants and trainers 4 4 4 4 3 3• Average: 3.7 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • How would you rate the quality of the produced training material in comparison to the initial aim? Rating of the quality of the training material 6 5 5 5 4 5 3 4 2 2 1 4 0 1 2 3 4 5 6• Average: 4.2
    • In what level is the training material appropriate for the participants of the testing (meeting the needs of the testers)? Meeting the needs of the testers 5 5 5 4 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6• Average: 3.8
    • In what level would you rate the valorisation and use of ICT in the training approach? Rating of the valorisation and the use of ICT 6 4 5 5 4 5 3 3 2 3 4• Average: 4.0 1
    • Please rate the level of digital literacy promoted through the training methodology Rating of the level of digital literacy promoted in this training approach 5 4 4 3 3 2• Average: 3.5 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • Did your organisation reach the targeted number of testers? Did the targeted number of testers were reached? yes no 17% 83%
    • Based on the grade reports of your participants, what was the level of achievement? Level of achievement 4 4 4 3 3 2• Average: 3.3 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • Please rate the level of participation of your trainees? Level of trainees participation 6 5 5 2 4 3 3 3 2 2 1 3
    • In what level did the functions of the e-platform meet your expectations (effectiveness)? Effectiveness of the platforms functions 5 5 5 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • Did the training program provide the necessary motivation to the participants to complete the courses? Did the programme provide enough motivation to participants to complete the courses? yes no 17% 83%
    • What impact did the partnership had on the pupils/learners/trainees? (1/2) Linguistic skills Increased ICT skills 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 Increased vocational skills Increased social skills 4 5 5 3 3 4 5 2 2 3 3 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 5
    • What impact did the partnership had on the pupils/learners/trainees? (2/2) Increased motivation Increased self-confidence 4 4 5 4 3 3 2 4 3 3 3 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 1 4 Other (Pupil-Other) Increased knowledge about the partner countries and cultures 3 3 5 4 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 1 2 3 4 5
    • • Did the overall training approach gave motivation to the participants to engage in lifelong learning activities, according to your knowledge?• Would you valorise again the same e- platform for training purposes?
    • Based on the communication with your participants, do you think the training program increased or decreased their self-confidence? Self confidence of participants yes no 17% 83%
    • In what level do you find the e-platform effective? Level of platforms effectiveness 5 5 4 5 3 3 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • Please evaluate the correlation (value) between resources provided for the production of the training material and the final quality portfolio (set of online training courses) Correlation between resourses and quality portfolio 6 4 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 3 1 5
    • Please rate the visibility of the institution and training program created in the partnership? Visibility of institution and training programme 5 5 4 4 3 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • To what extent were results/products/outcomes previously identified at application stage achieved? Extent of achievement of results/products/outcomes/ previously identified in application form 5 5 4 4 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • To what extent were the aims/objectives previously stated at application stage achieved? Extent of achievement of aims /goals previously stated in application form 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 2 3 1 5
    • To what extent were the planned activities previously stated at application stage achieved? Extent of achievement of planned activities 5 5 4 4 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 6
    • What impact did the partnership have on the teachers/staff? (1/2) Increased language skills Increased ICT skills 5 5 4 5 3 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 Increased motivation Increased training skills 56 5 4 45 4 3 34 23 32 21 5 1 2 3 4 5
    • What impact did the partnership have on the teachers/staff? (2/2) Increased project management skills Increased knowledge about partner countries and 5 cultures 4 4 4 3 3 6 5 5 5 4 4 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 4 Other-Staff 3 3 1 2
    • Do you believe you have informed your organisation / otherorganisations / the local community of the results of the partnership? Notification of other organization/local community about the results of this partnership yes no 17% 83%
    • Do you think that the outcomes of the partnership could be used by others?