evaluation questionnaire analysis · evaluation questionnaire analysis, meeting at ysu, yerevan,...

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS General Meeting

YSU, YEREVAN, Armenia, 12-13 February 2020 Project 585603-EPP-1-2017-1-DE-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP (2017 –

3299/001-001) / TOPAS

From theoretical-oriented to practical education in agrarian

studies Editor(s): Oleh Pasko

Responsible

Partner: Sumy National Agrarian University (SNAU), Sumy, Ukraine

Status-Version: FINAL VERSION

Date (dd/mm/year): 28/02/2020

Dissemination

Level Restricted to other program participants (including the

Commission Services)

The project progress surveys are one of the key tools to assure the

project's quality and success. Conducted regularly by the QM team, they

enable evaluation TOPAS progress and delivery by gathering open and

anonymous opinions of project partners (the personal data is optional). The

surveys are very important for the results to give the Executive Management

Unit, TOPAS Steering Committee and the Consortium an early indication of

problems and risks and of what could be done to address them.

TOPAS partners took part in the fifth project survey in middle of

February 2020 straight after the meeting by the means of online platform. The

results are shown below.

From Theoretical-Oriented to Practical education in Agrarian Studies

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS,

Meeting at YSU, Yerevan, Armenia, 12-13 February 2020

2

Did you find the meeting for your institution (knowledge of the

project, including the methodology, results, and activities)?

To what extent were the questions connected with the project

explained during the meeting?




3

To what extent did the time dedicated to the questions connected

with the project satisfy your expectations during the discussions?

To what extent did the objectives of the meeting satisfy your

expectations?




4

Of the information presented on the meeting, how much is usable

to you?

To what extent did the meeting make you think?




5

To what extent did the meeting allow you to identify the role of

your institution in the project?

Did the meeting allow you to exchange opinions and experience

with the partners?




6

How do you mark the organisation and the facilities at your

disposal during the meeting?

Did you receive the documentation about the meeting in due time?




7

How would you assess the quality of the documentation?

How would you evaluate the location of the meeting?




8

How would you evaluate the social aspects of the meeting?

How would you generally evaluate the meeting?




9

Do you believe that the project IS ON THE RIGHT TRACK to fully

deliver all expected deliverables and to reach all its objectives?

OPEN QUESTIONS

What are THE ASPECTS of the project what YOU ARE THE LEAST

CONFIDENT ABOUT and at which a major focus should be in the time to

go to the end of the project?1

No aspect to report*5

Farm data collection*2

Concentrate the activity on the development of software for the

transfer of agricultural data

Final delivery of the handbook

Least confident: anchoring farm management databases at all

HEIs, Major focus: Dissemination of training contents from HSWT,

WUC, WUELS and UASVM at partner HEIs

Literature purchase

Mindset in educational approach in Armenia

1 The author’s orthography and parlance have been left intact




10

Not all project results are visible enough to stakeholders outside

the TOPAS consortium. A lot of emphasis should be put on

gathering and showing all project results that have already been

achieved or will soon be worked out.

On finalization of Handbook.

Preparation of the manual.

The handbook writing we have to be major focused

The project is proceeding as planned, but it is important that

participants meet deadlines

We should focus on MOOC quality, we are confident in the

changes in the curriculum that have made

Which aspects of the meeting do you consider the best?2

Open World cafe discussion*4

2nd day

all

Discussions about expected results

Dissemination, students placement and agricultural data base

management

Efficient conduct of discussions and discussions, participation of

employers, participation of the person evaluating the project

Farm Data Management issues

Handbook draft

Meeting with the farms/placements representatives

Open discussion, location, social dinners

Opportunity to discuss with colleagues

Opportunity to discuss with partners person to person,

participation of NEO representative

Panel discussion with job market

Personal meeting

Placement





11

Which aspects of the meeting do you consider the worst?3

None*7

1st day

Advisory monitoring

Connection with stakeholders

Dissemination, students placement and agricultural data base

management

Handbook's changes

Lecture rooms not suitable for group work, poster display not

effective

Meeting room equipment: no professional projector, poor

presence of posters

Not much involvement from non partner participants, and round

table not very succesful

Organisation of the meeting by YSU staff was very poor

Panel Presentation

Poster session

The image from the projector was too small and not clear (first

day of the meeting), posters hung in a place that was not

favorable for viewing by students, academic staff and business

partners.

What are THREE NEW THINGS you have discovered for yourself in

the meeting? (please reply as this 1)_;2)_;3)_)4

None*4

1) Books purchasing; 2) Dissemination;

1) Information about NEO monitoring, 2) new idea about work with

stakeholder, 3) new idea in teaching methods;

1) Friendship, 2) success 3) result;






12

1) Tipps from Carlos Macado: outcomes after each meeting has to be

organized in each PU; 2) Web application developed by YSU; 3) ... that’s all

1) Panel Discussion related to student placement with representatives

from Farms and Agrarian industry. 2) Open World café together with Non-

TOPAS participants; 3) TOPAS and Innovations in Education: Tendencies of

the development of advanced MS programs.

1) Erasmus in Armenia, 2) Placement in Armenia, 3) Problems and

solutions for better communications

1) Dissemination, 2)students placement, 3) agricultural data base

management

1) Method "Open World Cafe", 2) new ways for the lecture theatre

refurbishing

I am patient

1) Discussion with employers, 2) comments of the person assessing the

project

1) Team from Armenia, 2) local existing conditions 3)some weaknesses

in the project;

1) pay not to much attention on data collection;

1) World Café format 2) n.a. 3) n.a.

1) students placement 2)interactive lecturing 3) farm data collection;

1) Placement representatives meeting, 2) dissemination issues;




13

Which characteristics of the meeting contributed to its

effectiveness?

Intervention of coordinator*2

Team work*2

Clarifying the situation

Constructive program of the meeting

Discussion in teams

Dissemination

Efficient implementation of the meeting, substantive deliberations

and discussions

Flexibility in discussions

Group works

N/A

Observance of the time table of the agenda

Open discussion and exchange of views with non-academic

partners, discussion among TOPAS partners, using of Open World

Cafe method

Participation of students

Partners cooperation

Strong partners cooperation

Timing!

What advice would you give to the partner institutions so as to

improve the results of the next meetings?5

None*4

Best place to meet;

Better organisation of the meeting with the farmers;

Choosing a meeting room equipped with audio-visual equipment;

Develop correct agenda according to the work plan;

Do not do, as it is done at YSU;





14

Inform guest speakers about the project and objectives of the

activity they participate at;

Invitation to participate as many students and non-academic

partners as possible to participate and actively exchange views

among each other. Making the most of the potential of

multimedia equipment. Location of the poster session and access

to dissemination materials in a place that will allow free

movement of spectators and comfortable watching and asking

questions to poster authors;

Involve more interested stakeholders;

Moderation of panel discussions should be more active and

provide initial information on panel members and project,

selection of affiliated panel members crucial, poster presentation

on pin-boards, provide suitable rooms for group work;

More space to discussions;

Organisation of internet quality and organization of technical

support;

Preparation is very important;

Report of each partner;

Team work, effective contribution between partner teams.

evaluation questionnaire analysis · evaluation questionnaire analysis, meeting at ysu, yerevan,...

Documents