Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

2015 03 10_evaluation_report_szeged


Published on

The evaluation report - second international meeting

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

2015 03 10_evaluation_report_szeged

  1. 1. Innovative methods for increasing effectiveness of teaching English of 55+ learners - InMETE 55+ Erasmus+ Project Key Action 2 – Strategic Partnerships Project coordinator: Stowarzyszenie Akademia Pełni Życia / The Fullness-of-Life Academy Association ul. Rzeźnicza 2a, 31-540 Kraków, POLAND Phone: +48 12 294-81-35, e-mail:; 1 ● SUMMARY OF EVALUATIONS OF THE SECOND INTERNATIONAL MEETING Szeged, 13-15.02.2015 8 people took part in the second international meeting and all of them filled in the evaluation sheets at the end of the meeting. For all participants: - the aims of the meeting and agenda were clear; - the meeting was well-conducted; - the meeting made sure that we all know what we have to do in the next phase of the project. Six people “completely agree” and two “agree” with the statement that“responsibility for various tasks was distributed fairly in the meeting”. Five people “completely agree” and one “agrees” that in their organizations they can meet the deadlines for Project activities agreed in the meeting. Not all of the partners (only six people) had the feeling that they had contributed usefully to the discussion and planning. Although all participants had the feeling that the meeting was very well-prepared and all important themes were discussed, they would like to receive further information and/or explanation about such points from the agenda:
  2. 2. 2 - “concerning with AOB – I’d like to see clear our duties on filling and sending documents with financial agreement”; - “QC procedure but this info is forthcoming in my understanding. Difficult to make sense of the question”; - “curriculum template/example (from the ministry/sites of education)”; - “I’d like to make sure that the lesson plans are distributed in a way which respects the application form” Participants also want to talk about the EPAL platform Participants of the meeting had some suggestions for the next meetings: - “less time spend statically, more movement”; - “it will be useful if everyone read carefully all the project documents once again before the meeting”; - “to talk in advance about the procedure of work and to make sure we are working in the same way to avoid further work later”; - “free time in the evenings”; - “partners’ problems with things that are planned to be presented during the meeting should be reported earlier – not during the meeting”; - “to see in advance most of the documents we are to discuss”; - “to have some workshops connected with next phrase of project realization”. Main hopes and expectations for the Szeged which were a. in 100% met were: - to see evaluation process clearer; - exchanging ideas, experiences and methodologies in teaching senior students; - sharing opinions in dealing with lessons planning through innovative activities; - to clarify resource pack (2 people);
  3. 3. 3 - to adjust the original ideas of the resource pack; - setting the outline of works and procedures for O2 and O3; - to understand/explain next steps (2 people); - to make sure we understand tasks/distribute; - to agree on the product final version of O1; - learn more about the quality control; b. in 95% met: - clarified of quality control; c. in 90% met: - to see dissemination process clear; d. in 80% met: - to introduce output 2 – it’s still not clear the different “drafts” we will have to prepare; - to introduce output 3; - to divide tasks between partners and establish realistic deadlines. The most useful part of the Szeged meeting was discussion about next steps in the project, setting out and agreeing on works and deadlines for O2 and O3. Participants assessed very high the part about the final shape of the resource pack (clarification how resource pack may look like) and presentation about quality control procedure. And we loved motilities everywhere! There weren’t any part of the meeting which was assessed as unnecessary. Only for one person during the meeting there were too many administrative papers but all of us were aware that we have to prepare them. Additional comments: - “partners not always remember what was decided in previous meetings/e-mails”; - “sometimes I had the feeling that communication in e-mails could be better. E.g. we sent the elements of the RP by 10 Dec and got the next task to do (template) only in January. And the sample arrived too late …So task description could have be better.. but now everything is clear.
  4. 4. 4 Or at least it seems so.” - “very nice, fruitful and successful meeting”; - “great meeting, great team, thanks”; - “I would like to thank you all the partners for their hard work” Conclusions: - the meeting was very well prepared and all of the planned tasks were accomplished; - it will be good to think about some activities adding variety to the meeting (not only discussion about papers); - all of us should prepare better for discussions.