Project Evaluation Report(Indigo Project Solutions)

KEY POINTS FROM REPORT

Partner Fears (November 09)

• Lack of innovation in materials• MASS may not transfer to different situations• Building committed and motivated teams • Loss of interest• Enough money to deliver objectives• Failure

Progress to September 2010

• Decision making and research started to reduce fears

• General lack of research in soft skills development has confirmed originality of project

• Risk of transferability of materials highlighted in Spring 2010. Although this caused a minor delay the problem was addressed.

Actual Piloting

• Delays in wp 3 (prep & transfer of materials) had a delay in the progressing of wp4 (piloting and analysis).

• Delays due to more time required to understand MASS model, differing learning contexts, need to revisit the learning materials

• This should be regarded as a positive experience where partners pulled together to make the project work.

Piloting

• Target of 65 tutors (adjustment) and 250 learners

• Each partner will involve the same target group with the same materials (may be variation on this)

• At the end of the pilot each partner will use their own assessment models to measure impact on learning and employment outcomes

Piloting (contd)

PARTNER Materials to be piloted

Alteration/Adaptation Required

Result Measurement

Control Group Use

SW Undecided Undecided Undecided No

NL Undecided Undecided Qualitative No

UK All None Comparison with previous results

No

RO All If necessary Qualitative Yes

GR Almost all If necessary Quantitative Yes

Piloting (contd)

• GR and ROM have clear benchmark for review of project activity

• UK will use previous results to measure impact• Detailed notes provided by GR partner

demonstrates considerable time taken to decide on appropriate measurement methodologies.

EQF

• All respondees felt that a “better working knowledge” of EQF was an organisational requirement.

• Lack of understanding of some partners was addressed by Jolanda’s presentation at 2nd partner meeting

• Mapping exercise ongoing and expected to be complete December 2010

Dissemination

• National Agency advises that dissemination becomes a more prominent area of the project

• Recommendation that partners report formally on this through completion of a standard template

ISSUES FOR CONSIDERATION(ACTION PLAN NEEDED)

TARGET AUDIENCE – GR (7.1)

• Target group for piloting 16-25 years of age. GR partner is to include disaffected learners up to the age of 35 years. This may not be seen as ineligible but is outwith scope of project.

• Partners need to be clear when reporting back to Leonardo that this is the case and agree a means of evaluating and reporting on the impact for this group separately.

TARGET AUDIENCE - NL

• Original application outlines that materials and methodologies are aimed at improving outcomes for ‘disaffected’ learners. It is not clear from pilot programme information whether piloters in NL fall into this category and this should be clarified.

VET PROFESSIONALS

• Project aim was to engage with 65 VET professionals. Based on pilot activity plans this has dropped by 34%. This is due to restructuring in partner organisations.

• Lead partner to ensure this is communicated to the National Agency giving reasons for change. This is to be done immediately. If the NA have a problem with this then there is still time within the project to change.

TIMING (7.3)

• Documentation suggests that pilot is complete by April 2011. From feedback, completion is more likely to be May. Partners to ensure that programmes run to schedule to meet project end date. It is not always possible for projects to be granted an extension.

MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY(7.4)

• Measurement methodologies have been agreed for UK (comparison of previous results), GR & ROM (control groups).

• SW & NL need to establish a baseline from which they can measure impact of the pilot programmes against the outcomes of those students where these innovative pedagogies are not applied.

MEASUREMENT METHODOLOGY(7.4)

• Much discussion has taken place over the ability to come to a common decision on this.

• Given the differing learner contexts and partner experiences it is perhaps of greater importance that each partner decides upon a measurement methodology that best suits their own requirement.

FINANCIAL RISK

• The additional work required by UK in revisiting wp3 may increase the UK staffing budget outwith the parameters of the original budget. UK needs to take this into account and ensure further match funding is sourced.

• The need to translate resource packs into partner languages may place greater strain on this budget. Partners need to make arrangements to address this.

Strength of the Project and Partnership

• Setbacks described as learning points and have strengthened the project

• Key strength of the project – the partnerships• Primary focus – professional exchange of best

practise• Good working relationship recognised by

National Agency

QUESTIONS ANDDISCUSSION