O slideshow foi denunciado.
Seu SlideShare está sendo baixado. ×

Stress free eu schools - final evaluation report - v01

Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Anúncio
Próximos SlideShares
PID3687979
PID3687979
Carregando em…3
×

Confira estes a seguir

1 de 6 Anúncio
Anúncio

Mais Conteúdo rRelacionado

Semelhante a Stress free eu schools - final evaluation report - v01 (20)

Anúncio

Mais de Ioannis Zarkadas (13)

Mais recentes (20)

Anúncio

Stress free eu schools - final evaluation report - v01

  1. 1. E. P. ERASMUS+ / KA2 – Partnerships Project Title: “Stress-free E.U. Schools” Final Evaluation Report Drafted by: Yiannis Zarkadas, Project Coordinator
  2. 2. Executive Summary The final evaluation of the “Stress-free E. U. Schools” Project has been carried out after the implementation of the Final Meeting of the Project and the Final Short-Term Joint Staff Training Event. These two major milestones coincided with the Final Dissemination Event that took place in Nea Aghialos, Gr and signaled the end of the transnational work program of the “Stress-free E. U Schools” Project. The evaluation procedure followed the methodology that has been selected for the implementation of the Interim Evaluation and for this purpose a questionnaire that had been designed by the coordinating school was distributed to all partner schools where it was filled with the responsibility of the schools coordinators after consultation with the members of the ERASMUS + Team of each School. Thus, interesting comparative information has been produced which clarifies certain aspects of the implementation of the project. The same five axes that had been agreed during the interim evaluation process has been followed with some additions, which were necessary in order to provide a clearer view to the outcomes of this procedure. The axes under examination were the following: A. The impact on its selected target groups, B. The dissemination process C. The coordination of the project D. The implementation of the common work program, and E. The overall assessment The graph indicates how the ERASMUS + Teams evaluated the project works at the end of its life cycle. It is easily observable that the lowest score has to do with the achieved impact of the project and the highest score was given by the ERASMUS+ Teams of the partner institutions to the implementation of the transnational work plan of the project. Apart from that, both coordination and the overall assessment achieved significantly high scores. The dissemination process achieved the second lower score, but it is higher than the result of the interim evaluation.
  3. 3. A side by side examination of the two graphs indicates that: A. Certain improvement has been achieved regarding the Dissemination procedure, which scored very low in the interim evaluation. B. The members of the ERASMUS+ Teams of the partner institutions evaluate with the highest score the implementation process of the project. This clearly indicates their satisfaction on the work that has been carried out and the respective results and outcomes. C. The score of the overall assessment of the project has been improved as well and that follows the high score that has been given to the implementation. D. A fall back can be observed regarding the impact of the project, and that is because partner schools have obtained a clearer, not so optimistic view at the end of the project works. E. Finally, the coordination seems to maintain a quite acceptable score. Εικόνα 2: Final Evaluation Εικόνα 1: Interim Evaluation
  4. 4. Presentation of the findings Impact of the project At the end of the life cycle of the project partner school seem to assess the impact of the project in a more realistic way, having obtained a clearer view on the achieved impact on the selected target groups. The project seems to have achieved significant impact on the pupils of the partner schools. A quite acceptable score has been given to the impact on the teaching staff of the schools, though lower than the one of the interim evaluation (95%), which is reasonable, since at the end of the project teachers should not only demonstrate awareness on pupils’ school stress, but should also exploit techniques and tools that were produced through the common work of the project to assist their pupils overcome it. The lowest score has been given to parents and caregivers but after a econd thought it seems that two out of three of the parents of the pupils seem to take under consideration the introduced factor of school stress regarding the academic achievements of their children. The overall score for the impact of the project is the average of the individual scores of each category: AVERAGE (92, 76, 64) = 77.33 Dissemination of the project Dissemination of the project was the aspect that scored quite low on the interim report, which indicated certain problems both about the implementation of the dissemination events and the project website. Regarding the website, although fully operational during the second year of the life cycle of the project, it remained difficult to post information on each language of the project. Partners were provided with their passwords and were informed that they should post their activities both in English and their mother language. Afterwards, through English, all other partners could translate each post to their language. The whole procedure proved to be complicated and ineffective. Only some posts were uploaded in English and in Greek by the coordinating school but none was translated to the other languages. A small number of posts were uploaded by the Lithuanian school as well in their language. A new aspect of the dissemination process was the development of a FACEBOOK page of the project. Although it received quite an acceptable score, it was not exploited by the partner schools despite the fact that it was agreed that all posts should be only in English. The dissemination events on the other hand, who had scored quite low in the interim evaluation procedure have received the highest score during the final evaluation by the partner schools, which indicates that significant effort
  5. 5. has been given by the organizing schools which led to increased numbers of participants of the selected target groups. The overall score is the average of the individual scores of each category: AVERAGE (68, 88, 96) = 84,00. Coordination The evaluation of the coordination process included two new categories that should be taken under consideration after the completion of the first year of the life cycle of the project: the on-time delivery and the quality of the reports of the project. The coordination process seems to maintain its quite acceptable score, which indicates that this aspect of the project work faced no particular problems. The overall score as the average of the individual scores of each category: AVERAGE (92, 100, 96, 96, 92, 92, 88) = 94,00. Implementation The implementation of the project reflects the individual partners’ contribution to it as well as their point of view on the work that has been carried out during the project life cycle. Partners had the opportunity to assess once more the four aspects that have been put under examination. The organization of the Transnational Meetings obtained the highest possible score, fact that indicates the quite good experiences obtained by the people who participated in them and the remarkable work that schools have done regarding this task. During the second year of the project there have been implemented, with the inclusion of the Final Meeting, three (3) Transnational Meetings, which indeed have been organized and implemented quite well. The organization of the Short-Term Joint Staff Training Events - STJSTE achieved also the highest possible score, which indicates that partners have reviewed their strict evaluation of the STJSTE that have been implemented
  6. 6. during the first year of the works of the project. It lso points out that the other three (3) Events that took place during the second year of the project had been organized quite well and proved fruitful for the teachers that participated in them. The deliverables of the project received a very high score through the assessment of the partners, which indicates that they fulfilled the quality criteria that had been set during the transnational meetings and and met the high expectations of the partners regarding the final products of the project. Finally, the implementation of the parallel activities (visits to sites of cultural interest, etc) have achieved the maximum score, which once more shows that the partners had the opportunity to review their initial strict assessment regarding the activities that had been carried out during the first year of the project and that the activities that had been implemented during the second year met the expectations of the participants. The overall score is the average of the individual scores of each category: AVERAGE (100, 100, 96, 100) = 99,00. Overall assessment The overall assessment represents an indicator through which the members of the partnership have the opportunity to express their view about the project, the implementation procedure and its results. Following the same methodology with the interim evaluation process, School coordinators were once more asked to discuss with all the members of the ERASMUS+ Teams of their Schools and try to incorporate the opinion of their head teacher in their final assessment. The score that the project has achieved in this indicator is quite high (96%), much higher than the one of the interim evaluation (85%). It follows the high assessment that partners gave to the implementation, which indicates that the project have met their expectations and that it has proved interesting and useful for their everyday school work.

×