EMMT 2 EMMT 2 EMMT 2 EMMT 2 Evaluation of the ProjectEvaluation of the Project

Madrid, 28th April, 2006Madrid, 28th April, 2006

Preparation of the Workshops

• Self-study phase• Meetings in national groups• Study of indicated literature & handouts• Use of the Internet• Communicating with colleagues by e-

mail• Individual reflections

Impressions:• Very useful and effective form of self-

organized preparation• Guidelines from the expert of the next

workshop were very useful • Some participants lacked support from

their own mentors.• General satisfaction by the way the

preparation was done

Objectives and aims• Some frustrations and misunderstandings at

the beginning• Uncertainty about objectives and aims.• Some participants were not middle managers• Some participants could not communicate in

English effectively.• After lots of discussions a good and strong

fundament was created for the development process.

Work in national groups

• The work in national groups went quite well, although some difficulties to meet due to geographic distance

• It was useful to get to know colleagues and their work conditions

• Good working atmosphere based on trust and effective work.

• The mentors did not play the role of supervisors and facilitators, as it was foreseen

Work in European groups

• The parrticipants ereally enjoyed the European approach

• During and just after the seminars European interaction took place

• English: after some initial frustrations, during the learning process, everybody got more familiar and confident to express themselves

• Giood experience of sharing national ideas in European teams

The atmosphere during the process

• Good balance of “hard core learning” and cultural experience

• Atmosphere: Very co-operative, friendly, supportive, funny and full of partnerships.

The learning language• A document on the procedure of

evaluation of the English language skills was created and sent to the participants

• NEGATIVE:– This procedure was not followed in some cases– The improvement of English was done during

the process and not before – as it was intended – It took some time to some participants to

understand the idea of linguistic preparation.

The learning language (II)

• POSITIVE:– In the cases were this procedure was

followed, it worked very effectively. – The linguistic problems were reduced

during the process. – To set up an innovative approach to

language preparation. – A very distinct and precise procedure was

developed

The learning language (III)

• Lessons to be learned:– to have a stronger support from local

experts or mentors in the evaluation of their participants

– The process of evaluation should be carried out before the programme starts

– The process of evaluation should be simpler or easier to understand and follow

The level of involvement and

activity• Self-directed learning was the key word• The participants contributed

constructively to the learning process, both indicvidually and in groups

• The level of involvement was high and satisfactory

Social and practical arrangemets

• The participants were satisfied with social, practical and cultural arrangements

• Maybe, too much time spent on travelling

• General satisfaction with the level of activity and organization in the host countries

•THANKS!