Overall Quality Report -...

1

ERASMUS+ KA2

C.O.A.C.H. (Coaching SchOols to fAce Change aHead)

Project Nr. 2015-1-IT02-KA201-014883

Overall Quality Report

Author

3s research laboratory

Date

27th of July 2017

2

Content

Introduction 3

Summary of Quality Reports 4

ANNEXES

A. Quality Assurance and Quality Plan 12

B. Quality Report 1: Evaluation of the Kick-off Meeting / Consortium / 18

Understanding of the Project

C. Quality Report 2: Evaluation of the Meeting / Evaluation of the Consortium 25

D. Quality Report 3: Evaluation of the Meeting / Evaluation of the Consortium 35

E. Quality Report 4: Evaluation of the Meeting / Evaluation of the Consortium 43

3

Introduction

C.O.A.C.H. Quality Assurance focuses to guarantee the best possible results as well as their sustainability by the collection of internal and external feedback.

The internal evaluation consisted of ongoing monitoring, review and assessment of performance and quality checks of the project. The results are summarized in this report,

which contains the Quality Assurance and Quality Plan, Quality Reports No. 1, 2, 3, and 4, as well as a summary of the results of the Quality Reports.

The external evaluation was provided by an external evaluator, following the project as

‘critical friend’ and providing results of the assessment in form of a separate evaluation report.

4

Summary of Quality Reports

After each project meeting a web-based survey among consortium members was conducted. Participants of each meeting had the possibility to give feedback on the meeting and on the

consortium. Furthermore the understanding of the roles of the partners in the project, the target groups and the deliverables were evaluated in the course of the first web-based

survey. In the following the results of the surveys are summarized. Each table contains the results for each survey, so that it is easy to compare results.

Evaluation of the meetings

The organisation of the meetings with regards to content was rated in average with 1,50

(ranging from M=1,33 to M=1,70). The first and the last meetings received the best average ratings.

Item 1: The meeting was well organised beforehand with regards to content (clear planning, realistic timescales, appropriate selection of the speakers).

Answering option Quality

Report 1 Quality

Report 2 Quality

Report 3 Quality

Report 4

Strongly Agree 6 11 5 9

Agree 3 9 4 5

Undecided - 2 2 1

Disagree - 1 - -

Strongly

Disagree - - - -

Total 9 23 11 15

Average rating M=1,33 M=1,70 M=1,50 M=1,46

5

The organisation of the meetings with regards to travel arrangements was rated in average with 1,44 (ranging from M=1,36 to M=1,56).

Item 2: The meeting was well organised beforehand with regards to travel arrangements (time and place of the meeting, information about accommodation, …).


Report 1

Quality

Report 2

Quality

Report 3

Quality

Report 4


Agree 5 8 4 4

Undecided - 1 - 1

Disagree - - - -

Strongly Disagree

- - - -

Total 9 23 11 15


The comfort of the facilities/hotels was rated in average with 1,44 (ranging from M=1,30 to M=1,67).

Item 3: The comfort of the facility/the choice of the hotel was good (accommodation and

venue).


Report 1 Quality

Report 2 Quality

Report 3 Quality

Report 4


Agree 4 7 4 1

Undecided - - 2 2

Disagree - - - -

Strongly Disagree

- - - -

Total 9 23 12 15


6

The meeting rooms were rated in average with 1,69 (ranging from M=1,48 to M=1,89).

Item 4: The meeting room was fine (good facilities, relevant equipment…).


Report 1

Quality

Report 2

Quality

Report 3

Quality

Report 4


Agree 6 11 4 3

Undecided 1 - 2 2

Disagree - 0 0 1

Strongly Disagree

- 0 0 0

Total 9 23 11 15


The working conditions of the meetings were rated in average with 1,47 (ranging from M=1,33 to M=1,64).

Item 5: The working conditions of the meeting were good.


Report 1 Quality

Report 2 Quality

Report 3 Quality

Report 4


Agree 3 8 5 4

Undecided - 2 1 1

Disagree - 0 - -

Strongly

Disagree - 0 - -

Total 9 23 11 15


7

The appropriateness of the working methods was rated in average with 1,34 (ranging from M=1,11 to M=1,65).

Item 6: The appropriate working methods were used at the meeting.


Report 1 Quality

Report 2 Quality

Report 3 Quality

Report 4


Agree 1 11 4 4

Undecided - 2 0 0

Disagree - 0 0 0

Strongly

Disagree - 0 0 0

Total 9 23 12 15


8

Evaluation of the consortium

In general the items for the evaluation of the consortium were rated more critical after the

second meeting, in comparison to other meetings. In the web-based survey after the second meeting also some participants of the training participated at the survey, so the feedback also

relates to the training.

The communication among partners was rated in average with 1,39 (ranging from M=1,00 to M=1,91).

Item 1: The communication was good among partners.


Report 1

Quality

Report 2

Quality

Report 3

Quality

Report 4


Agree 1 16 2 3

Undecided - 1 1 1

Disagree - 1 0 0

Strongly Disagree

- 0 0 0

Total 9 23 12 15


Partners agreed to the item that English as working language was not a problem in average

with 1,53 (ranging from M=1,00 to M=2,23).

Item 2: English as a working language was not a problem.


Report 1 Quality

Report 2 Quality

Report 3 Quality

Report 4


Agree - 8 3 4

Undecided - 0 0 1

Disagree - 5 1 0

Strongly

Disagree - 1 0 0

Total 9 22 12 15


9

The participation of partners in the debate was rated in average with 1,66 (ranging from M=1,11 to M=2,39).

Item 3: All partners effectively participated in the debate(s).


Report 1 Quality

Report 2 Quality

Report 3 Quality

Report 4


Agree 1 10 3 7

Undecided - 2 1 0

Disagree - 6 0 1

Strongly

Disagree - 0 0 0

Total 9 23 12 14


The working atmosphere during the events were rated in average with 1,22 (ranging from M=1,00 to M=1,43).

Item 4: There was a good work atmosphere during the event.


Report 1

Quality

Report 2

Quality

Report 3

Quality

Report 4


Agree - 10 2 4

Undecided - 0 0 0

Disagree - 0 0 0

Strongly Disagree

- 0 0 0

Total 9 23 12 14


10

Taking needs and expectations of the partners into account was rated in average with 1,45 (ranging from M=1,11 to M=1,96).

Item 5: The needs and the expectations of the partners have been taken into account.


Report 1 Quality

Report 2 Quality

Report 3 Quality

Report 4


Agree 1 12 3 5

Undecided - 5 0 1

Disagree - 0 0 0

Strongly

Disagree - 0 0 0

Total 9 23 12 15


The awareness of partners of their roles and responsibilities in the project was rated in

average with 1,51 (ranging from M=1,17 to M=2,00).

Item 6: Partners are well aware of their roles and responsibilities in the project.


Report 1 Quality

Report 2 Quality

Report 3 Quality

Report 4


Agree 3 13 2 6

Undecided - 2 0 1

Disagree - 2 0 0

Strongly Disagree

- 0 0 0

Total 9 23 12 15


11

Evaluation of the understanding of the project

The understanding of the project was evaluated only once, at the beginning of the project.

This evaluation showed that the general understanding was there but that some things, such as the roles of the partners in the project, the target groups and the deliverables of each

organisation needed to be clarified. The average ratings for all items are listed below:

Item 1: I have a clear understanding of the aims and objectives of the COACH project. Average rating = 1,22

Item 2: I have a clear understanding of the target groups and the direct beneficiaries for the project. Average rating = 1,44

Item 3: I have a clear understanding of the role of my organisation in the project. Average rating = 1,22

Item 4: I have a clear understanding of the deliverables of my organisation in the project. Average rating = 1,33

Item 5: I have a clear understanding of the roles of the other partner organisations in the project. Average rating = 1,56

Item 6: The budget is large enough for the work that my organisation has to do.

Average rating = 2,33

Item 7: The timescales for delivering the project are realistic. Average rating = 1,67

Item 8: The fact that English will be the working language for the project does not worry me. Average rating = 1,00

12

Annex A

ERASMUS+ KA2


Project Nr. 2015-1-IT02-KA201-014883

Quality Assurance and Quality Plan Authors

3s research laboratory Date

December 2015

13

Content _ 0. Introduction _ 1. Quality Assurance _ 2. Aims of Quality Checks and Quality Assurance _ 3. Quality Team _ 4. Activities of Internal and External Evaluation _ 5. Criteria of External Evaluation

14

0. Introduction

The C.O.A.C.H. Quality Plan structures the monitoring, quality and evaluation pro-cess aimed

at examining the quality of the partnership work and the general satisfaction about the project outcomes among the beneficiaries. Moreover, it will assess the progress and the

achievements of the project, its implementation and the whole working progress from the beginning to the formal conclusion. The C.O.A.C.H. Quality Plan is one of the deliverables within the project manage-ment of this

project. Quality assurance and evaluation extends throughout the whole life of the project. In this plan, we have taken into consideration all the specifications detailed in the description

of the project management in F1. It includes the description of the meth-odology of the internal and external quality assurance, the members of the quality team, as well as the aims

and content of the quality checks. Furthermore activities and responsibilities of internal and external evaluation are described.

1. Quality Assurance

The overall aim is to guarantee the best possible results as well as their sustainability. This

will be achieved by the collection of internal and external feedback on project results by means of questionnaires, interview scripts and focus group design.

Internal Evaluation: _ Monitoring, on-going review and assessment of performance towards the stated objectives

of the project _ Quality checks at the end of each milestone

External evaluation: _ Interim and final assessment by an external evaluator _ Offers an outside perspective on the whole process and final products, and acts as a ‘critical

friend’

External Evaluation - Advantages of an outside perspective _ Independent perspective that is more objective

_ Credibility especially for people outside of the project (funding partners, stake-holders, etc.) _ Expertise: a major evaluation research skills and knowledge that the internal evalu-ators

may lack; a major exposure to a wider range of issues, methods, and practices that would be useful to incorporate

15

2. Aims of Quality Checks and Quality Assurance

_ Results of quality checks will be collected in internal reports

_ Quality checks of the project and of the various outcomes

_ Assessment will move from a primarily formative to a summative perspective and from

primarily quantitative to more qualitative elements _ Results of the quality checks will develop an analysis of strengths and weaknesses which

will be the core elements of an yearly improvement school plan in the par-ticipating institutions

3. Quality Team

The internal assessment led by the Quality Leader 3S (AT) is carried out with the support of the Quality Team formed by nine representatives (each partner appoints for quality control a

person selected according to their previous experience in assess-ment of quality of processes and outcomes). All partners are involved in this process to preserve the cooperative nature of

the project. The Quality Team consists of the following persons:

_ Project coordinator _ Quality Leader 3srl

_ Quality Representatives from each partner institution (9 representatives) _ External evaluator

16

4. Activities of Internal and External Evaluation

The activities of the internal evaluation can be summarized as follows: _ Development of a Quality Plan

_ Web-based questionnaire for self evaluation after each meeting _ Results of the questionnaires will be compiled into an internal evaluation report

_ Coordination of the evaluation process with the quality team

The activities of the external evaluation can be summarized as follows: _ Contracting an external evaluator

_ Focus of evaluation: outcomes and processes _ Evaluation of interim and final products

_ Assessment of external evaluator _ Evaluation questionnaires for interim report and final report _ Results will be compiled in an external evaluation report

5. Criteria of External Evaluation The external evaluation will be based on the following evaluation criteria for out-comes and processes of the project:

Outcomes

Overall quantity and quality of the project outputs and deliverables _ Innovative pedagogical and didactical approaches

_ Added value for the target group _ Dissemination of the project activities

Processes Quality of the project process, outputs and outcomes

_ Quality of the Project management, context and implementation _ Assessment of the impact of external environmental factors _ Performance of the project. How the project is implemented.

_ Good transnational partnership

17

6. External Evaluator

The external evaluation of the project will be conducted by Tina Trofer, MBA from ‘GERADEHERAUS Beratung’. She was chosen due to her profile which is described briefly in

the following:

_ She has more than 10 years of experience in entrepreneurial education for found-ers and start-ups (coachings, workshops).

_ She conducted evaluation of subsidy programmes for Austria Wirtschaftsservice and Wirtschaftsagentur Wien.

_ She has been Member of Jurys for business plan contests and Start-up Awards (Best of

Biotech, aws FIRST, Jugend Innovativ, Vienna Start-up Awards etc.) _ She developed new programmes to support the start-up scene in Vienna

_ She has 6 years professional experience in financing Start-ups

_ She has a Master in Business Administration and International Management of WU-

_ Wien and McGill University Montreal and is European Systemic Business Acad-emy / ACC-certified COACH.

18

Annex B

ERASMUS+ KA2


Project Nr. 2015-1-IT02-KA201-014883

Quality Report 1

Evaluation of Kick-off Meeting / Consortium / Understanding of the Project

Authors


December 2015

19

The participants of the kick-off meeting of the project were asked to participate in a web-

based survey shortly after the kick-off meeting took place. The survey was conducted between 19th of November until 2nd of December 2015. During this time periods representatives of all nine project partners participated in the survey.

The questionnaire consisted of three parts:

_ the evaluation of the meeting, _ the evaluation of the consortium and _ the evaluation of the understanding of the project.

Each part of the survey consisted of 6-8 questions. Most of the questions were items to be

rated on a scale with the following answering options: strongly agree - agree - undecided - disagree - strongly disagree. Furthermore there was the possibility to add comments/remarks.

In the following the results are described and averages for the ratings (with a possible range

from 1 to 5) are indicated.

Items which were rated best are communication among partners, English as working

language, work atmosphere during the kick-off event and many others.

Items which were rated more critically (nevertheless with good average ratings) are the clear understanding of the roles of other partners, realistic timescales for delivering results and

especially the project budget.

20

Part 1: Evaluation of the Kick-off Meeting

In general, the participants were very satisfied with the quality of the meeting room and accommodation and chose either the highest or second highest score in their answers. The

working conditions and working methods were evaluated very positively by the majority of the respondents. Further suggestions or comments which were made are listed shown below.

Item 1: The meeting was well organised beforehand with regards to content (clear planning, realistic timescales, appropriate selection of the speakers). Average rating = 1,33

All participants strongly agreed (6) or agreed (3) that the meeting was well organized

beforehand with regards to content.

Item 2: The meeting was well organised beforehand with regards to travel arrangements (time and place of the meeting, information about accomodation, …). Average rating = 1,56

All participants strongly agreed (4) or agreed (5) that the meeting was well organised

beforehand.

Item 3: The comfort of the facility/the choice of the hotel was good (accommodation and venue). Average rating = 1,44

Five out of nine participants strongly agreed that the accommodation and venue were good, four participants agreed to this question.

Item 4: The meeting room was fine (good facilities, relevant equipment…). Average rating = 1,89

As far as the meeting room was concerned, six participants gave a positive feedback

(“agree”), two participants evaluated the meeting facilities very well (“strongly agree”). One person was undecided.

Item 5: The working conditions of the meeting were good. Average rating = 1,33

Six of the respondents strongly agreed that the working conditions of the meeting were good,

three persons chose the second highest score.

Item 6: The appropriate working methods were used at the meeting. Average rating = 1,11

Eight of nine respondents strongly agreed that the working methods used at the meeting were appropriate, one participant agreed.

Comments or suggestions for improvement

21

Some participants made use of the possibility to comment or make suggestions for improvement, particularly in case they disagreed or strongly disagreed with any of the

statements (which was not the case at all). Nevertheless there were some comments which are stated below:

"Everything was fine, the communication with partners was excellent." "Getting details of accommodation out earlier to help to plan, especially if someone needs to stay longer." "Maybe a room with windows. Otherwise I thought it was good." "Maybe arrange some social events outside the hotel (dinners etc..)." "Meeting facilities were good but a place with open air and natural light would have been better."

22

Part 2: Evaluation of the consortium

The majority of the participants had a very positive impression (highest score) of the working

atmosphere and the communication in the consortium. There is high satisfaction, indicated by ratings of “strongly agree” and “agree”. No suggestions or comments were made.

Item 1: The communication was good among partners. Average rating = 1,00

Eight respondents strongly agreed that the communication between the partners was good, one person agreed to that question.

Item 2: English as working language was not a problem. Average rating = 1,00

All participants strongly agreed that the working language English was not a problem.

Item 3: All partners effectively participated in the debate(s). Average rating = 1,11

Eight out of nine respondents strongly agreed that all partners effectively participated in the debate. One person agreed.

Item 4: There was a good work atmosphere during the event. Average rating = 1,00

All partners strongly agreed that the working atmosphere during the meeting was good.

Item 5: The needs and the expectations of the partners have been taken into account. Average rating = 1,11

Eight out of nine participants strongly agreed that the needs and expectations of all partners were taken into account. One person agreed.

Item 6: Partners are well aware of their roles and responsibilities in the project. Average rating = 1,33

Six respondents strongly agreed that the partners are well aware of their roles and responsibilities in the project. Three persons agreed to this statement.

Comments or suggestions for improvement No comments were made.

23

Part 3: Evaluation of the understanding of the project

The evaluation of the understanding of the project showed that the general understanding

was there but that some things, such as the roles of the partners in the projects, the target groups and the deliverables of each organisation should be clarified.

Item 1: I have a clear understanding of the aims and objectives of the COACH project. Average rating = 1,22

Seven out of nine respondents have a clear understanding of the aims and objectives of the project, two persons agreed to this statement.

Item 2: I have a clear understanding of the target groups and the direct beneficiaries for the project. Average rating = 1,44

Five out of nine respondents strongly agreed to this statement, four persons agreed.

Item 3: I have a clear understanding of the role of my organisation in the project. Average rating = 1,22

Seven participants have a clear understanding of the role of their organization in the project,

two respondents gave the second highest score to this question.

Item 4: I have a clear understanding of the deliverables of my organisation in the project. Average rating = 1,33

Six out of nine respondents strongly agreed that they have a clear understanding of the deliverables of their organization in the project, three persons agreed.

Item 5: I have a clear understanding of the roles of the other partner organisations in the project. Average rating = 1,56

Four respondents have a clear understanding of the roles of the other partners in the project

and gave the highest possible score, five people agreed to this statement with the second highest score.

Item 6: The budget is large enough for the work that my organisation has to do.

Average rating = 2,33

The budget is an item which was rated critically. Five partners were undecided or disagreed

that the budget would be large enough for the work to be conducted. One partner agreed, three partners strongly agreed.

Item 7: The timescales for delivering the project are realistic. Average rating = 1,67

Three partners strongly agreed to this item, six partners agreed.

24

Item 8: The fact that English will be the working language for the project does not worry me. Average rating = 1,00

All partners strongly agreed to this item.


One comment was made referring to the project’s budget:

"We are challenged with meeting the ICF standards within the budget so currently advertising for volunteer helpers."

25

Annex C

ERASMUS+ KA2


Project Nr. 2015-1-IT02-KA201-014883

Quality Report 2

Evaluation of the Meeting Evaluation of the Consortium

Authors


December 2016

26

The participants of the second meeting of the project were asked to participate in a web-

based survey after the meeting took place. The survey was conducted between 16th of

September 2016 until the 5th of December 2016. During these time periods representatives

of all nine project partners participated in the survey.

The questionnaire consisted of two parts:

_ the evaluation of the meeting and _ the evaluation of the consortium

Each part of the survey consisted of 6-8 questions. Most of the questions were items to be

rated on a scale with the following answering options: strongly agree - agree - undecided - disagree - strongly disagree. Furthermore there was the possibility to add

comments/remarks.



Items which were rated best are the organisation of the meeting beforehand with regards to

travel arrangements, the comfort of the facility and the working atmosphere.

Items which were rated more critically are English as a working language, the motivation of

all partners to participate in the debate as well as the clear understanding of the roles and responsibilities in the project.

In the interpretation of results it needs to be taken into account that participants of the

survey not only did participate at the project meeting but also at the overall training. So answers/feedback also may refer to the overall training.

27

Part 1: Evaluation of the Meeting

Similar to the evaluation of the first meeting, participants were very satisfied with the quality of the meeting room and accommodation and chose either the highest or second highest score in their answers. The working conditions and working methods were evaluated

positively by the majority of the respondents. Further suggestions or comments which were made are listed shown below.


Answering option Number of participants

Strongly Agree 11

Agree 9

Undecided 2

Disagree 1

Strongly Disagree -

Total 23

Average rating M=1,70

The majority of the participants strongly agreed (11) or agreed (9) that the meeting was well organized beforehand with regards to content. Two participants were undecided, one

participant disagreed.



Strongly Agree 14

Agree 8

Undecided 1

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 23


28

Almost all participants strongly agreed (14) or agreed (8) that the meeting was well organised beforehand. One person was undecided.

Item 3: The comfort of the facility/the choice of the hotel was good (accommodation and venue).


Strongly Agree 16

Agree 7

Undecided -

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 23


Almost all participants strongly agreed (16) or agreed (7) that that the accommodation and

venue were good.



Strongly Agree 12

Agree 11

Undecided -

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 23


As far as the meeting room was concerned, eleven participants gave a positive feedback

(‘agree’), twelve participants evaluated the meeting facilities very well (‘strongly agree’).

29



Strongly Agree 13

Agree 8

Undecided 2

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 23


Thirteen of the respondents strongly agreed that the working conditions of the meeting were good, eight persons chose the second highest score, two persons were undecided.



Strongly Agree 10

Agree 11

Undecided 2

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 23


Ten of twenty-three respondents strongly agreed that the working methods used at the meeting were appropriate, eleven participants agreed and two respondents were undecided.


Some participants made use of the possibility to comment or make suggestions for improvement. The comments are stated below:

‘Information about dates and tasks to complete should be given well in advance.’ ‘Earlier planning of meetings, common agreement upon meeting dates; week was a training week but not a project meeting in the common sense / there should be a clear separation, an extra meeting of the core consortium. ...’

30

‘Too long days, too short breaks. It takes some time to digest all the processes and impressions.’ ‘I would have liked to practice more.’ ‘The course, the trainers, the organisation, the partners were amazing.’

31


The majority of the participants had a positive impression of the working atmosphere and the communication in the consortium. There is high satisfaction, indicated by ratings of ‘strongly

agree’ and ‘agree’. Some participants were skeptical about the general motivation of other participants, the fluency of English and whether the roles and

responsibilities were clear to everyone. The comments that were made are stated below.



Strongly Agree 5

Agree 16

Undecided 1

Disagree 1

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 23


The majority of the respondents agreed that the communication between the partners was

good, five persons strongly agreed to that question, one person disagreed and one was undecided.



Strongly Agree 8

Agree 8

Undecided 0

Disagree 5

Strongly Disagree 1

No answer 1

Total 23


32

The majority of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that English as a working language was not a problem. Five participants disagreed and one person strongly disagreed to that

question.



Strongly Agree 5

Agree 10

Undecided 2

Disagree 6

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 23


Five respondents strongly agreed and ten respondents agreed that all partners effectively participated in the debate. Six people disagreed and one person was undecided.



Strongly Agree 13

Agree 10

Undecided 0

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 23


All partners strongly agreed or agreed that the working atmosphere during the meeting was good.

33



Strongly Agree 6

Agree 12

Undecided 5

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 23


Six participants strongly agreed and twelve agreed that the needs and expectations of all partners were taken into account. Five persons were undecided.



Strongly Agree 6

Agree 13

Undecided 2

Disagree 2

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 23


Six respondents strongly agreed and thirteen agreed that the partners are well aware of their roles and responsibilities in the project. Two persons disagreed to this statement, two were

undecided.


‘Some of the participants had some problems in understanding and speaking in English and this made working in group a bit difficult and less beneficial, but surely everybody improved their English.’ ‘I had a great communication with trainers and partners.’

34

‘In some of the groups there were different levels of motivation for practising coaching, and different levels of English skills - as you probably can read from this text! Because of that, I suggest that new groups could be defined.’ ‘Variate the Groups (not the same Group all the time).’ ‘Language issues was an issue in my triade. It did not work good at all, and I did not get the training that I was supposed to have. I strongly wish for new triades in Rome.’

35

Annex D

ERASMUS+ KA2


Project Nr. 2015-1-IT02-KA201-014883

Quality Report 3 Evaluation of the Meeting Evaluation of the Consortium Authors


March 2017

36

The participants of the third meeting of the project from 8th to 10th of February 2017 were

asked to participate in a web-based survey after the meeting took place. The survey was

conducted between 23rd of February until 17th of March 2017. Representatives of all nine

project partners participated in the survey.


_ the evaluation of the meeting _ the evaluation of the consortium

Each part of the survey consisted of 7 questions. All questions were items to be rated on a scale with the following answering options: strongly agree – agree – undecided – disagree –

strongly disagree. Furthermore there was the possibility to add comments/remarks.



In contrast to Quality Report 1 and 2, this time the consortium was rated slightly better than

the meeting itself.

Items which were rated best are the working atmosphere and the awareness of the roles and

responsibilities of all partners.

Items which were rated more critically are the meeting room and the working conditions of the meeting.

37


Similar to the evaluation of the first two meetings, the participants were satisfied with the

quality of the meeting room and chose either the highest or second highest score in their answers. The working conditions and working methods were evaluated positively by the

majority of the respondents. Only one person made use of the opportunity to write suggestions or comments.



Strongly Agree 5

Agree 4

Undecided 2

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 11


The majority of the participants were satisfied with the meeting room, five participants choose the highest score (‘strongly agree’), four participants the second highest score

(‘agree’) and two participants were undecided. One answer was missing.



Strongly Agree 7

Agree 4

Undecided -

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 11


38

The participants strongly agreed (7) or agreed (4) that the meeting was well organised beforehand.



Strongly Agree 6

Agree 4

Undecided 2

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 12


Ten of the participants strongly agreed (6) or agreed (4) that that the accommodation and

venue were good, two participants were undecided.



Strongly Agree 5

Agree 4

Undecided 2

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 11


As far as the meeting room was concerned, nine participants strongly agreed (5) or agreed

(4) that the meeting room was fine; two participants were undecided.

39



Strongly Agree 5

Agree 5

Undecided 1

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 11


Five respondents strongly agreed that the working conditions of the meeting were good, another five participants chose the second highest score, one person was undecided and one

answer was missing.



Strongly Agree 8

Agree 4

Undecided 0

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 12


Eight of twelve respondents strongly agreed that the working methods used at the meeting

were appropriate, four participants agreed.


Only one participant made use of the possibility to comment or make suggestions for

improvement:

‘It felt it lasted too long and could have been completed in 1.5 days making travel easier and cheaper.’

40


The majority of the participants had a very positive impression of the working atmosphere and the communication in the consortium. There is high satisfaction, indicated by ratings of

‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’. Compared to the other two meetings before, the respondents this time were a lot more satisfied with the general motivation of other participants and that

the roles and responsibilities were clear to everyone.



Strongly Agree 9

Agree 2

Undecided 1

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 12


The majority of the respondents agreed that the communication between the partners was

good, nine persons strongly agreed to that question, two agreed and one person was undecided.



Strongly Agree 8

Agree 3

Undecided 0

Disagree 1

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 12


The majority of the participants agreed or strongly agreed that English as a working language was not a problem. Only one participant disagreed to that question.

41



Strongly Agree 8

Agree 3

Undecided 1

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 12


The majority of the participants strongly agreed (8) or agreed (3) that all partners effectively participated in the debate; one participant was undecided.



Strongly Agree 10

Agree 2

Undecided 0

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 12


All partners strongly agreed or agreed that the working atmosphere during the meeting was good.

42



Strongly Agree 9

Agree 3

Undecided 0

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 12


Nine participants strongly agreed and three agreed that the needs and expectations of all

partners were taken into account.



Strongly Agree 10

Agree 2

Undecided 0

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 12


Ten out of twelve respondents strongly agreed and two persons agreed that the partners are

well aware of their roles and responsibilities in the project.


‘Everything was very good.'

43

Annex E

ERASMUS+ KA2


Project Nr. 2015-1-IT02-KA201-014883

Quality Report 4

Evaluation of the Meeting Evaluation of the Consortium

Authors


June 2017

44

The participants of the fourth meeting of the project from 29th of May to 2nd of June 2017

held in Rome/Italy were asked to participate in a web-based survey after the event took

place. The survey was conducted between 9th to 19th of June 2017. Representatives of all

nine project partners participated in the survey.


_ the evaluation of the meeting _ the evaluation of the consortium.

Each part of the survey consisted of 7 questions. All questions were items to be rated on a

scale with the following answering options: strongly agree – agree – undecided – disagree – strongly disagree. Furthermore there was the possibility to add comments/remarks.



Items which were rated best are the working methods used as well as the work atmosphere during the event.

Items which were rated more critically are the meeting room and the level of participation of all partners.

45


Similar to the evaluation of the first three meetings, the participants were satisfied with the quality of the meeting room and chose either the highest or second highest score in their answers. The choice of the hotel was evaluated very positively by the majority of the

respondents. The meeting room and the organisation beforehand were rated mostly positive with only one exception. Further suggestions or comments which were made are listed below.



Strongly Agree 9

Agree 5

Undecided 1

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 15


The majority of the participants were satisfied with the meeting room, nine participants choose the highest score (‘strongly agree’), five participants the second highest score

(‘agree’) and one participant was undecided.



Strongly Agree 10

Agree 4

Undecided 1

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 15


The participants strongly agreed (10) or agreed (4) that the meeting was well organised beforehand. One person was undecided.

46



Strongly Agree 12

Agree 1

Undecided 2

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 15


The majority of the participants strongly agreed (12) or agreed (1) that that the

accommodation and venue were good, two participants were undecided.



Strongly Agree 9

Agree 3

Undecided 2

Disagree 1

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 15


As far as the meeting room was concerned, nine participants strongly agreed and three

participants agreed that the meeting room was fine; two participants were undecided, one person disagreed.

47



Strongly Agree 10

Agree 4

Undecided 1

Disagree -

Strongly Disagree -

Total 15


Ten respondents strongly agreed that the working conditions of the meeting were good, another four participants chose the second highest score and one person was undecided.



Strongly Agree 11

Agree 4

Undecided 0

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 15


The participants strongly agreed (11) or agreed (4) that the working methods used at the meeting were appropriate.

Comments or suggestions for improvement Some participants made use of the possibility to comment or make suggestions for

improvement. Some of the comments are stated below:

‘Everything was ok. Many thanks to the organizers. ‘The room was the best it could be for a busy city. In the future a countryside environment would work better for a course of this nature. The food was not great.’

48


In general, the partners were satisfied with the communication and work atmosphere among the consortium during the event. This was indicated by the ratings of ‘strongly agree’ and

‘agree’. However, the satisfaction with the roles and responsibilities in the project as well as the level of participation in the project were seen a bit more critical compared to the meeting

in London (Quality Report no. 3). The comments that were made are stated below.



Strongly Agree 11

Agree 3

Undecided 1

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 15


The majority of the respondents strongly agreed (11) or agreed (3) that the communication

between the partners was good. One person was undecided.



Strongly Agree 10

Agree 4

Undecided 1

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 15


For the majority of the participants English as a working language was not a problem. Ten

persons strongly agreed and four persons agreed to that question. Only one participant was undecided.

49



Strongly Agree 6

Agree 7

Undecided 0

Disagree 1

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 14


Six participants strongly agreed that all partners effectively participated in the debate, seven participants agreed and one participant disagreed. One answer was missing.



Strongly Agree 10

Agree 4

Undecided 0

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 14


The majority of the partners strongly agreed (10) or agreed (4) that the working atmosphere during the event was good.

50



Strongly Agree 9

Agree 5

Undecided 1

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 15


Nine participants strongly agreed and five agreed that the needs and expectations of all

partners were taken into account. One person was undecided.



Strongly Agree 8

Agree 6

Undecided 1

Disagree 0

Strongly Disagree 0

Total 15


Eight out of fifteen respondents strongly agreed and six persons agreed that the partners are

well aware of their roles and responsibilities in the project. One person was undecided.


‘All activities were very well organised by the coordinator, and we want to thank you for this great opportunity to be partner with them. Congratulations!' ‘[…] There was no real update on the research some of which should have informed the project and not be retrospective. There were not enough assistants to help with the training and those who did come were volunteers and self funding.'

Overall Quality Report -...

Documents

Transcript of Overall Quality Report -...