|
Evaluation tools - Grand SLAM:
Evaluation Tools............................................
2
Enclosure
1..................................................
4
Self-evaluation tool- example.........................................
4
Enclosure
1..................................................
6
Self-evaluation tool - template........................................
6
Enclosure
2....................................
7
The snap-shot tool - example..........................................
7
Enclosure
2...................................................8
The Snap-shot tool - template.........................................
8
Enclosure
3...................................................
9
How good is our event? Template and example.......................
9
Enclosure
4...................................................
14
How good was our project? Template and example..................14
Enclosure
5...................................................
19
Electronic log - Example and template.................................19
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Activity |
Evaluation
tool |
Responsible |
When |
|
1. The local projects |
The self-evaluation tool evaluates all local
projects. Enclosure
1. |
All project participants from the 8 countries. EX.
teachers, school librarians. |
At the beginning of each new project, during the
project period and when the project is finished. |
|
2.
The local project-meetings |
The snapshot tool evaluates all local
project-meetings (organisation and contents). Enclosure
2. |
Co-ordinator and local project participants |
After each local, co-ordinating meeting between co-ordinator
and project participants in each country |
|
3.
The trans-national events |
The tool: “How good is our event?” evaluates all
trans-national board-meetings and conferences. Enclosure
3. |
The 8 partners |
After each trans-national board meeting, conference
ect. |
|
4.
The whole trans-national project |
The tool: “How good was our Grand SLAM project?”
evaluates the whole trans-national project. Enclosure
4. |
The 8 partners |
After finishing the project. Autumn 2005 |
|
The
electronic log |
The open log is for recording all dissemination activities. The
closed log is for the project librarians/teachers as to ensure
learning from and the progress of the local project. Enclosure 5 |
The local project participants |
Continuously during the project period |
The
role of the co-ordinators:
The co-ordinators are the
contacts between the different schools and the evaluation team in
The
evaluation team
Ulla
Spanggaard
Susanne Sjørslev
0045
4366 0178
0045 4366 0144
Enclosure 1
Self-evaluation tool- example
Model for self-evaluation -
In the following, we will
describe a method for developing quality, which will contain an
element of self-evaluation.
The method can be used to
describe smaller developmental tasks, as well as for the ongoing
evaluation – even of so-called soft values. The focus of this method
is on awareness and recognition of the quality that the school or the
institution wants.
EXAMPLE
|
Methods |
Instruction plan. An example in an area “Responsible for our own
leaning” |
|
Status (An analysis of the
present situation, in order to create a new vision) |
How does it look in
practice in relation to our more specific aims? That means -
what
are we actually doing in the area? -
what
are we expected to do? -
What
functions now? What are we pleased with and what aren’t we? -
which
conditions do we have now? (The
permanent staff, the economy, the working hours and the
organising ability) |
|
It is of great value… (Aims and objectives) |
-
that
the students feel responsible for their own learning -
that
the students feel successful |
|
That is why we want to
make sure….. (Aims and objectives) |
-
that
the students are involved at their own level. -
that
the students are able to cope with the tasks. -
that
the students have adequate challenges. -
that
the students are responsible of what they are going to learn. -
that
the students take the initiative in developing the project. |
|
Specifically
we will.. (Plan of action) |
-
-
prepare
plans for activities -
have 2
weekly discussions with students about their projects -
uncover
the students’ way of learning. -
make
use of praising and crediting. |
|
What will for us be the
evidence that the aims and objectives are fulfilled… (Criterium of evaluation) |
-
that
the students participate actively in the planning of their own
and common projects- that the students’ ideas come through in
the projects of the class. -
- that
teachers plan challenging activities
for all students. -
- that
the students show pleasure and initiative in their daily work. |
Enclosure 1
Self-evaluation tool - template
|
Status (An analysis of the
present situation, in order to create a new vision) |
|
It is of great value… (Aims and objectives) |
|
That is why we want to
make sure….. (Aims and objectives) |
|
Specifically
we will.. (Plan of action) |
|
What will for us be the
evidence that the aims and objectives are fulfilled… (Criteria of evaluation) |
Enclosure 2
The snap-shot tool - example
TAKING A
SNAPSHOT
At the end of each local project
meeting, it may be helpful to undertake a “snapshot” activity to
assess quality. This can be done in a short period of time.
Project partners complete the
form below using the three key questions:
|
In the column +, list all
the positive features In the column -,
list any areas of concern |
How do we know? In the column ?, try,
where possible, to provide answers to How Do We Know? by listing
concrete evidence for + or – comments |
What are we going to do now? In the column, list some
action points |
EXAMPLE
|
How are
we doing? |
|||
|
Good
+ |
Less good
- |
how
do we know
? |
What
are we going to do next ® |
|
The meeting was successful
and I felt we achieved a great deal Good mix of countries |
The practical information
issued in advance was not clear enough so we weren’t sure
where we had to change trains |
We went through the workplan in detail and each
partner now has a clear area of responsibility The information that was emailed to partners along
with the agenda Five countries were represented and covered northern,
southern and eastern Europe |
I will run an awareness session next term to tell the
schools in my area about the project The co-ordinator agreed to amend the details to help
future participants When we run the course, we will aim to attract more
participants from the newly eligible countries |
Enclosure 2
The Snap-shot tool - template
|
Project
Meeting:
Date: |
|||
|
How are we doing? |
|||
|
Good
+ |
Less
good
- |
How
do we know
? |
What are we going to do now ® |
|
|
|
|
|
Enclosure 3
How good is our event? Template and example
HOW GOOD
IS THE EVENT?
(A tool for the evaluation/self-evaluation of
transnational courses/conferences/seminars)
This tool has been produced in
line with the Scottish model of evaluation, which uses key areas and
performance indicators for evaluation and self-evaluation.
The tool is intended for use by
external evaluators, event organizers and participants. It may be used
in two main ways:
-
to provide a broad overview of
the event as a whole (eg. each indicator can be evaluated on a 4
point scale, where 4 is very good)
-
to focus on one, or more, key area
of particular relevance (in this case, it may be necessary to tease out
the indicators in more detail)
The tool is offered as a flexible
resource, which can be tailored to meet the needs of individual
events. It may prove useful as a starting point for initiating
discussion, especially where, for example, there is an opportunity for
event organizers and participants to use it for their own
self-evaluation of an event, and follow this up with a shared discussion
based on the results.
GRAND SLAM PROJECT 2003-2005
HOW GOOD IS OUR EVENT?
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
|
|
Performance
Indicator |
Themes |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
1 |
Quality
of the trans-national element |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
Input into the event by the project partners |
a.
extent to which
each partner contributes to the event |
a.
|
|
|
|
|
b.
evidence of
partners sharing roles and responsibilities during the
event or as part of the overall project |
b.
|
|
|
|
||
|
1.2 |
Link between the aims of the event and the
overarching aims of the trans-national project/funding programme |
a.
mutual understanding amongst partners about
project and event
rationale and the short-term/long-term objectives of the event and
the project |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
clear evidence in the event programme of
synergy with the overarching trans-national project and the
relevant funding programme |
|
|
|
|
||
|
1.3 |
Development of positive attitudes towards |
a.
opportunities for the development of positive
attitudes towards |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
extent and quality of the intercultural
dimension |
|
|
|
|
||
|
c.
extent of the opportunity for participants to
share relevant information about their own countries |
|
|||||
|
1.4 |
Promotion of other
languages |
a.
extent and quality of opportunities for the
use of various languages, both by trainers and by participants |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
evidence of strategies for overcoming
language difficulties |
|
|
|
|
||
|
1.5 |
Representation of a variety of countries |
a.
extent to which a reasonable representation
of participants from various countries has been achieved |
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
Structure,
content and delivery of the event |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
Organisation of the
trans-national event |
a.
evidence of clear planning |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
realistic timescales |
|
|
|
|
||
|
c.
appropriate selection of delegates eviden |
|
|
|
|
||
|
2.2 |
Effectiveness of
content and appropriate range and balance of activities |
a.
appropriate content, clearly related to the
aims/objectives of the event |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
relevant mixture of activities: e.g.
ice-breaking activities, information-giving sessions, active
participation in workshops by participants etc. |
|
|
|
|
||
|
c.
appropriateness of
social programme |
|
|
|
|
||
|
2.3 |
Effectiveness of the delivery by trainers/workshop
leaders etc. |
a.
trainers/leaders have the appropriate subject
competence and knowledge |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
trainers/leaders are good communicators, with
the necessary language skills |
|
|
|
|
||
|
c.
trainers/leaders have the appropriate
didactic experience for delivering professional development |
|
|
|
|
||
|
2.4 |
Effectiveness of
shared ownership of the event |
a.
evidence that the needs and expectations of
participants have been taken into account |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
evidence that participants have the
opportunity to contribute their own expertise |
|
|
|
|
||
|
2.5 |
Effectiveness of the process of monitoring and
evaluation |
a.
quality of the mechanism for evaluation, both
short-term and long-term if appropriate, including post-event
follow-up |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
Materials,
resources, equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1 |
Provision and suitability of materials, resources and
equipment |
a.
evidence of appropriate prior information
being issued to participants |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
relevance and quality of materials issued
during the event |
|
|
|
|
||
|
c.
sufficiency, range and suitability of other
resources, including, where appropriate, ICT |
|
|
|
|
||
|
d.
provision of support and assistance for
technology users |
|
|
|
|
||
|
e.
extent to which technology and other
resources are used effectively and innovatively |
|
|
|
|
||
|
4 |
Quality
of the domestic arrangements |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1 |
Quality and appropriateness of the domestic
arrangements and the comfort factor |
a.
attention to practical details and catering
arrangements |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
suitability of
working venue |
|
|
|
|
||
|
c.
quality of overnight accommodation where
appropriate |
|
|
|
|
Example
Key area:
Quality of the transnational partnership
Performance
Indicator 1.1
This performance indicator is concerned with the
following themes:
·
extent to
which each partner contributes to the transnational event
·
evidence
of partners sharing roles and responsibilities during the event, or
within the overall project
It refers to the quality of the transnational
partnership in terms of the
contribution of each partner to
the event element of the transnational project, with clear
evidence of an appropriate division of tasks and responsibilities
|
Level 4 Illustration ·
Each partner plays a role in the preparation
and delivery of the event according to an agreed prior division of
roles and responsibilities ·
There is clear evidence of
a collaborative approach, with strong teamworking |
A
performance broadly equivalent to that illustrated above would merit a
Level 4 award.
|
Level 2 Illustration * There
is lack of a clarity in the partners’ division of roles and
responsibilities, and
consequently there may be evidence of a failure to
contribute as required * Where
problems have arisen, there is evidence of a lack of commitment to
finding a
mutually acceptable compromise |
A
performance broadly equivalent to that illustrated above would merit a
Level 2 award.
Notes:
1.
Reference
should be made to materials issued in advance, and to the event
programme.
http://www.aberdeen-education.org.uk/european
Enclosure 4.
How good was our project? Template and example
GRAND SLAM PROJECT 2002-2005
HOW GOOD WAS OUR GRAND SLAM PROJECT?
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
|
No. |
Performance
Indicator |
Themes |
4 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
|
|
Quality
of the trans-national partnership |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
Strong commitment to the project by each partner |
a.
extent to which
each partner is prepared to commit time and resources as
required in line with the jointly agreed work plan |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
willingness to resolve problems |
|
|
|
|
||
|
1.2 |
Agreement amongst partners |
Mutual understanding
bout project rationale, overall aims and
short-term/long-term objectives |
a.
|
|
|
|
|
b.
clear evidence in the
workplan of sharing of roles and responsibilities amongst partners |
c.
|
|
|
|
||
|
1.3 |
Effective and on-going communication amongst partners
and with other agencies |
a.
effectiveness of communication with account
being taken of any
language difficulties |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
clarity of communication, particularly by the
project co-ordinator |
|
|
|
|
||
|
c.
range, purpose,
fullness and effectiveness of contacts and communications amongst
partners and with other agencies e.g. National Agency, European
Commission |
|
|
|
|
||
|
1.4 |
Trust amongst partners |
a.
development of mutual
trust throughout the life of the project |
|
|
|
|
|
b.
development amongst partners of a sense of
ownership of the project |
|
|
|
|
||
|
1.5 |
Development of positive attitudes |
a.
development of positive attitudes towards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Project
management, leadership and quality assurance |
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.1 |
Quality of project management arrangements |
a.
commitment and equitable involvement of all
partners b.
detailed arrangements
for implementation of workplans and administration of
budgets c.
clarity of project co-ordination |
|
|
|
|
|
2.2 |
Effective management and leadership qualities
demonstrated by project co-ordinator |
a.
professional competence and commitment
displayed by project co-ordinator b.
leadership qualities c.
quality of relationship
with partners and development of teamwork |
|
|
|
|
|
2.3 |
Effectiveness of the process of monitoring and
evaluation |
a.
quality of the proposals for on-going
monitoring and evaluation of the project and of its impact at
local/regional/national European level |
|
|
|
|
|
2.4 |
Quality of the dissemination process |
a.
quality of the arrangements for disseminating
project information/results b.
multiplier effect |
|
|
|
|
|
2.5 |
Implementation of the workplan |
a.
adherence to the workplan by all partners b.
deviation from the workplan based on
well-considered reasons and mutual agreement |
|
|
|
|
|
2.6 |
Integration of project activities into the
department's/ institution's development plan |
a.
evidence of the project's integration into
the development plan and normal activities of the participating
institutions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Project |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.1 |
Structure of the project |
a.
clear rationale and clarity of objectives b.
realistic timescales c.
pertinence of topics and activities d.
clarity and consistency of the general design
of the project |
|
|
|
|
|
3.2 |
Quality of the project |
a.
quality of the project in terms of its short,
medium and long term impact at local/regional/national/ European
level |
|
|
|
|
|
3.3 |
Quality of project materials/ products |
a.
quality of materials/guides/reports/products
throughout the life-cycle of the project |
|
|
|
|
|
3.4 |
Integration of the project activities into and across
the curriculum or work area |
a.
integration and permeation b.
extent and quality of the
intercultural/language- awareness dimensions c.
extent and quality of
the multidisciplinarity of the project |
|
|
|
|
|
3.5 |
Quality of the promotion of the European Dimension |
a.
appropriate emphasis placed on the European
dimension in education b.
effective promotion of knowledge and
understanding about |
c.
|
|
|
|
|
3.6 |
Innovation and variety of approach |
a.
evidence of a varied range of approaches by
all partners within the project b.
use, where appropriate, of innovative
methodology and effective use of new technologies c.
extent of the opportunity for partners to
input their own expertise and learn from each other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support
for project partners and participants |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4.1 |
Support within each partner organisation |
a.
effective and ongoing support from line
management within each partner organisation b.
access to specialised support as appropriate
on an in-house basis c.
quality of support for individual
participants |
|
|
|
|
|
4.2 |
Peer support |
a.
effective peer support within
each partner organisation b.
support, where appropriate, from project
partners or those involved in similar transnational projects |
|
|
|
|
|
4.3 |
Support from external agencies |
a.
awareness of specialised support available
from external agencies at local/regional/national/ European level |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.1 |
Provision of project resources |
a.
sufficiency, range and suitability of project
resources, including, where appropriate, technology resources b.
sharing of resources/expertise amongst
transnational partners |
|
|
|
|
|
5.2 |
Effective use of resources |
a.
extent to which technology and other
resources are used effectively and innovatively b.
clear link between project workplan and
cost-effective use of resources |
c.
|
|
|
|
Example
Performance
Indicator 1.1
Strong
commitment to the project by each partner
This performance indicator is concerned with the
following themes:
* extent to which each partner is prepared to commit
time and resources as required in line with the jointly agreed work plan
* evidence of willingness to resolve problems
It refers to the quality of the transnational
partnership in terms of each partner's commitment to ensuring that the
transnational project develops according to the agreed work plan for
each year, and that any problems are resolved quickly and effectively.
|
Level 4 Illustration * Each
partner has a clear understanding of the amount of time and
resources which require to
be allocated to the project and demonstrates a strong
willingness to contribute as required * Each
partner is fully aware of the need to compromise and demonstrates
a clear
commitment to resolve any problesms which
arise in a way
which is acceptable to all
project partners |
A
performance broadly equivalent to that illustrated above would merit a
Level 4 award.
|
Level 2 Illustration * There
is lack of a clear understanding of the amount of time and
resources which require to be
allocated to the project in order to meet the targets agreed in
the work plan, and
consequently there may be evidence of a failure to
contribute as required * Where
problems have arisen, there is evidence of a lack of commitment to
finding a
mutually acceptable compromise |
A
performance broadly equivalent to that illustrated above would merit a
Level 2 award.
Notes: 1.
Reference should be made to the agreed work plan for the appropriate
year of the project and, where appropriate, to the final report for each
year of the project.
http://www.aberdeen-education.org.uk/european
Enclosure 5
Electronic log - Example and template
The open part is for recording all dissemination activities by each
partner ex:
|
Date |
Type of event |
Title of event |
Number of participants |
Partner involved |
|
02.03.2003 |
Article on magazine |
Børn & bøger |
|
PCA/DK |
|
17.05.2003 |
Lecture at a conference -
PP |
Annual meeting in the
national school board |
160 |
Alytus/LT |
|
22.05.2003 |
Meeting with public
authorities |
|
|
Amada/PT |
|
|
|