Joint Report on the Final Evaluation of Socrates II ... · Socrates II was the Community Action...

Final Evaluation of the Socrates II Programme 2000-2006: Annex to the Joint Report

ECOTEC

Final Evaluation of the Socrates II Programme 2000-2006: Annex to the Joint Report

C3318 /January 2008

ECOTEC

u Priestley House 12-26 Albert Street Birmingham B4 7UD United Kingdom

T +44 (0)121 616 3600 F +44 (0)121 616 3699 www.ecotec.com

ECOTEC

Contents PAGE

1.0 Introduction............................................................................................... 1 1.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................1 1.2 Background ................................................................................................................1 1.3 Aim of the evaluation .................................................................................................3 1.4 Overview of the approach to the evaluation and methodology..............................7 1.5 Intervention logic for the Socrates II programme..................................................15 1.6 Scope of the evaluation ...........................................................................................18 1.7 Structure of the report .............................................................................................18

2.0 Relevance................................................................................................ 19 2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................19 2.2 The changing context of education in Europe.......................................................19 2.3 Needs of education in Europe.................................................................................22 2.4 Cross-sectoral challenges.......................................................................................33 2.5 Needs Summary .......................................................................................................40 2.6 Relevance of the Socrates II programme to the needs .........................................41 2.7 Relevance of the annual priorities to the needs ....................................................43 2.8 Relevance of the activities to the needs.................................................................47 2.9 Internal coherence ...................................................................................................52 2.10 Complementarity ......................................................................................................52 2.11 Additionality..............................................................................................................54

3.0 Effectiveness .......................................................................................... 56 3.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................56 3.2 Programme objectives .............................................................................................56 3.3 Target groups for participation ...............................................................................59 3.4 Outputs......................................................................................................................62 3.5 Factors that influenced the achievement of intended outputs and results.........81 3.6 Unintended outputs..................................................................................................83 3.7 Dissemination...........................................................................................................84 3.8 Types of dissemination............................................................................................85 3.9 Effectiveness of Dissemination ..............................................................................88 3.10 Equality and accessibility........................................................................................90

ECOTEC

4.0 Results and Impacts .............................................................................. 92 4.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................92 4.2 Results ......................................................................................................................92 4.3 Impact......................................................................................................................101 4.4 Impacts on people..................................................................................................104 4.5 Impacts on practice (multiplying the outputs and results to a wider set of

players in the educational sector) ........................................................................109 4.6 Impacts in policy (transferring practice into national/regional education and

training policies and programmes).......................................................................123 4.7 Sustainability ..........................................................................................................130 4.8 Utility .......................................................................................................................133 4.9 Value for money .....................................................................................................134 4.10 Lessons learnt for the new programmes .............................................................134

5.0 Conclusions.......................................................................................... 135 5.1 Evaluation questions and sub-questions.............................................................135 5.2 Effectiveness of programmes ...............................................................................139

6.0 Recommendations ............................................................................... 149

Annex One: Intervention logics............................................................A1

Annex Two: Annual Priorities in Calls for Proposals, by Action......A7

Annex Three: Socrates programme data tables ...............................A35

Annex Four: Socrates survey responses (Comenius projects)......A50

Annex Five: Socrates survey responses (Comenius mobility).....A110

Annex Six: Socrates survey responses (Erasmus)........................A140

Annex Seven: Socrates survey responses (Grundtvig projects) .A203

Annex Eight: Grundtvig responses..................................................A208

ECOTEC

Annex Nine: Socrates survey responses (Grundtvig mobility) ....A260

Annex Ten: Socrates survey responses (Lingua) ..........................A287

Annex Eleven: Socrates survey responses (Minerva) ...................A343

Annex Twelve: Project Case Studies ...............................................A393

Annex Thirteen: Online survey tools ...............................................A415

Annex Fourteen: Topic guides for co-ordinators, partners, stakeholders and Erasmus co-ordinators ........A576

ECOTEC

1

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Introduction

ECOTEC Research & Consulting is pleased to present this Final Evaluation Report for the Socrates II programme. This report is an Annex to the Joint Report on the Final Evaluation of Socrates II, Leonardo da Vinci II and eLearning. This document contains the final report for the Final Evaluation of the Community programme: Socrates II 2000-2006 and satisfies the requirement of ECOTEC’s contract with the European Commission to provide a final evaluation report.

1.2 Background

The report presents the findings of the ex-post evaluation of the Socrates II programme 2000-2006. The Programme was established under the Decision No 253/200/EC. Socrates II was the Community Action programme in the field of education. It aimed to promote the European dimension of and improve the quality of education by encouraging co-operation between the participating countries. The Programme set out to develop a ‘Europe of knowledge’ through action to promote lifelong learning, encourage access by everybody to education and acquire qualifications and recognised skills. Socrates II follows on from the first phase of the Programme, which covered the period 1995-1999.

The global objectives of the Socrates II programme were:

To contribute to the promotion of a Europe of knowledge through the development of the European dimension in education and training by promoting lifelong learning, based on formal and informal education and training. To support the building up of the knowledge, skills and competences likely to foster active citizenship and employability1

The global objectives of the Programme (as stated in the decision) were linked to a series of specific objectives:

• to strengthen the European dimension in education • to facilitate wide transnational access to educational resources while promoting equal

opportunities

1 Decision No 253/200/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 January 2000 establishing second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education ‘Socrates’.

ECOTEC

2

• to promote knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught

• to promoting co-operation and mobility in education by encouraging exchanges between educational institutions; promoting open and distance learning; encouraging improvements in the recognition of diplomas and periods of study and developing the exchange of information.

• to encourage innovation in educational practice and materials and to explore matters of common policy interest

The objectives of the Programme were then linked into the operational objectives, supporting a set of Actions in high priority areas, chosen for their strategic relevance to the modernisation of Europe’s education and training systems which make up the eight operational objectives of Socrates II:

Comenius aimed to enhance the European dimension and quality of school education. The Action sought to encourage transnational co-operation between schools, contribute to professional development of staff within the sector, enhance intercultural awareness and promote language learning.

Erasmus aimed to enhance the European dimension and quality of higher education. The Action intended to increase transnational co-operation between higher education institutions, facilitate and promote mobility for teachers and learners in the sector and improve transparency and academic recognition of studies and qualifications throughout the EU.

Grundtvig aimed to enhance quality, European dimension, availability and accessibility of lifelong learning. The Action concentrated on non-vocational adult education, focussing on improving formal and non-formal learning opportunities for adult learners.

Lingua aimed to improve, promote and widen access to the teaching and learning of languages in the EU.

Minerva aimed to promote European co-operation in the field of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). The Action intended to improve understanding amongst teachers, learners, decision makers and the public of the implications of ODL and ICT for education and widen access to improved methods and resources in this field.

Observation and innovation in education systems and policies focussed on improving the quality and transparency of educational innovation in the EU through knowledge

ECOTEC

3

exchange, identification of good practice and comparative analyses. The Action includes support for Eurydice and Naric networks and Arion study visits.

Joint Actions shared the Socrates II global and specific objectives. Its operational significance was to link Socrates II work with other Community programmes such as Leonardo da Vinci for vocational training and the Youth programme.

Accompanying Measures also shared the overall aims of the Socrates II programme. In particular activities concentrated around awareness raising and information, dissemination and training and activities undertaken by associations or non-governmental bodies.

The first type of Action (Comenius, Erasmus, and Grundtvig) targeted the three basic stages of lifelong learning (school, higher education, adult education) and the second type concerns transversal measures (language, ICT, Innovation, dissemination, Joint Actions and evaluation).

Socrates had a budget of EUR 1,850 for the duration of the programme. Around 120,000 students per year went to study in another country and it mobilised almost 25,000 teachers and trainers to go to another country to work, undertake training or observe how other education systems work. More than 10,000 schools were involved in transnational partnerships every year and around 2,532 universities signed the Erasmus University Charter.

1.3 Aim of the evaluation

The legal basis for this evaluation was as set out below.

Figure 1.1 The legal basis for the evaluation of the programme

Socrates II

(art. 14.2 – Decision 253/200/EC)

[…]This evaluation is intended to assess the relevance, effectiveness and impact of Actions implemented with regard to the objectives referred to in Article 2. It will also look at the impact of the programme as a whole.

This evaluation will also examine the complementarity between action under this programme and that pursued under other relevant Community policies, instruments and actions. […]

ECOTEC

4

The Terms of Reference set out the following questions to be answered for all three programmes and for the Socrates II programme in this case:

• Relevance: The extent to which an intervention’s objectives are pertinent to needs problems and issues to be addressed

• Coherence and complementarity: The extent to which the intervention logic is non-contradictory and the intervention does not contradict other interventions with similar objectives

• Effectiveness: The extent to which objectives set are achieved • Efficiency: The extent to which the desired effects are achieved at a reasonable cost • Sustainability: The extent to which positive effects are likely to last after an intervention

has terminated. These areas were translated into a series of evaluation sub-questions as per this table below, taken from the consolidated inception report, and form the basis for the remainder of this evaluation report.

Table 1.1 Evaluation questions Evaluation question

Evaluation sub-questions Section in report

1. Relevance, coherence and complementarity

Key Evaluation Question: To what extent were the intervention's objectives pertinent to needs, problems and issues to be addressed?

To what extent did programme objectives match the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and the Integrated Guidelines during the period 2000-2006? Including:

-expanding and improving investment in human capital through E and T policy

-adapting E and T systems to new competence requirements

To what extent do the programmes have the potential to contribute to achievement of the Lisbon goals in future?

To what extent were the activities covered compatible with the priorities of the Education and Training 2010 programmes?

To what extent are the objectives, priorities and activities of the programme, Actions and sub-actions in line with the needs of their target groups?

To what extent was there coherence between the different Actions and sub-actions under the Programme, including objectives, target groups, activities and intended outputs, results and impacts?

To what extent have the programmes remained complementary to other relevant EU and national initiatives and avoided duplicating them? Degree of duplication/overlap between programmes and

Section 2

Section 2

ECOTEC

5

Evaluation question


similar national programmes and measures.

To what extent would projects have taken place without EU support (additionality)?

To what extent did the programmes have the potential to influence the introduction of similar measures and Actions by national or regional authorities in the participating countries?

To what extent did the programmes have the potential to stimulate national authorities to exchange information and best practice and to co-operate in the area in question?

Outputs

To what extent did the programmes and Actions achieve their general and specific objectives?

What outputs and results, both tangible and intangible, were produced?

What factors have favoured or prevented the achievement of intended outputs and results?

To what extent has the programme generated unintended/unplanned outputs and results (positive or negative)?

Section 3.4

Target audience

To what extent did Actions succeed in reaching their main target audience?

To which extent has the programme been accessible and non-discriminatory?

What factors have facilitated or inhibited the meeting of target needs?

How effective has the dissemination and exploitation of results been and what further should be done? What factors have facilitated and inhibited effective dissemination and exploitation?

Section 3.3

2. Effectiveness of programmes

Key Evaluation Question: To what extent were the programmes successful in attaining the objectives set and achieving the intended results?

Impacts

To what extent has the programme produced visible results/impacts?

To what extent did projects meet their general and specific

Section 4.0

ECOTEC

6

Evaluation question


objectives?

What have been the longer term and wider impacts of these results to date? Including on policy and practice.

What factors have enabled and inhibited the achievement of longer term, wider impacts?

To what extent did project results bring benefits to the (implementing) organisation?

To what extent have the programmes inspired the introduction of similar measures and Actions by national or regional authorities in the participating countries?

To what extent did the programmes stimulate national authorities to exchange information and best practice and to co-operate in the area in question?

Utility

To what extent do the results and impacts of the programme actually meet the needs and expectations of its stakeholders and intended beneficiaries? To what extent has the programme generated the expected impacts?

To what extent has the programme generated unintended impacts (positive or negative)?

Section 4.8

Sustainability

To what extent can any positive changes resulting from the intervention be expected to last/have lasted after it has been terminated or when beneficiaries have finished the activity? Include scaling up effects, mainstreaming and multiplication.

What factors enable or inhibit this taking place and how could sustainability be improved in the future?

Section 4.7

Value for money

To what extent have the desired effects been achieved at a reasonable cost?

Extent to which budget of the programme and human resources deployed for implementation are commensurate with intended outcomes and impact

To what extent have objectives been achieved at reasonable cost?

Section 4.9

ECOTEC

7

Evaluation question


Is funding considered appropriate (from NA point of view and commission/beneficiaries)

Current programmes

Which activities have the greatest potential to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the new Lifelong Learning programme?

To what extent and in what way can the lessons learned be used in the new Lifelong Learning programme?

Section 4.10

1.4 Overview of the approach to the evaluation and methodology

The overall approach to the evaluation was, firstly, to reconstruct the intervention logic for the Socrates II programme, drawing upon documentation, desk review and interviews with relevant European Commission and EACEA staff. The intervention logic developed is presented in the diagram below (Figure 1.2). This was then used (and tested) as a tool in our research methodology which included desk-based document review, interviews with relevant Commission and expert stakeholders, National Agencies, co-ordinators (including the mobility aspect), partners, project case studies, and seven web surveys of Socrates II Actions (Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig, Lingua, Minerva) and participants in mobility (Grundtvig 3 (Training grants) and Comenius 2.2 (Teacher training). A sample of Socrates projects across the main Actions was also assessed through a project scrutiny exercise using a pro-forma which tested project documentation against the key evaluation questions. For Socrates the scrutiny only involved projects in centralised Actions since the decentralised Actions mostly support either mobility or very small-scale activities that tend not to produce tangible outputs (for example the Grundtvig 2 Learning Partnerships). In the case of Socrates II, we scrutinised a sample of 45 projects (approximately 2% of projects from the centralised Actions)1. These were selected in proportion to the number of projects within each sub-Action. The methodology of the evaluation is set out in more detail in Chapter One of the Joint Report on the Final evaluation of Socrates II, Leonardo da Vinci and eLearning.

1 The ISOC Socrates II Database lists some 2516 projects and a sample of 2% of this population would equate to about 50 projects.

ECOTEC

8

Web surveys

A series of web surveys were undertaken which targeted at successful applicant organisations funded under the main Actions of Socrates II. Considerable attention was devoted to determining a set of core questions focused on the typology of impacts developed in the inception phase and described below. The following surveys were conducted:

• Five surveys for successful applicant organisations funded under Erasmus, Comenius, Grundtvig, Lingua and Minerva (which also aligned with the core surveys for eLearning and Leonardo da Vinci), and

• Two surveys specially designed for participants in mobility (Grundtvig 3 (Training grants) and Comenius 2.2 (Teacher training)

The surveys were available in six languages (EN, FR, DE, IT, ES, PL) and were made available on the internet. The survey websites offered 'Help Pages' offering technical support in each of the six languages and an email with which to contact the evaluation team. The surveys were publicised and circulated by email to co-ordinators. Email addresses for coordinators of centralised Actions were supplied by the Commission and EACEA. The email invitation covered the six agreed languages and gave the link to the website to access the survey. In total 13,464 project co-ordinator email addresses were supplied by the Commission. Initial email invitations were sent to all of these participants' addresses. From that list approximately 4,264 emails bounced back (i.e. the addresses were no longer valid). A total of 10,125 reminder emails were also sent to raise response rates. A total of 4,499 responses were received, this represents an overall response rate (based on the whole sample of email addresses) of 33%1. The effective response rate if we exclude the email addresses supplied by the Commission which were no longer valid (i.e. the bounce-backs) is therefore closer to 50%2.

1 Based on sending 13,464 email invitations to participants. 2 Based on sending 13,464 email invitations to participants, 5,000 of which bounced back thus leaving 8464 valid email addresses the response rate is thus improved.

ECOTEC

9

Table 1.2 Survey response rates: Socrates II Survey Summary Socrates II Statistics

No. of project email addresses provided by Commission 13,464

No. of emails that bounced back (due to incorrect email address): 4,264

No. of respondents declining to participate in the survey: 4,701

No. of respondents completing the survey: 4,499

Response rate: 33% (or 50% if incorrect email addresses/bounce-backs are excluded)

In the case of Erasmus, the survey was aimed at co-ordinators and partners participating in the three sub-Actions of Erasmus. According to the results of the question "Which sub-Action was your activity funded under?" 14% of respondents were involved in Erasmus 1 (inter-university cooperation), 62% of respondents in Erasmus 2 (Mobility) and 24 % in Erasmus 3 (Thematic networks). Please note that this question did not allow multiple responses so respondents were asked to refer to their main activity.

Of the 4,499 responses received, 1,959 responses were from schools, 998 responses from higher education institutions and 324 responses from adult education institutions as well as responses from a range of 1,218 other organisations. The breakdown of the 4,499 responses by Action is given in the following table.

ECOTEC

10

Table 1.3 Breakdown of survey response rates: by Action, Socrates II Socrates responses by Action Number of responses Percent of responses

Comenius 2522 56%

Erasmus 711 16%

Grundtvig 743 3%

Lingua 117 7%

Minerva 109 56%

Total 4,4991 100%

For the decentralised Actions of Socrates, we relied on National Agencies to circulate and publicise the surveys by email to the intended audiences, since no collated lists of email addresses were available at a central level. National Agencies were asked to insert into the introductory text provided by ECOTEC (in five languages) a paragraph in their own language explaining the purpose of the survey and a message encouraging the applicant to complete the questionnaire. They were also requested to report back on which Actions and which years they were able to contact applicants but this information was never made available to the evaluators. Relying on National Agencies created a time-lag in receiving responses and also meant that since not all National Agencies were as proactive as others, there is likely to have been some uneven coverage of the responses. The highest response rates to the Socrates surveys came from Germany and Spain. Italy, Finland and Hungary also had higher than average response rates. This may reflect higher numbers of projects in those countries, or it may be due to National Agencies in those countries promoting the survey effectively. Particularly enthusiastic National Agencies included Spain that proactively supported the survey by including the link on their main website and sending reminders to their projects.

The intervention logic was then translated into a series of meta-level impact indicators2, as presented in Table 1.4 below. The purpose of this was to relate the impact indicators from the programme to the intended high level impacts on European education and training

1 The total number of responses includes 297 responses from the Arion survey. The evaluation focused on the main actions (Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig, Lingua and Minerva). The Joint report focuses on those main actions. Further information on Arion is available in the Socrates II report: Annex to the main report. 2 These were presented in the interim report pp13-17. For more details on the development of the high level impact typology, see chapter three of the main thematic report.

ECOTEC

11

systems. These impacts and impact indicators were used as the basis for the analysis of the Socrates II programme.

Table 1.4 Impacts, judgement criteria and indicators • MAIN INTENDED IMPACT

JUDGEMENT CRITERIA INDICATORS

Increased proficiency in EU languages

Increased proportion of people learning EU languages

% of people learning and speaking EU languages

% of students/learners who can speak a foreign language

Increased (proportion of) teachers engaged in teaching EU languages

Increased (proportion of) teachers able to teach in a foreign language

% of teachers engaged in teaching EU languages

% of teachers able to teach in a foreign language

Increased number of foreign languages taught

No. of foreign languages taught in the EU

No. of LWULT languages taught in the EU

No. of languages included in projects

Added value of programmes in teaching and learning of EU languages

Percentage of projects which have improved access to language and learning resources.

No. of new language learning opportunities or existing opportunities extended to those with specific access needs.

No. of new language teaching materials/language tools developed especially LWULT languages

% of respondents stating that improvement of foreign language skills of staff and young people was a main benefit of the project

% of respondents stating that improvement of language teaching was a main benefit of the project to the organisation

% of respondents stating that improvement of language teaching skills was a main benefit of the project to the staff

ECOTEC

12

• MAIN INTENDED IMPACT


Additionality of programmes %.of respondents stating that improvements in language teaching/learning and skills were a main benefit also stating that their project would not have taken place (all at or in part) without EU funding

As a % of all such institutions?

• Improvements in teaching (and teacher training) practice, approaches to learning and management

Curriculum impact

Majority of projects reporting a major curriculum impact

% of respondents stating that impact of project activities had been: Major across all curriculum areas. Major in some curriculum areas. Minor in all curriculum areas. Minor in some curriculum areas.


Teacher training impact

Majority of projects reporting that better trained teachers/trainers were a main benefit to their organisation

Majority of projects reporting that improved teaching/training skills were a main benefit to their staff

% of institutions stating that better trained teachers/trainers have been one of the main benefits of the project to their organisation

% of institutions stating that the improvement of teaching/training skills have been one of the main benefits of the project to their staff

Management impact

Majority of projects reporting a major management impacts

% of respondents stating that impact of project activities had been: Major across all areas of management. Major in some areas of management. Minor across all areas of management. Minor in some areas of management.


% of institutions stating that better trained (human resource) managers have been one of the main benefits of the project to their organisation

Means of rates for the added value of the programme on the management in the

ECOTEC

13



department/section and in the organisation

• Convergence of policy and practice between EU Member States, especially in HE

Integration into national/regional policy and practice of methods, tools and frameworks

% of respondents stating that the outputs/results/learning from their projects had been integrated into national/regional policy and practice

Growing convergence (between Member States) in policy and practice in their field of activity

Evidence and/or feedback from policy makers and/or stakeholders that learning/results from the programmes were transferred into policy and practice at European level in the relevant DGs and policy statements, by national and regional ministries responsible for education and by other practitioners (HE institutions, schools, VET providers).

• Greater transparency and recognition % of respondents stating that their activity had contributed to greater transparency and recognition between Member States of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc

Creation of a European education area

Creation of a critical mass of co-operation activity

% of relevant institutions (schools, colleges, higher education institutions) that have participated in co-operation activity

% of students and teachers/trainers with experience of learning or teaching in another EU member state

Distribution and intensity of co-operation activity

Intensity of involvement in co-operation activities by Member States

Majority of project co-ordinators stating that the establishment of a network with institutions from other European countries has been one of the main benefits of the project to their organisations

% of project co-ordinators stating that the establishment of a network with institutions from other European countries has been one of the main benefits of the project to their organisations

ECOTEC

14



Majority of project co-ordinators stating that better contacts with other European institutions has been one of the main benefits of the project to their organisations

% of project co-ordinators stating that better contacts with other European institutions has been one of the main benefits of the project to their organisations

Establishment of sustainable partnerships % of respondents who intend to carry on the partnerships and networks established under the programmes

Significant % of professionals and institutions with a more European 'outlook'/frame of reference

% of institutions reporting a more European 'outlook'/frame of reference as a main benefit to their organisation and staff

Development of self-sustaining communities of interest in lifelong learning at European level

% of respondents who intend to carry on the partnerships and networks established under the programmes

% of project co-ordinators stating that the establishment of a network with institutions from other European countries has been one of the main benefits of the project to their organisations

Social and economic impacts

Increased mobility subsequent to participation

% of responding institutions reporting a positive impact on mobility subsequent to participation

% of students reporting long-term positive impact on their mobility

Increased employment prospects % of institutions reporting positive impact on (a) the employability and (b) the adaptability of participants to the needs of the labour market

% of institutions reporting positive impact on (a) the employability and (b) adaptability to the needs of the labour market of participants from groups facing physical, social or economic disadvantage

% of institutions reporting that the project has improved the employment prospects of participants from groups facing physical, social or economic disadvantage

ECOTEC

15

1.5 Intervention logic for the Socrates II programme

The intervention logic for the Socrates II programme which forms the basis for this evaluation is presented in Figure 1.2 below.

The programme Decision had a focus on contributing to the development of quality education and strengthening the European dimension in education through a variety of global and specific objectives. It emphasised the promotion of lifelong learning (all types of learning and all stages (schools, HE, adult education)) and the building of a Europe of knowledge by opening access. It is important to note that although quality was mentioned in the text of the Decision it was not specifically included in any of the programmes global or specific objectives. It was therefore not operationalised in the logic of the programme. Furthermore, all of the Socrates II Actions used the Socrates specific objectives as their global objectives. Some of the Actions then had their own specific objectives that mentioned quality of education, however because there was no reference to quality in any of the global objectives in Socrates II this indicated a logical disconnection with the overall logic model. The Decision provided no definition of quality; and to our knowledge a measure of quality was ever defined. This also means therefore that measuring impact on quality was imprecise. In the evaluation therefore any discussion of quality had to be based on qualitative feedback.

These global and specific objectives were pursued through a set of operational objectives namely: supporting individual mobility; facilitating exchange through networks; promoting languages and ICT skills; promoting transnational partnerships aimed at developing innovation and quality of education and the development and updating of reference material and data. With regard to these activities, it is notable that there is a dominant focus on individuals and on small scale bottom-up activities that meet very localised needs. Much of the activity is concerned with co-operation, which is seen as an end in itself, to the extent that in some cases the act of transnational co-operation is seen as more important than what the co-operation was for. Both mobility activities and the networks and partnership formed as a consequence of the programmes have this ethos.

The consequence of this when it comes to establishing the effects is that there is a predominance of intangible outputs, results and impacts. Intangible effects can be harder to establish and hence present a challenge for the evaluation. For example, the benefits of transnational co-operation are not necessarily seen in terms of skills acquired or good practice exchanged (and then put into practice) but in terms of “widened horizons” or having a more “European outlook', which are hard to measure except in terms of the individual participants' perceptions. Similarly, most networks and partnerships in Socrates were not designed with the intention that they produce tangible products, but rather that

ECOTEC

16

they identified needs and “distil what exists"; solutions would be developed through separately funded projects.

A further consequence of the nature of the programmes is that whilst outputs were relatively easy to specify, this was not true of results and impacts, which were quite challenging to reconstruct. For example, if co-operation is an end in itself, what are the results of this activity, and, more difficult still, the impacts? At the same time, co-operation is likely to generate other effects, such as effects at institutional level or improvements in teaching practice within a school (as a result of a transnational placement), which it is helpful to see as what we might term second order or “induced” effects. Many of the effects we identified through the process of reconstructing intervention logics effects flow directly from programme activity (as when a teacher returns to their school and changes their teaching practice) or were clearly anticipated in the execution of the programme if not being an explicit goal. Thus we used the distinction between first order and second order (or “induced” effects) during the course of the evaluation to help to make an accurate evaluation of achievements.

Finally, the design of the programmes, and the emphasis on small scale local activities made it very difficult to judge impact in terms of the effect on “populations” at large (the word “populations” is used here in the statistical sense rather than the demographic one). For example, one of the global objectives of Socrates was to promote lifelong learning, but it would be very difficult to demonstrate that the programmes had had an impact on participation in lifelong learning and hence on the benchmark indicator relating to this. Similarly, it would be practically impossible to examine the contribution that the programmes had made to improvements in the quality of teaching and learning.

ECOTEC

17

Figure 1.2 Intervention logic of the Socrates II programme 2000-2006 according to the Decision No 253/200/EC

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES

To achieve the above objectives in relation to: • school education (Comenius) • higher education (Erasmus) • adult education and other educational pathways (Grundtvig) • teaching and learning of languages (Lingua) • open and distance learning and ICT in the field of education

(Minerva) • observation and innovation • joint actions with other programmes, especially LdV and Youth • accompanying measures

GLOBAL OBJECTIVES

• To contribute to the promotion of a Europe of knowledge through the development of the European dimension in education and training

• To promote lifelong learning based on formal and informal education and training

• To support the building up of the knowledge, skills and competences likely to foster active citizenship and employability

IMPACTS People • Increased mobility subsequent to participation • Improved employment prospects • Improved quality of life Practice • Improvements in teaching practice and management on account of transnational placements of

individuals and on account of enhanced co-operation amongst institutions • Increased teaching and learning of EU languages • Improved teacher training • Improvements in the quality of teaching and learning • Development of self-sustaining communities of interest at European level Policy • Convergence in policy and practice between EU Member States, especially in HE • Greater transparency and recognition (higher education) • Integration into national policy and practice

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

• Strengthening the European dimension in education • Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources

while promoting equal opportunities • Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly

those less widely used and taught • Promoting co-operation and mobility in education • Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials

and to explore matters of common policy interest

INPUTS

• 1.850 million Euro

RESULTS • Increased and sustained co-operation amongst institutions • Greater sharing of good practice across Member State boundaries • Increased intercultural awareness of participants in transnational placements • Improved knowledge, skills and competences of students on transnational placements • Improved knowledge, skills and competences of teachers and trainers on transnational placements • Wider access to frameworks, tools and methods for assessment, validation, certification, transparency and

recognition • Improved information and support services (adult learners) • Greater knowledge, skills and competences likely to foster active citizenship and improve employability

OUTPUTS

• Transnational placements for students, teachers and trainers • Networks, platforms and partnerships • Projects • New study courses and programmes • New frameworks, tools and methods for assessment, validation,

certification, transparency and recognition • Innovative learning methods and curricula, inc use of ICT

ECOTEC

18

1.6 Scope of the evaluation

The time and resources available for the evaluation were limited compared to the number of Actions covered; therefore this required that some choices had to be made regarding the scope and emphasis of the study. Comenius, Erasmus, Grundtvig, Lingua and Minerva can be seen as the main Actions within Socrates II, as they incorporated the majority of project work and EU funding for the programme. Consequentially these Actions were the focus of our evaluation. The remaining Actions of the programme (Observation and Innovation, Joint Actions and Accompanying measures) are therefore not systematically covered by the evaluation. However where possible references are made to these Actions to illustrate specific points.

The focus of the evaluation is thus very much on establishing the impacts of the programmes as a whole and their potential contribution to Lisbon. We were not attempting to replicate the depth of analysis for the individual programmes or Actions that can be found in the previous evaluations where individual budgets were relatively larger. Rather we concentrated on building on existing evaluations, covering a number of key evaluation questions and on extracting lessons for the future.

1.7 Structure of the report

The remainder of this report contains:

• Section two: Relevance. This section provides an overview of the aims and objectives of the Socrates II programme, presents the needs analysis, and assesses the programme’s relevance, coherence and complementarity;

• Section three: Effectiveness. This section provides an overview of the activity funded

through the programme, and provides an analysis of objectives, target audiences, and outputs;

• Section four: looks at the results and impacts and addresses utility and value for money;

and

• Section five: Conclusions and Recommendations.

The annexes contain the intervention logics by Action (Annex One), the annual priorities in calls for proposals (Annex Two) and a full set of the programme data collected on the Socrates II programme (Annex Three). A full set of survey responses for the surveys of the different Actions is presented in Annexes Four to Ten. The project cases developed for Socrates II are presented in Annex Eleven. Copies of all the research tools used are in Annexes Twelve and Thirteen.

ECOTEC

19

2.0 Relevance

2.1 Introduction

This chapter examines the relevance of the Socrates II programme within the context of European educational needs 2000-2006. It draws on information collected during the inception phase through document and data analysis and in-depth interviews with co-ordinators1, partners, National Agencies and stakeholders2 and responses to the surveys.

2.2 The changing context of education in Europe

Accelerating globalisation, the continuing transformation of the world of work and the rapid evolution of traditional social and cultural patterns are fundamentally changing the context within which European education and training systems must develop. The past is an increasingly unreliable guide to the future. Changes in technology, markets, regulation, global politics, the environment, demographics, markets and the expectations of employees place adaptability and innovation at a premium – in business and public policy alike.

International trade and investment play a major role in Europe’s economy and world trade is increasing at a rate which exceeds production, indicating the growing interdependence of national economies and the growing complexity of economic, social and political relations. Even in public services de-regulation has led to the growing internationalisation of local provision.

In this increasingly fierce global environment it has long been clear that the “low road” strategies of cost leadership, speed, and standardisation cannot build sustainable competitive advantage for Europe. Rather Europe needs to compete by utilising its innovative potential to the full. European diversity can be a source of creativity. Companies (including public sector institutions) need to reinvent their products and services on an almost continuous basis and in ways that can’t easily be imitated by their competitors. The speed at which companies can translate the creativity, experience and tacit knowledge of employees at all levels (and that of other stakeholders such as customers and suppliers) into a shared resource for innovation becomes a major determinant of competitive success. This “high road” alternative is often referred to as the “knowledge economy”, and it is this paradigm which underpins the EU’s Lisbon Strategy. This poses challenges at several levels, as follows.

1 ‘co-ordinators’ includes project promoters and Erasmus co-ordinators (mobility) 2 ‘stakeholders’ are people with a good knowledge of the education field and Socrates II programme. They include members of Commission staff, EACEA staff, Working Group members, experts and evaluators.

ECOTEC

20

The workplace

The knowledge economy is characterised by approaches to management and work organisation that represent a distinctive break with the past, and which require new sets of competencies from workers at all levels. Job design increasingly emphasises the exercise of discretion and problem solving, as well as technical polyvalence. Teamwork, with strong emphasis on communication, planning and self-regulation is becoming the cornerstone of work organisation. Employee involvement in continuous improvement and innovation is increasingly seen by managers as a principal goal of organisational culture and practice. ICTs transform the nature of jobs and of workplaces themselves, creating vast potential for the wider distribution of knowledge and decision-making (and also for its opposite). Workplace partnership bridges the divide between strategic knowledge and tacit knowledge in corporate decision making.

Such changes in job design and the organisation of work have profound implications for education as well as vocational training. While technical skills are increasingly time limited, generic competencies such as communication, team-working, problem solving and creativity are at a premium in the knowledge workplace as is the ability to learn itself.

Information and communication technologies (ICTs)

The use of ICTs has become commonplace in even the smallest businesses in many parts of Europe’s economy, imposing new skill requirements on employees working in a wide range of functional areas. Critically businesses are realising that knowledge of ICTs is required not just by the specialist workers who use such technologies directly, but by managers and associated employees who need to understand their potential in ensuring efficient business processes.

The growth of home-based working made possible by ICTs can offer flexibility and other benefits to individuals seeking to balance work and family life, and to companies wishing to retain skilled employees. However it also requires enhanced levels of ICT competence as well as self-management capability.

ICTs also support the drive for greater numerical and functional flexibility in the use of labour, with ambiguous consequences for employees. Existing information technologies are already capable of automating a significant proportion of service functions with significant implications for employment in many sectors. In short, the growth of ICTs will mean that many workers will face significant changes in employment in the medium term future. The challenge for education is to enhance versatility and the ability to learn throughout the workforce.

Working life

Restructuring, takeovers and mergers, downsizing and the geographical mobility of enterprises have significantly undermined expectations of job security, as well as undermining trust and loyalty to individual employers. Workers are now well advised to be

ECOTEC

21

more proactive in ensuring their own employability through active participation in lifelong learning (both inside and outside the workplace) and in building a wide range of work experience. Jobs which offer opportunities to build ‘career capital’ through learning, high levels of discretion, diversity of experience and personal network building will be increasingly sought after.

In particular the focus on rationalisation and downsizing has worsened the situation for certain risk groups, notably older workers often regarded as unable to learn the use of new technologies sufficiently quickly, or to adopt new business philosophies, methods or practices. This is despite the decline in numbers of young people entering the labour market in many Member States, and despite increasing evidence that lifelong learning can enhance and prolong the productive contribution of older employees in the workplace.

Evidence of increasing polarisation within the labour market poses considerable challenges, not least for lifelong learning. In many parts of Europe job growth is apparent both in knowledge-based occupations and in relatively unskilled employment. However the flattening of organisational hierarchies and increasing ability to automate skilled jobs makes individual progression within organisations and sectors increasingly difficult – the so-called “hour glass economy”.

Demography and migration

Europe’s demographic structure is changing. The proportion of older people has never been greater and life expectancy is longer than ever before. At the same time a birth rate which has declined over several decades means that skilled young workers are becoming a scarce resource in many parts of Europe. Ageing even presents a challenge to the teaching profession itself.

As successive EU policy studies have recognised, developing and utilising the potential of the existing workforce to the full is a priority. In many parts of Europe the percentage of young people entering further and higher education is too low to meet anticipated skills demands, while the neglect of older workers’ potential for learning and development represents a wasted resource. Older workers need to be given every incentive to remain in work beyond the average retirement age, including access to continuing opportunities for learning and development, recognising that the nature of their role and contribution will need to change with greater maturity.

The long term effects of migration, both into and within the EU, remain unclear. Skilled workers entering Europe from elsewhere can certainly relieve specific skills shortages but the wider social and economic implications of large scale population movements are more complex. The free movement of workers within the EU can lead to more efficient labour markets, though it runs the risk of impeding development in the countries of origin by creating sustained labour shortages.

ECOTEC

22

Diversity, citizenship and inclusion

For the education system, difficult challenges are posed by increasingly diverse and multilingual populations, though exposure to cultural differences in the education process may well benefit the next generation of workers in a global economy. However education’s role is not just economic, but is more broadly concerned with the creation of active citizens armed with profound knowledge and understanding of Europe’s diverse and dynamic cultural base. The Council expresses this clearly1 in noting that alongside economic objectives, an important role of education is to promote the humanistic values shared in our societies by fostering democracy, equality and cultural diversity.

Social and economic exclusion wastes resources in a society and economy whose sustainability depends on making the most of the talent and potential of its inhabitants and workforce. Education is at the centre of an inclusive society when it implements systems and procedures to ensure the removal of discrimination and when it meets the specific needs and potential of every individual and group. Particular regard has to be paid in this context to vulnerable groups such as people with special educational needs.

Enlargement

Recent and continuing enlargement of the EU increases the diversity of knowledge, experience and skills on which a sustainable European economy and society can be built. It also increases the range and depth of the challenges – of integration, co-ordination and innovation – that Europe’s education system must meet.

2.3 Needs of education in Europe

Drawing on this analysis of the fast changing and increasingly volatile economic and social environment, education in Europe must become highly responsive to new and emerging needs. The Lisbon agreement recognised the pivotal role of education in equipping Europe’s workforce for a knowledge-based economy and society, and the Council2 considered the general aims which society attributes to education and training to be:

• the development of the individual, who can thus realise his or her full potential and live a good life;

• the development of society, in particular by fostering democracy, reducing the disparities and inequities among individuals and groups and promoting cultural diversity;

• the development of the economy, by ensuring that the skills of the labour force correspond to economic and technological evolution.

1 Council, 14.2.2001, Report from the Education Council to the European Council "The concrete future objectives of education and training systems" 5980/01 EDUC 23. 2 Ibid.

ECOTEC

23

Based on this appraisal, the Education and Training 2010 work programme1 agreed by the Member States’ Education Ministers in 2001 adopted the following concrete strategic objectives. The Actions to achieve these goals are based on 13 specific measures relevant to education at all levels.

Table 2.1 Education and Training objectives 2010 Global Objectives Operational objectives

Global objective 1: Increasing the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems in the European Union

Improving education and training for teachers and trainers; Developing skills for the knowledge society Maintaining the ability to learn; Ensuring access to ICTs for everyone Using networks and resources Increasing the recruitment to scientific and technical studies Making the best use of resources

Global objective 2: Facilitating the access of all to education and training systems

Creating open learning environment Making learning more attractive Supporting active citizenship, equal opportunities and social cohesion

Global objective 3: Opening up education and training systems to the wider world

Strengthening the links with working life and research, and society at large Developing the spirit of enterprise Improving foreign language learning Increasing mobility and exchanges Strengthening European co-operation

The critical task is to ensure awareness of the importance of education to the Lisbon process amongst all actors, to ensure that the priority for learning at all stages of life is adequately resourced, and to promote the innovation and sharing of good practice necessary to achieve these objectives. This has implications at all levels of education in Europe, and these are discussed in detail below. In particular we focus at each level on:

• primary needs expressed and experienced by individuals and other key actors such as employers;

• system needs, the policies and resources required to address primary needs.

2.3.1 Needs within school education

Clearly schools are seen by the Commission as having a critical role in realising each of the Education Council's three broad aims for education, namely; individual development

1 OJC 142, 14.6.2002, Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe, p.1-22.

ECOTEC

24

and reaching potential; social development, reducing inequities and promoting cultural diversity; and economic development through ensuring skills correspond to needs1.

Schools also play a role in realising the more specific objectives of the Education and Training 2010 work programme which focus on improving quality and opening up education systems2. Notably, the specific measures proposed to achieve these goals emphasise developing skills for the knowledge society, improving foreign language learning and strengthening European co-operation all of which applied to activity in the schools sector. There are two primary needs in schools relevant at the European level:

• Equipping individuals with a new set of basic skills: It was broadly agreed that individuals require a set of basic skills which are appropriate to the new economic and social environment. Alongside traditional literacy and numeracy, basic ICT and foreign language skills are important, together with competences such as social and problem-solving skills, flexibility and adaptability. To contribute to Lisbon, school education should aim to equip young people with the new essential basic skills3.

• The need for school education to promote European citizenship: It was widely agreed that in order for the EU to successfully operate as an economic and social community, each individual should have a good understanding of their rights and responsibilities as a European citizen4. School education had a significant role to play in ensuring that young people gain this understanding from an early age.5

Both the above were clearly areas where programmes in schools could have had an impact. Fulfilment of these two objectives will go some way towards enhancing employability, ensuring that “people's knowledge and skills match the changing demands of jobs and occupations, workplace organisation and working methods"6 and thereby contribute to meeting the primary needs of European employers thus supporting Lisbon.

In addition, five further challenges for school education were identified prior to the programme launch in the European Report on the Quality of School Education7 that were also viewed as needs within the schools sector. These needs were also confirmed by stakeholders in our interviews as important in schools at European level:

1 Council of the European Union, 14.2.2001, Report from the Education Council to the European Council "The concrete future objectives of education and training systems" 5980/01 EDUC 23. 2 OJC 142, 14.6.2002, Detailed work programme on the follow-up of the objectives of education and training systems in Europe, p.1-22. 3 Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2000) 1832, A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning 4 Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2004) 971, Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council for an integrated action programme in the field of lifelong learning, Extended Impact Assessment integrating ex ante evaluation requirements 5 Commission Communication COM (97) 563 final, Towards a Europe of Knowledge 6 Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2000) 1832, A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning 7 Directorate-General for Education and Culture (2000), European Report on the Quality of School Education. Report dated May 2000

ECOTEC

25

• The Knowledge Challenge: The traditional conceptions of 'knowledge' needed to be reconsidered in order to meet the challenge of the knowledge society. This required Action in terms of curriculum content, and in the way the curriculum was delivered and therefore for the content of initial and in-service teacher training. There needed to be "a shift from 'knowledge' to 'competence' and from teaching to learning, placing the learner at the centre."1

• The Challenge of Decentralisation2: The trend across Europe to devolve decision-

making to school level presented challenges in ensuring quality and comparability across the Member States. Mechanisms for quality assurance, evaluation and monitoring were therefore essential in order to ensure equality of opportunity across Europe. This need was given less weight in relation to schools by stakeholders.

• The Resource Challenge: There was also an identified need to make best use of

resources, particularly ICT and new technology. The importance of harnessing the potential of new technologies was also recognised through programmes such as the 2002 eEurope initiative – during the period it was essential that schools exploit these opportunities to their own benefit, and clearly the eTwinning Action of the eLearning programme had the potential to tackle this need.

• The Challenge of Social Inclusion: A further need was related to inclusiveness. Many

young people viewed school structures, curricula and the learning environment as 'irrelevant to their lives'. Attitudes towards 'foreigners' were being potentially affected both by curriculum content and through the structures and culture of schools. Furthermore, the proportion of 25-64 year olds in the EU in 2000 having attained at least upper secondary school level education was just 60.3%3. Halving the number of early school leavers by 2010 was also set as a target by the European Council in Lisbon, and was clearly a responsibility for schools. OECD data from 20074 indicated that attainment of at least upper secondary education was improving throughout the duration of the programmes, rising by ten percentage points to 86% in 2000-20055.

• The Challenge of Data and Comparability: Finally, there was a need for closer

European level collaboration between schools to enable dialogue, partnership, co-operation and collaboration, ultimately contributing towards 'Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality'. Stakeholders in our interviews also agreed that schools must become more open towards collaborating with all relevant partners, on a local, regional and national level, as well as across Europe.

1 Commission Communication COM (2001) 678 final, Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality 2 Directorate-General for Education and Culture (2000), European Report on the Quality of School Education. Report based on the work of the Working Committee on Quality Indicators. 3 Source: Labour Force Survey (2000) in Commission Communication COM (2001) 678 final, Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality, p6. 4 OECD Education at a Glance (2007): Data available at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/17/16/39245042.xls 5 Data is for EU19 only. Baseline figure for 2000 was 76% for EU19.

ECOTEC

26

Finally, the development of language teaching represented a further system need for schools. It was widely recognised that early foreign language teaching is the key to greater fluency later in life1. An important task was to ensure the availability of mother-tongue foreign language speakers in schools since they are able to help children develop their skills beyond the capacity of normal primary or secondary teachers. This was clearly a dimension in which both Comenius and Lingua were intended to have impact in schools.

2.3.2 Needs within higher education

In Europe, higher education (HE) is provided in around 4000 universities catering for over 17 million students and some 1.5 million staff - of whom 435,000 are researchers2. These figures give an indication of the potential of European universities to underpin Europe’s drive for jobs and growth.

The European higher education area is characterised by its diversity of national systems and institutions. The field of higher education is continually evolving as a result of two trends: one moving towards strong competition and differentiation between institutions, and another one more cooperative and convergent.

The efforts made by the European Commission in the field of higher education policy aim at adapting higher education systems, making them more flexible, more coherent and more responsive to the needs of society. Changes are needed in order to face the challenges of globalisation and to train and retrain the European workforce. Those changes should enable universities to play their role in the Europe of Knowledge and to make a strong contribution to the EU Lisbon Strategy.

The Bologna declaration was adopted in 19993 and marked a turning point in the development of higher education in Europe. It established a process for enhanced European co-operation in higher education in which signatories (29 countries at that point, both within and outside the EU, reaching 46 signatories at present4) voluntarily committed themselves to reform their higher education (HE) systems to create overall convergence at European level with the objectives of creating by 2010 a European space for HE which would enhance the employability and mobility of citizens and increase the international transparency and competitiveness of HE itself. It is important to highlight the fact that 'Bologna' is not an EU-steered process; it is driven by the governments and higher education community. The objectives were to adopt a common framework of comparable degrees, a system based essentially on two main cycles (undergraduate, lasting at least three years and relevant to the labour market, and graduate lasting one or two years), a

1 Barcelona European Council meeting, March 2002 and Commission Staff Working Paper (2002) Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity, Brussels, 2002, p8-9 2 Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parliament, Delivering on the Modernisation agenda for Universities: Education, Research and Innovation COM (2006) 208 final, page 3. Data from Eurostat. 10.5.2006 3 See The Bologna Declaration on the European space for higher education: an explanation, 29 February 2000 http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bologna.pdf 4 The latest partner country, the Republic of Montenegro, joining at the London Summit.

ECOTEC

27

system of credits, diploma supplement, common quality assurance criteria and methods, and the elimination of remaining obstacles to mobility for students and teachers. In Prague 2001 the objectives were confirmed and accepted. In Berlin 2003 they were extended with a third cycle (PhD). At Bergen in 2005 the main priorities were reviewed with 2010 in mind and confirmed the focus on the two-cycle degree system, quality assurance, the recognition of degrees and study periods1 and the social dimension and accessibility of higher education were added. Countries have continued to join the process over time, including those from the New EU Member States, but also other states like Russia.

Bologna has become a key process in HE; indeed it “rather than the Lisbon strategy, tends to be at the foreground of national policy development in this sector”2 .

Achieving the "European benchmarks" for 2010, that are at the heart of the Lisbon process, would significantly increase the overall educational level of the European population. However, they alone will not ensure that European education and training systems become a “world quality reference.” In this respect the field of higher education in the EU deserves special attention and efforts due to its importance for labour-force participation, economic competitiveness and growth, being crucial to the success of the Lisbon strategy for 2010.

Lisbon recognises that education and training are critical factors if the EU’s long-term potential for excellence, innovation and competitiveness, as well as for social cohesion is to be sustained3, expanded and enhanced. To achieve these ambitious goals, Member states agreed on thirteen specific objectives covering the various types and levels of education and training (formal, non-formal and informal) aimed at making a reality of lifelong learning, on which the Commission monitors and reports progress on a yearly basis4. The goals, in particular to improve the quality and effectiveness of EU education and training systems and to open up education and training to the wider world, are consistent with the programmes. This is highlighted in the fact that cross-national mobility of students in higher education is related to several indicators used by the Commission to monitor progress towards the Lisbon goals and the Europe Education & Training 2010 Strategy5. In addition, acknowledging the importance of higher education, the 2005 review

1 The European Higher Education Area – Achieving the Goals, Communiqué of the Conference of European Ministers Responsible for Higher Education, Bergen, 19-20 May 2005 http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/educ/bologna/bergen.pdf 2 Modernising Education and Training: A Vital Contribution to Prosperity and Social Cohesion in Europe, 2006 Joint Interim Report of the Council and of the Commission on Progress Under the 'Education and Training 2010' Work Programme, section 2.1.3 3 See also Communication from the Commission « Modernising education and training: a vital contribution to prosperity and social cohesion in Europe ». COM (2005) 549 30.11.2005. 4 The first Commission staff working paper “Progress towards the Common Objectives in Education and Training” was published in January 2004. 5 See Communication from the Commission (2007) A coherent framework of indicators and benchmarks for monitoring progress towards the Lisbon objectives in education and training. Brussels, COM (2007) 61 Final.

ECOTEC

28

of the Lisbon strategy called for European universities to contribute to the creation and dissemination of knowledge throughout the Union1.

European higher education is faced with several important challenges. Globalisation brings increasing competition among Higher Education providers worldwide. Demographic change creates dilemmas relating to an ageing population and immigration flows. The provision of good quality teaching and research is more important than ever, though is often constrained by limited resources. Overall, the challenge of modernising the system of higher education has produced no easy answers.

Governments and higher education institutions across Europe respond to these challenges in different ways, partly because the above mentioned challenges have a different nature in various countries. The scale and the nature of the challenges to be met encourage a coordinated approach at a European level. As the Bologna Declaration sets out, Ministers agreed that building the European Higher Education Area is a condition for enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of higher education institutions in Europe. They supported the idea that higher education should be considered a public good that it will remain a public responsibility, and that students are full members of the higher education community. The aim of the European Higher Education Area is to provide citizens with choices from a wide and transparent range of high quali ty courses and benefit from smooth recognition procedures.

Our analysis concluded that in order to establish European Higher Education Area and to promote European higher education throughout the world, the following needs can be identified:

Specific primary needs for higher education are:

• Creation of a more flexible and open higher education systems to cater for the variety of

learner needs, also in the context of lifelong learning, and provide the right mix of skills and competencies for the labour market in order to increase the employability of graduates.

• Promoting mobility and exchange by overcoming obstacles to the effective exercise of

the rights of free movement and equal treatment. Examples of such obstacles are national regulations, non-portability of student support and recognition of credits. This is seen as the basis for establishing the European Higher Education Area.

• Increasing the attractiveness of higher education, openness and flexibility of learning

and mobility are all well covered by the general aims of Socrates and Erasmus in

1 See Communication to the Spring European Council (2005) Working together for growth and jobs: a new start for the Lisbon Strategy. Communication from President Barroso in agreement with vice-President Verheugen. COM (2005) 4.

ECOTEC

29

particular. Therefore, there were areas where the programmes could have had an impact.

The system needs identified included:

• Promoting the European dimension in higher education, particularly with regard to curricular development, inter-institutional co-operation, mobility schemes and integrated programmes of study, training and research. There is an identified need of ensuring a substantial period of study abroad in joint degree programmes as well as proper provision for linguistic diversity and language learning, so that students may achieve their full potential for European identity, citizenship and employability1.

• Promoting convergence of higher education systems in Europe through the Bologna process and its subprojects on degree structures, credit accumulation and transfer, qualification frameworks etc. so as to take advantage of the improved transparency and flexibility of the higher education degree systems, for fostering employability and facilitating academic recognition for further studies.

• Promoting European co-operation in quality assurance with a view to developing comparable criteria and methodologies, adopting a system essentially based on three main cycles, undergraduate and graduate and establishing a system of credits - such as in the ECTS system – as a proper means of promoting the most widespread student mobility and international curriculum development.

• Continuing efforts to promote inter-institutional collaboration in programme development and joint degrees. With the objective of adopting a system of easily comparable degrees, also through the implementation of the Diploma Supplement, in order to promote the employability of European citizens and the international competitiveness of the European higher education system.

The following were also identified as more recent needs that are of increasing importance and which should shape the future Lifelong Learning programme: • Promoting the attractiveness of higher education and addressing competition from

outside Europe. Ministers of education agreed on the importance of enhancing attractiveness of European higher education to students from Europe and other parts of the world. The readability and comparability of European higher education degrees world-wide should be enhanced by the development of a common framework of qualifications, as well as by coherent quality assurance and accreditation/certification mechanisms and by increased information efforts2.

• Establishing closer co-operation and a framework of shared responsibility between higher education institutions and enterprises and increasing the contribution of higher education institutions to the local and regional needs. Co-operation and dialogue is

1 Realising the European Higher Education Area, Communiqué of the Conference of Ministers responsible for Higher Education in Berlin on 19 September 2003 2 Towards the European Education Area, Communiqué of the Meeting of European Ministers in Charge of Higher

Education, Prague, 19 May 2001.

ECOTEC

30

essential between policy makers, higher education institutions, social partners, together with local and regional bodies, and civil society as a precondition for establishing a Europe of knowledge1.

A number of core aims of the programme, and Erasmus in particular, follow naturally from these identified needs such as to reinforce quality in education and training, to develop the European dimension, notably by encouraging networking and co-operation between institutions and individuals and to increase and improve the opportunities to learn in another country, and to have this experience fully recognised throughout Europe. The contribution of the programme to Member State action is important. The nature of the challenge that Europe faces means that coordinated action and stimulation at European level is likely to be more effective than action at national, regional and local level because it allows a pooling of resources, greater geographical coverage and mobility that encompasses more than one European country and enhances the creation of a European higher education area. The evidence gathered confirmed that at European level the main priorities (reinforcing the European dimension, mobility, the recognition of qualifications and transparency and the quality of education) were reflected in the programme. However as we will see in the next sections, the contribution and emphasis placed by the programme towards their achievement have varied.

2.3.3 Needs within adult education

Adult education is defined by the Commission as "all forms of learning undertaken by adults after having left initial education and training". Thus adult education plays a critical role in lifelong learning and in ensuring the versatility, adaptability and continuing employability of Europe’s workforce.

Adult education needs in Europe are wide-ranging and fluid. Three pressures are particularly important in shaping them. First, the large-scale shifts entailed in the transformation of Europe into a knowledge society mean that Europe’s citizens require new skills and new education and training arrangements to deliver them. Better access is needed to both ‘old’ and ‘new’ skills for adults, along with better ways of attaching value to prior learning. Technological innovation is a particular challenge here, with a need for ICT skills and the implications of ICT to be taught and for ICT to be used more extensively as a tool in adult education. The Integrated Guidelines for Jobs and Growth2 place considerable emphasis on this point. Guideline 23 (“expand and improve investment in human capital”) argues the need for “efficient lifelong learning strategies open to all…with a view to enhancing participation in continuous and workplace training throughout the life cycle.” Likewise Guideline 24 (“adapt education and training systems in response to new competence requirements”) talks of “easing and diversifying access for all to education and training and to knowledge by means of working time organisation”.

1 Towards a Europe of knowledge, Community Communication, 12 November 1997. 2 European Commission, 2005, COM(2005) 141 final 2005/0057 (CNS)

ECOTEC

31

Secondly, globalisation is driving the formation of a bigger Europe to maintain economic success on the world stage. There is a need to develop a lifelong learning culture based on European citizenship. These goals present challenges. We need to understand better how different qualifications fit together and provide the means of creating a Europe of knowledge which is the world leader in terms of the quality of its education and training systems. New teaching and learning methods are also required to better fit with changing living and working patterns. The formation of a larger European Union also means the advent of new states who face a longer journey on the road to the creation of knowledge societies and whose adult education and training systems tend to be less well developed than current Member States.

Thirdly, the persistence of social exclusion and recognition by policymakers of the potential of education to promote inclusion. Many disadvantaged groups have lower rates of participation in education, including adult education. These groups include migrants, people with disabilities, people with low or no formal qualifications, long-term unemployed and people in unskilled jobs. The Lisbon strategy recognises the need to ‘mainstream’ the promotion of inclusion into education and training policies. In adult education, an important part of this mainstreaming will be the provision of more flexible learning opportunities and a shift from ‘teacher-centred’ to ‘learner-centred’ approaches.

By 2010, the EU average level of participation in lifelong learning should be at least 12.5% of the adult working age population (the 25-64 age groups). This requires an additional 4 million adults participating in lifelong learning.

Specific primary needs for the adult education sectors are in the fields of:

Competitiveness: A more equitable distribution of skills across the population and the acquisition of key non-technical competences by all citizens would help employers respond more effectively to the changing patterns of competitiveness discussed above. Evidence from stakeholder interviews suggests that there is a need to focus on a set of basic or key competencies, (communication, learning to learn, cultural and digital competencies, mathematical and reading skills were highlighted). While this may primarily be of relevance to the schools sector, adult education also has a key role to play.

Demographic change: The Kok reports into the implementation of the Lisbon strategy place particular emphasis on improving the skills and adaptability of those aged over 45. Meeting migrants' needs in terms of language and culture, and the recognition of their competences, will address both economic and social objectives.

Social inclusion: Computer literacy for adults through access to and use of ICTs will enhance employability and economic inclusion.

ECOTEC

32

System needs include:

• Efficient adult learning systems in Member States: integrated within lifelong learning strategies. They should have systems to define priorities and monitor implementation.

• EU co-operation: While it was acknowledged that the Grundtvig Action made a contribution to increasing co-operation and sharing of best practice, stakeholder interviews also indicated a need for still greater co-operation between Member States in the adult education sector.

• Increasing participation rates: removing barriers and promoting demand with a focus on the low-skilled; developing high-quality guidance and information systems based on a more learner-centred approach, as well as targeted financial incentives for individuals and support for local partnerships.

• Ensuring the quality of lifelong learning: teaching methods and materials that take account of specific needs and learning approaches of adults; defining the content and processes for initial training for adult learning staff; addressing the quality of providers through provider accreditation, quality assurance frameworks, and monitoring and evaluation of teaching and learning outcomes; improving delivery through availability of learning sites and childcare locally, open and distance learning services, information and guidance, and tailored programmes and flexible teaching arrangements. There is some evidence from stakeholder interviews that an appropriate balance may not yet have been reached between innovation and mainstreaming of techniques and approached already available.

• Recognition and validation of learning outcomes: inclusion of relevant stakeholders, in particular social partners; improving the quality of assessment methods; reformulating the objectives of education in terms of learning outcomes.

• Investing in the ageing population and migrants: up-skilling and increasing lifelong learning opportunities for older workers; expanding learning provision for retired people; retired people as educators and trainers for adult learning.

• Indicators and benchmarks: Improved data availabili ty and quality; further research and analysis, including trends and forecasts.

A very strong message that emerged from the stakeholder interviews was that the adult education sector faces a particular challenge from the diversity of systems, more so than is the cases for other sectors, such as higher education. The sector is also in an undeveloped state compared with the other sectors, and lags behind in terms of EU policy, although has been less true more recently.

ECOTEC

33

2.4 Cross-sectoral challenges

The preceding discussion of needs in school, higher and adult education draws attention to three recurrent themes: lifelong learning, ICTs and languages. These themes which also central to the changing economic and social context considered at the beginning of this chapter. In this section each theme will be examined in greater depth.

The challenge for lifelong learning

Since the Lisbon meeting of the European Council in 2000, European education policy has tended to focus on the concept of lifelong learning and to consider the education and training sector as a whole, rather than addressing each sub-sector individually. Lisbon placed strong emphasis on the role of lifelong learning in meeting the goal of making Europe a competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy. This was reinforced through subsequent policy documents, strategies and action plans such as the Commission Report on 'The Concrete Future Objectives of Education Systems' and the Commission Communication 'Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality'. Within Socrates, Grundtvig was a strong contributory factor in drawing attention to the importance of the adult education sector, and in giving rise to the first ever Commission policy pronouncement and Action Plan on adult education.

Lifelong Learning needs relate both to the individual (to empower citizens to meet the demands of a knowledge-based society, to enable educators to adapt to the new educational environment and to ensure that employers needs are met through an appropriately skilled workforce) and to society as a whole (to meet the goals and ambitions of the European Union (and candidate countries) to become more prosperous, inclusive, tolerant and dynamic).

The Commission has recognised that "Europe has indisputably moved into the knowledge age (…) Patterns of learning, living and working are changing (…) established ways of doing things must change too".1 We have outlined in brief below the needs which must be met across the spectrum of lifelong learning (in schools, higher and adult education, as well as language and ICT actions and activities) in order to make this change. These should be considered as overarching needs which apply to all of these areas, in addition to the specific sectoral needs we have identified in the individual sections which follow.

Access and Equality

Education and training are recognised as key contributors to the development of social cohesion and the fight against exclusion. Lifelong learning opportunities should be available to all citizens and action should be taken to remove any barriers to access, which might be caused by social, geographical, psychological or other factors. The "seeds of inequality start early in life with participation in initial education a key factor. In 2000, the

1 Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2000) 1832, A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning

ECOTEC

34

proportion of 25-64 year-olds in the EU having attained at least upper secondary level education was just 60.3%."1 It is therefore essential to set in place actions to ensure that appropriate education and training opportunities, together with the necessary support for specific groups, are available across the European Area of Lifelong Learning.

Citizenship

Two equally important aims are identified in the Commission 'Memorandum on Lifelong Learning'2: promoting active citizenship and promoting employability. Education plays an important role in transmitting the values of society, and in promoting a deeper understanding of the European identity. Learners can be supported through education and training to become active citizens and to develop a sense of solidarity and belonging. The Memorandum states that "both employability and active citizenship are dependent upon having adequate and up-to-date knowledge and skills to take part in and make a contribution to economic and social life". Lifelong learning opportunities can help to ensure that citizens have these up-to-date knowledge and skills.

New technologies/ICT

New technologies offer great potential for education and training. It is important to exploit these new technologies to the full and to make them work to meet the requirements of and improve the quality of lifelong learning. This does not only mean equipping institutions with appropriate infrastructure and incorporating the use of new tools and resources into teaching and learning practices. It also involves adapting curricula to ensure that learners are able to gain the skills required in the new information society, and providing training so that teachers are trained in both the use of new technologies and the appropriate methods of teaching others to use them. ICTs are discussed in more depth below.

Mobility

The Commission's 'Action Plan for Skills and Mobility'3 builds on the conclusions of the High Level Task Force on Skills and Mobility. It outlines the steps which must be taken to increase labour market mobility, in order to achieve the Lisbon objectives, which require a skilled and adaptable labour force. The Action Plan highlights the need to adapt education and training systems to boost both occupational (by creating lifelong learning opportunities which are appropriate to the labour market) and geographical mobility (by enabling individuals to develop language and cross-cultural skills). Other essential actions include the development of cross-border recognition of qualifications, competence development strategies for workers and improving information provision. The issue of mobility thus spans the whole of the lifelong learning spectrum.

1 Commission Communication COM (2001) 678 final, Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality 2 Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2000) 1832, A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning 3 Commission Communication COM (2002) 72, Commission's Action Plan for skills and mobility

ECOTEC

35

Modernisation

The Commission has observed that "traditional policies and institutions are increasingly ill -equipped to empower citizens for actively dealing with the consequences of globalisation, demographic change, digital technology and environmental damage."1 Lifelong learning focuses on people, rather than institutions and it is stressed that training and education systems must adapt to take a more learner-centred approach and to offer flexible, tailored learning opportunities to individual citizens at all stages of their lives. This process of modernisation must also include a review of basic skills, to ensure that individuals are equipped with the knowledge and skills which are in demand in the knowledge society. It should also involve a change in the traditional concept of teaching, to facilitate competence development in place of knowledge acquisition. Above all, lifelong learning strategies need to be based on meeting the needs of learners/potential learners, along with those of organisations, communities, the wider society and the labour market.2

Openness and Partnership

Partnership is stipulated as one of the building blocks of a European lifelong learning strategy. "All relevant actors, in and outside the formal systems, must collaborate for strategies to work 'on the ground'."3 It is essential for educational partners, such as business and social actors, to collaborate both on a local/regional level and on a national/European level, to ensure that education and training is developed to fit the context and needs of the knowledge society.

Pedagogy

If the education and training systems are to be adapted to meet the needs of the knowledge society, then it is essential for teachers, trainers and other education staff to be fully supported in order to continue to work in this new environment. The modernisation of education and training systems requires teachers to take a more learner-centred approach. Developments in new technologies and ICT require training in the use and benefits of ICT and multimedia tools, as well as training to enable teachers to impart ICT skills to learners. A step-up in the teaching of languages and cross-cultural skills will depend on the availability of adequately qualified and trained teachers and trainers, as will the promotion of active citizenship. All of these actions depend on changes in both initial and in-service training for teachers, trainers and other education staff to ensure that they are fully and continuously supported in this ever-changing environment.

1 Commission Communication COM (2001) 678 final, Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality 2Commission Communication COM (2001) 678 final, Making a European Area of Lifelong Learning a Reality 3 Ibid

ECOTEC

36

Quality

Respondents to the Commission consultation on lifelong learning stressed the importance of quality and relevance in education and training systems. It was suggested that mechanisms for quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation should be put in place in order to strive "for excellence on an ongoing basis".1 The Commission report, 'The Concrete Future Objectives of Education Systems' stresses that quality should be a priority for the learning process, the teaching process and for instruments and teaching materials. One of the three main areas in the Action Plan on Language Learning is to improve the quality of language teaching and it is widely recognised that education and training tools developed using new technologies must be of high quality.

2.4.1 The ICT challenge

The rapid technological change and widespread use of computers have influenced the way in which learning can be designed and delivered. However, the use of the ICT in education and training systems is still insufficient2. This is due mainly to the fact that educational establishments have to face their own organisational changes before obtaining benefits of the introduction of e-learning solutions. Also, the learners themselves may not be fully capable of using the solutions to improve their skills due to their lack of ICT skills. At the same time, the use of ICT in education is believed to contribute to greater personalisation and individualisation of the learning process, as well as to stressing interaction in the learning process. One of the first emerging needs in the field of e-learning is therefore facing the digital divide and providing learners with new skills.

In order to introduce wider use of the ICT in the education and training systems, the EU faced two challenges, namely the infrastructural and content one. The first relates to the necessary technical arrangements for the introduction of the e-learning solutions, such as connectivity and access to broadband. While the first issue has largely been dealt with, the second issue, which relates to the design and content of the e-learning materials, still remains a challenge. Moreover, despite the value of e-learning and its contribution to the learning process and design and functioning of the education and training systems, there is insufficient evidence on the impact of the ICT on the quality of learning. Therefore, there emerges a need for more research and evaluation, especially in such fields as the development good quality e-learning content and possible obstacles to its development and use and re-use. Also, there emerges a need to further explore the potential of e-learning and its impact on the learning process. This may be achieved by the improvement of access to existing good practices, as well as through encouraging organisational change in education systems (for example, by overcoming traditional vertical approach of the education systems).

1 Ibid 2 Ex ante, p.3

ECOTEC

37

The spread of best practice can also be achieved through facilitation of more structured co-operation in the field of e-learning between the various Community programmes and initiatives and Member States1.

The Commission sees its role in the contribution to the creation of the appropriate market conditions through monitoring of the market developments and safeguarding (intellectual property and data protection). It can also make efforts towards the development of e-learning market and new players such as broadcasters or publishers, and to encourage public private partnerships2. In the context of Socrates, the Commission also sees its role strongly in the area of fostering experimentation and exchange of transnational experience and good practice, for example on teaching methodologies.

2.4.2 The challenge of languages and linguistic diversity

Since the implementation of the second phase of the Socrates II Programme, there has been a growing awareness across Europe of the need to increase and improve linguistic diversity and language teaching and learning across the EU. The European Parliament Resolution of 13 December 2001 called for measures to promote language learning and linguistic diversity. In February 2002, the Education Council invited Member States to take concrete steps to promote linguistic diversity and language learning and invited the European Commission to draw up proposals in these fields. In Barcelona in 2002, Heads of State and Government recognised the need for EU and Member State action to improve language learning and in August of that year, the external evaluation of the European Year of Languages encouraged the Commission to build on the activities and momentum created by the Year through well-focussed policy developments and spread of good practice.

Needs Identified

It is clear that during the implementation period for Socrates II, there has been a strong policy 'push' for action to be taken across the EU in the sphere of languages. In response, the 'Action Plan for Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity 2004-2006'3 was developed. From this action plan, it is possible to determine the objective for individual European citizens as follows:

"The ability to understand and communicate in other languages is a basic skill for European citizens (…) every European should have meaningful communicative competence in at least two other languages in addition to his or her mother tongue."4

1 Ex ante, p.7 2 Ex ante, p. 3 Commission Communication COM (2003) 449 final, Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006

ECOTEC

38

The Action Plan highlights the importance of language skills in an enlarged European Union, in order for citizens to understand and communicate with their neighbours. It stresses that language skills are unevenly spread across countries and social groups and that the range of foreign languages spoken by Europeans is narrow (being limited mainly to English, French, German and Spanish).

Although the Action Plan indicates that "the major share of action to extend the benefits of lifelong language learning to every citizen, to improve the quality of language teaching and to create a more language-friendly environment will need to be borne by Member States", it also outlines within a framework for progress, actions to be taken at European level – both within Socrates II and other programmes and also on a more 'ad hoc' basis. These activities are grouped under three headings:

• Improving and extending life-long language learning

• Making foreign language teaching better

• Creating a more language-friendly environment

While many activities within these headings fall under the sector-specific actions of Socrates II (e.g. making foreign language teaching better through initial and in-service teacher training, funded through Comenius) there is also a clear need for an additional strand of activities which cross the whole spectrum of lifelong learning and/or target specific groups and languages which might be overlooked within formal education sectors' (schools, higher education and adult education) provision. These fall mainly under the heading of 'creating a more language-friendly environment'. The list below outlines broader challenges in the sphere of languages which fall outside of the Socrates II actions relating to formal education sectors (Comenius, Erasmus and Grundtvig) and new technologies (Minerva):

Support for early foreign language learning

It has been recognised that early foreign language learning gives pupils a 'head start' and that early learners become aware of their own cultural values and influences, as well as becoming more open towards and interested in others and developing better skills in their own mother tongue. 43% of primary pupils across Europe already learn another language but this varies greatly between countries1. There is therefore a need to provide better information for parents and teachers of early foreign language learning and to make appropriate resources available for teaching this target group, in a variety of languages.

1 Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2002) 1234, Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity – Consultation

ECOTEC

39

Providing innovative learning opportunities in a variety of languages

It is important that individuals have access to learning opportunities in a wide range of languages, which meet learners' future employment, study and personal development needs and also the needs of industry and commerce. The range of languages on offer should include regional, minority and migrant languages, as well as the languages of our key international trading partners. It is also necessary to develop and improve new and innovative ways of learning languages, such as Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIC) and to provide language teaching that responds to individuals' (special) needs.

Cultural activities to promote languages

Cultural activities outside of the formal learning environment can help to encourage individuals to take up languages or to improve their language skills. Such activities include music, literature and film, as well as events such as festivals, or town-twinning. It is also important to harness the potential of new media (in particular the internet) in terms of language-learning.

Transparency and compatibility

In Barcelona in 2002, heads of State and Government noted the lack of data on citizens' actual language skills and called for a European Indicator of Language Competence. Individuals too (from language learners to employers) require a more transparent system of classifying and comparing language skills and qualifications. The Common European Framework of Reference for Language is a starting-point for action in this area but mechanisms are required to regulate the use of the Framework and teachers and others involved in testing language skills need training in using the framework.

Awareness-raising and information provision

It is essential both to raise awareness of the benefits of language learning and to bring language resources closer to the people who need them. There is currently a lack of information and a level of misunderstanding surrounding language learning – "a quarter of Europeans fear that language learning is too expensive or believe that they are 'not good at languages'"1. Both within and outside of formal systems there is "a considerable unmet demand not only for language lessons but also for information and advice on language learning".2 Information about language products and tools (including those developed through the Socrates II and Leonardo programmes) needs to be more widespread.

1 Commission Staff Working Paper SEC (2002) 1234, Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity – Consultation 2 Commission Communication COM (2003) 449 final, Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity: An Action Plan 2004-2006

ECOTEC

40

Co-operation and sharing of good practice

There is a need for wider co-operation and sharing of good practice and innovation between Member States. Learning from research into language policy needs to be disseminated to relevant audiences. Networks and language communities are therefore to be encouraged, both on a practitioner and policy maker level.

2.5 Needs Summary

Drawing on the Lisbon agreement goals for individual, social and economic development, the Education and Training 2010 work programme set out the following general aims for European education:

• Increase the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems in the EU.

• Facilitate broader access to these systems.

• Open up the systems to the wider world, (not only in geographical terms but also opening it up to the whole social environment surrounding the educational institutions).

These broad objectives can be better understood through examining how they intersect with specific educational sectors in terms of primary and system needs.

Within school education key needs identified at an individual level include improving ICT and language skills and promoting European citizenship. For education systems the main issues to be addressed are: the re-conceptualisation of 'knowledge' as 'competencies', placing the learner and their skills at the centre of the educational process; ensuring quality and equality of opportunity across Europe, despite the devolution of decision -making power to individual school level; effective deployment of new technologies; reorganisation of curriculum, structure and culture of schools to promote social inclusion; and strengthening dialogue and co-operation between schools at a European level.

For higher education priorities are: improving employment outcomes; widening access to participation; encouraging international mobility and exchange; promoting collaboration and convergence of practice amongst EU institutions; incorporating mobility and language learning into higher education courses; encouraging dialogue with local and regional enterprises and social partners.

Within adult education key priority areas identified are: the distribution of skills across the population, particularly focusing on skills in those over 45 years old and migrant populations; increasing computer literacy; recognition and validation of learning outcomes.

As well as the identification of needs within specific educational sectors, it is important to recognise the main emergent needs cutting across these sectors. Lifelong learning, ICT and language learning/diversity were identified as areas with cross-sectional relevance. All

ECOTEC

41

of these needs in the sphere of education should be met by a combination of European action and measures implemented at Member State level.

2.6 Relevance of the Socrates II programme to the needs

The programme’s general and Action-specific objectives were designed to address the challenges and needs discussed above. Stakeholders were in agreement that the Socrates II programme had been well designed in terms of feeding into contemporary issues in European education. Experts highlighted the highly visible and beneficial increase in European co-operation and sharing of best practice stimulated by the programme. The emphasis of the programme as a whole was in improving the quality of all sectors of education by encouraging European co-operation. Emphases were clearly placed on encouraging mobility, creating sustainable networks and producing versatile European tools and courses.

Overall stakeholders agreed that the programmes objectives were extremely relevant to contemporary needs, although they recognised that there were more needs than could be addressed. Interviewees drew attention to the European problem of 'early school leaving' as an area which needed to be addressed more adequately by the programme. Some stakeholders expressed an opinion that the emphasis on innovation within the programme was too strong and would have preferred to have seen the incorporation of more project work which embedded what was already known into mainstream educational policies.

The intervention logic diagram (Figure 1.2), developed through document research and stakeholder interviews, identifies the logic for how the programme intended to intervene in diverse areas of European education and gives an overview of the programme's global, specific and operational objectives.

The primary emphasis on the promotion of a ‘Europe of knowledge’ within the global objectives links with Lisbon objectives. The high level of importance given to lifelong learning and competencies within the global objectives also demonstrate a clear relation to demographic and skills challenges facing the European labour market. As well as indicating the importance of employment outcomes, active citizenship is presented as an equally desirable condition, to be achieved through Socrates II. This reflects the Lisbon agreement's focus on societal development, reducing the disparities and inequities among individuals and groups and promoting cultural diversity. Thus the Socrates II programme design, despite predating it, exhibited potential to contribute to the achievement of the Lisbon strategy.

The specific and operational objectives outlined in the intervention logic (Figure 1.2) demonstrate a strong compatibility with the needs and challenges for education in Europe identified in this review. In particular the organisation of Actions within Socrates II displayed a clear correspondence with the cross-sectional priority areas identified. The Socrates II programme targeted lifelong learning by addressing several phases of

ECOTEC

42

education through separately identified Actions (for example Comenius for schools, Erasmus for Higher Education and Grundtvig for Adult Education). Minerva and Lingua address the two remaining cross sectoral challenges of ICT and language learning. It is questionable whether dividing the Actions up into separate phases of learning would engender lifelong learning in practice. Unless strong links were made between Actions (a point explored below in the section on coherence) this may not have occurred.

Survey results indicated that Socrates II respondents were generally giving most priority to the programme objectives around strengthening the European dimension in education and encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials. Both of these featured in the top three objectives for projects in Actions 1 to 5. The promotion of co-operation and mobility in education was also a key objective across Socrates II respondents. As well as being stated as a top three objective in Comenius, Erasmus and Grundtvig survey respondents, European mobility forms the primary objective and output in Comenius 2.2 and Grundtvig 3.

Table 2.2 Top three Socrates II objectives contributed to by Action Action Objectives

Comenius Strengthening the European dimension in education (78%)

Promoting co-operation and mobility in education (50%)

Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials (44%)

Erasmus Promoting co-operation and mobility in education (73%)

Strengthening the European dimension in education (72%)


Grundtvig Strengthening the European dimension in education (61%)


Promoting co-operation and mobility in education (42%)

Lingua Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught (83%)



Minerva Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials (85 %%)


Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources (42%)

Source: Ecotec Survey 2007, excludes Comenius 2.2 and Grundtvig 3

ECOTEC

43

Given the broad nature of the objectives there is a considerable level of compatibility of the Socrates II programme with the needs and challenges identified for European education in the period 2000-2006. The wide objectives allowed it to be used flexibly to address the needs of a wide audience. However, stakeholders did offer some criticism about the breadth of the objectives on the grounds that it meant less focus, but they also recognised the difficulty of being focused when you are covering such a wide terrain (all the educational sectors).

The evaluator's view is that the global objectives set for Socrates II as a whole were not easily translated into a consistent series of specific and operational objectives against which to measure results and impacts. When we presented the intervention logic for the programme, we noted the difficulties of tracing convincing causal links, suggesting these were poorly understood at the time the programme was designed. This was evident in some degree of mismatch between the aspirations articulated as global objectives and any or all of the impacts that the activity funded might reasonably be expected to achieve. It can also be argued that, in turn, this mismatch compromised the relevance of the programme to the needs of the education sectors, partly through a lack of focus and partly due to the lack of a genuine reflection process to establish the needs.

2.7 Relevance of the annual priorities to the needs

The Socrates II programme objectives were further specified by the annual priorities set in the Calls for Proposals (Table 2.3). These annual priorities complemented but did not replace the permanent priorities which were set out in the Guidelines for Applicants. The annual revision of priorities allowed the programme to be tailored to the dynamic nature of changing needs in the education field in Europe.

Table 2.3 Socrates II: overview of the priorities set out in the Calls for Proposals Socrates II programme – Priorities for all Actions

Call priorities 2001 Information and Communication Technology Projects relevant to the European Year of Languages

Call priorities 2002 Information and Communication Technology Scientific and Technical studies Lifelong Learning

Call priorities 2003 Preparation for the enlargement of the Union Sustainable development Stability and security Future challenges to education and training systems Equal Opportunities Lifelong Learning The eLearning Action plan

Call priorities 2004 Preparation for the enlargement of the Union Sustainable development Stability and security Future challenges to education and training systems and Lifelong learning Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity eLearning Education through sport

ECOTEC

44

Socrates II programme – Priorities for all Actions

Call priorities 2005 Accession of the new Member States to the Union Sustainable development Stability and security Future challenges to education and training systems and Lifelong learning Promoting language learning and linguistic diversity Elearning

Call priorities 2006 Teacher and trainer education Basic skills, foreign language teaching, entrepreneurship Information and Communication Technology in education and training Increasing participation in maths and science Resources and investment Mobility and European co-operation Open learning environment, active citizenship and inclusion Making learning attractive, strengthening links with working life and society

Source: Calls for proposals (2001 – 2004)

The first Call for Proposals was published in 2000 and was for applicants starting their activities in 2001. This Call outlined the role of Socrates II in contributing towards the achievement of the policy objectives set out at the Lisbon Council in 2000 and stressed that the guiding principle for the second phase of Socrates II would be "giving practical expression to the principle of lifelong learning". The Call referred to the importance of activities to exploit the full potential of information and communication technology (ICT) and stressed that Socrates II should be an important player in implementing the Commission's eLearning initiative. Priority was also given to projects concerning topics of relevance to the 2001 European Year of Languages.

In 2002, the Call for Proposals again emphasised the importance of the Socrates II programme in contributing towards the development of the knowledge-based society, as set out at the Lisbon Council. It also referred to the three objectives established in the 2001 report "The concrete future objectives of education and training systems":

• Increasing the quality and effectiveness of education and training systems in the European Union

• Facilitating the access of all to the education and training systems • Opening up education and training systems to the wider world.

Information and communication technology (ICT) was again put forward as a priority, in line with the ongoing eLearning initiative. Following the close of the European Year of Languages, applications were encouraged which built upon the experience of activities organised during the Year. Additional priorities were also added in line with new policy developments. Applicants were invited to consider the message of the Stockholm European Council of 2001, which called for special attention to be given to ways and means of encouraging young people, particularly women, to engage in scientific and technical studies and to encourage teacher training in these fields. Finally, applicants were invited to develop proposals related to formal, non-formal or informal education,

ECOTEC

45

which would take into account the key messages outlined in the 2000 Memorandum on Lifelong Learning:

• New basic skills for all • More investment in human resources • Innovation in teaching and learning • Valuing learning • Rethinking guidance and counselling • Bridging learning closer to home. An additional Call for Proposals was launched in September 2001 for dissemination projects to start in 2002, which would disseminate results from previously supported Socrates II projects.

Several additional horizontal priorities were outlined in the 2003 Call for Proposals: In order to prepare for the enlargement of the Union, it was announced that a policy of positive discrimination towards the candidate countries would to be applied in the selection and funding of projects.

Two general European Commission priorities were highlighted:

• Sustainability (covering economic, societal-cultural and environmental aspects); • Stability and security (through a deepening of intercultural dialogue and co-operation). Applications were encouraged to consider their role in supporting the priority themes set out in the 2000 report on the 'Concrete future objectives of education and training systems' which were: • New technologies • Basic skills • Mathematics, science and technology. In addition to the permanent Socrates II priorities relating to Equal Opportunities, special emphasis was given to projects and activities designed to eliminate barriers to participation for disabled people, in order to acknowledge the 2003 European Year of Disabled People. Following the publication of the Communication 'Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality' in 2001, applicants were also invited to develop and submit projects under the key themes and addressing the target groups described in this Communication. The key themes were: • Valuing learning • Guidance and counselling • Investment in learning • Learning and learning opportunities

ECOTEC

46

• Basic skills • Innovative pedagogy • ICT remained an important priority, in order to ensure the contribution of the Socrates II

programme to the eLearning Action plan. The 2004 Call for Proposals again outlined seven horizontal priorities. Some of these were carried over from the previous year and others were new for 2004. The several priorities were as follows: • The policy of positive discrimination towards applications from the candidate countries

continued. Two general European Commission priorities were again highlighted: • Sustainable development • Stability and Security The Call highlighted the eight thematic activities of the 'Integrated Approach' to the implementation of the report on the 'Concrete future Objectives of education and training Systems' and the resolution on lifelong learning. These were: • teacher and trainer education • basic skills, foreign language teaching, entrepreneurship • information and communication technology (ICT) in education and training • increasing participation in maths and science • resources and investment • mobility and European co-operation • open learning environment, active citizenship, inclusion • making learning attractive, strengthening links with working life and society. The Action Plan on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity was to be published in mid-2003. The Call for Proposals noted that this Action Plan would set out ways in which Socrates II Actions could promote more language learning and better language teaching. eLearning, in the context of the eLearning Action Plan, continued to be a horizontal priority. 2004 was the European Year of Education through Sport. The Call emphasised that the Socrates II programme should support these activities throughout the year. The political priorities of the year 2005 were the same as for 2004. In 2006, the Call again referred to the eight thematic activities of the 'Integrated Approach' by which the Commission policy priorities for education and training were to be implemented. It was also highlighted that transnational projects would be expected to include both valorisation and thematic monitoring activities:

ECOTEC

47

• Valorisation activities: covering the dissemination and exploitation of the expected

results from the project • Thematic monitoring activities: aimed at creating synergies, exchange of experience

and mutual learning among projects working on the same theme in a given Socrates II Action.

Call priorities were also updated annually by Action. Changing priorities reflected topical concerns and issues within the education fields and sectors but also outside (e.g. 'safety and stability'). They also maximised diversity within the work undertaken in each Action. The evolution of Call priorities appears broadly consistent with the programme objectives. In the calls for proposals the increasing emphasis on dissemination and exploitation was also evident in the priorities of the last call. Overall, however, we question the calls on the basis that (a) the range of priorities might have been too large; and (b) they were not specific enough to be priorities but were similar to the programme objectives themselves in their breadth. Some calls also introduced new concepts, such as 'sustainable development' and 'safety and stability'. These are major concepts and it is legitimate to question whether trying to insert them into the programme was very meaningful and really ever had the potential to have much of an effect on activities. A detailed overview of annual priorities for Calls, organised by Action can be found in Annex 2.

2.8 Relevance of the activities to the needs

The Socrates II programme objectives were well reflected in the activities funded under the programme. This conclusion was supported by co-ordinators, stakeholders and National Agencies in Socrates II. National Agencies reported that there was seldom call for them to tailor projects to meet either national or European needs as this had been built into the design of the call and application process. These sentiments were echoed by stakeholders who observed that activities fitted the programme objective well because these were the criteria they were selected upon. This is also the case of the study periods, teaching assignments and exchange opportunities, implemented under Socrates II, which responded to the need of promoting mobility in Europe.

At school level, stakeholders, nationally and at European level agreed that the activities funded in schools were relevant and did reflect what was needed in schools. Specific mention was made of schools (and adult education), in particular in terms of the need for an international outlook. One stakeholder highlighted that schools participating in a European programme and willing to work in a European setting are often those schools that see the ‘bigger picture’ and thus are more able to link their project into existing needs and objectives. Stakeholders recognised that a minority of projects may not have delivered as planned, and therefore not been as relevant as they could have been to the programme objectives.

ECOTEC

48

Specific mention was made of adult education in National Agency and stakeholder interviews in terms of the need for an international outlook. Any tailoring that did take place generally occurred at the sub-programme/Action level, where for example National Agencies directed applicants in certain directions to fit national priorities and needs. Stakeholders voiced some concern that although on paper the projects' activities may fit programme objectives and needs well, there was enormous variation between the quality of activities and outputs. In Grundtvig specifically, it was noted that the concept of networks did not function well; they were too expensive, did not represent value for money compared with alternative instruments and showed too little evidence of useful results. This view finds some support in the Grundtvig Interim Evaluation which noted that: "G4 networks have been less efficient at disseminating information and would be more effective if redesigned and possibly operated by National Agencies".

The programme fitted well with the identified needs in higher education and it stimulated co-operation in the higher education sector across Europe. Socrates, through the Erasmus Action in particular, offered a wide range of measures designed to support the 'European dimension' of higher education, by encouraging co-operation between higher education institutions, promoting the mobility and exchange of their teaching staff and students, and improving transparency and academic recognition of studies and qualifications. Furthermore, by facilitating mobility, the programme potentially contributed to the achievement of the Lisbon goals and the Europe Education and Training 2010 Strategy. There is an underlying assumption that given the number of people benefiting from Erasmus the programme will have had an impact on the skills and knowledge of people arriving on the labour market and their mobility and, consequently, a potential impact on the performance of the European economy in general and the objectives of the Lisbon strategy. Evidence collated in previous evaluations that focused on the professional value of Erasmus mobility indicated that a high percentage of Erasmus students saw their first job search as having benefited from participation, that there was far higher mobility in jobs and a stronger international dimension to the work found by Erasmus students as result of their participation.

The following Table 2.4 illustrates how the operational objectives of Socrates II linked to intended activities.

ECOTEC

49

Table 2.4 Objectives and activities of the Socrates II programme

Operational objectives Activities Comenius 1 To support school partnerships Decentralised Action, managed by National Agencies

Transnational school partnerships Transnational school partnerships (with language emphasis) Transnational school partnerships (with school development emphasis) Comenius language assistant study periods Pupils engage with new cultural issues/knowledge Pupils acquire new language skills Pupils use ICT technologies Reciprocal pupil exchange Knowledge exchange (school management and pedagogical approaches)

Comenius 2 To support the training of teachers and other school educational staff C2.1: Transnational co-operation projects. Centralised Action, managed by Commission C2.2: Individual mobility activities. Decentralised Action, managed by National Agencies

Networks sharing best practice on the improvement of quality in school education/teaching methods/management/guidance Staff mobilised to attend training activities Design of training tools and methodologies Design of common programmes and curricula Design of international training courses Comenius language assistant study periods

Comenius 3 To support the development of networks Centralised Action, managed by Commission

European co-operation on thematic topics Sharing best practice Communication, activities and information exchange between schools Production of reports on thematic topics Dissemination activities

Erasmus 1 To support multilateral co-operation projects between higher education institutions Centralised Action, managed by Commission

Transnational partnerships involving knowledge exchange/sharing of best practice Production of jointly developed study programmes (modules/courses) and intensive programmes

Erasmus 2 To provide mobility opportunities for students and teaching staff in higher education institutions throughout Europe Decentralised Action, managed by National Agencies

Student mobility Teacher mobility Personal/professional development Exchange of knowledge, expertise, pedagogical methods Organisation of mobility (ECTS and Diploma Supplement) Language training for students

Erasmus 3 To support co-operation between higher education institutions, private sector and civil society Centralised Action, managed by Commission

Production of large sustainable networks Sharing best practice/knowledge exchange Production of professional handbooks/material Transnational working groups Dissemination activities Mapping current educational practices Updating competencies

ECOTEC

50

Operational objectives Activities Involving public sector/professional partners in higher education dialogue

Grundtvig 1 To support European co-operation projects Centralised Action, managed by Commission

Production, testing, appraisal/ dissemination of new products/materials approaches to teaching and learning Transnational research Production of initiatives for the training of adult educators Sharing of knowledge/best practice between European institutions Comparative analyses of policy/management models Development of indicators/databases of good practice in formal/non-formal/informal adult learning Development and dissemination of funding models/ strategies to stimulate demand for adult learning Testing of methods for valuing knowledge and competencies acquired by adult learners Development of guidance and counselling tools

Grundtvig 2 To support the exchange of experience through transnational learning partnerships Decentralised Action, managed by National Agencies

Knowledge exchange/sharing of best practice Creation of sustainable networks, particularly involving local/regional social partners in adult education Partner meetings/seminars Project research Drafting, publishing and disseminating documentation on the co-operative activities Self-evaluation activities Linguistic preparation for participants

Grundtvig 3 To facilitate the training of adult education staff abroad Decentralised Action, managed by National Agencies

Staff mobilised to attend training courses/study periods or observation periods/conferences and seminars. Professional development Dissemination of knowledge exchanged within home institution

Grundtvig 4 To support the development of European platforms in adult education for the exchange of information, shaping policy and research Centralised Action, managed by Commission

Establishing/maintaining websites Annual meetings in thematic areas Comparative studies/analyses/recommendations Creation of sustainable thematic networks Mapping of recent developments

Lingua 1 To promote language learning Centralised Action, managed by Commission

Awareness raising of multilingual character of the Union Dissemination of information on good practice in language teaching, particularly amongst policy makers Information campaigns via various media Involvement of existing networks Promotion of language learning in public venues Pilot projects, including information exchange and the networking of language learning resource centres Production of seminars/conferences

ECOTEC

51

Operational objectives Activities Specialist publications

Lingua 2 To develop tools and materials for language teaching and learning Centralised Action, managed by Commission

Creation, adaptation, refinement or exchange of: -educational media and material for foreign language teaching, as well as raising awareness of languages -methods and tools designed to evaluate and recognise language skills -curricula

Minerva 1 Supporting the exchange of ideas and improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models on the organisation of learning/teaching and/or on the learning process experience Centralised Action, managed by Commission

Action research Observational methodologies Comparative analysis Targeted studies at a European level

Minerva 2 Designing, developing and testing new methods and educational resources Centralised Action, managed by Commission

European co-operation in research Development of generic, transferable tools and resources

Minerva 3 Providing access and supporting dissemination Centralised Action, managed by Commission

Utilisation of existing networks Production of dissemination materials/strategies Maintenance of web-based materials

Minerva 4 To support the exchange of ideas and experience relating to ODL and the use of ICT in education Centralised Action, managed by Commission

Activities networking resource centres, teacher training institutions, experts and decision-makers Facilitation of conferences/workshops/fora/summer universities Sharing best practice/knowledge at European level

As Table 2.4 illustrates, activities carried out within Socrates II were extremely diverse, addressing multiple issues and needs within education and training. Stakeholders noted particular focus in increasing transnational co-operation between institutions and sharing of best practice at a European level. Co-ordinators across all Actions reported a good match between operational objectives and activities undertaken. Almost all project co-ordinators and partners responding in the surveys and interviews observed their projects and activities' success in achieving the primary objectives of their Action. However, qualitative responses revealed that co-ordinators often found it hard to give explicit examples of the achievement of objectives, due to the grand nature of given objectives

ECOTEC

52

and the time it takes to realise goals of this nature. As this Comenius 2.1 project co-ordinator describes:

'Active citizenship and social cohesion were absolutely central outputs of our project. We were part of a strong UK movement making people aware of the situation in schools [the reality and root of violence within the school environment]. I believe we will start to see the results of our work over the next decade…it takes time to filter through'.

2.9 Internal coherence

During the course of the evaluation it became clear that the number and wide varie ty of Actions and sub-Actions had in practice fragmented the programme. The Actions had successfully developed their own identities, some almost becoming a brand (e.g. 'Erasmus'). This 'success' of the strong identity of the individual Actions had the effect of relegating the Socrates 'identity' to second place. Even the participants in the programme seemed sometimes confused about the relation between Socrates II and its constituent Actions (e.g. statements such as "I never received any funding from Socrates. But I have been involved in other programmes like Tempus, Erasmus and Minerva" were initially received as a response to our email inviting people to complete the survey). One of the challenges of the evaluation was to report on the results and impacts at programme level, given the diverse nature of the different Actions. This is also reflected on the way that the Actions were managed and organised at Commission level. In terms of internal coherence, this evaluation echoes the recommendation of the interim evaluation of Socrates that called for a better synergy and coherence between the Actions. The evidence suggested a lack of interrelation between the Actions which could be seen as limiting the cross-cutting activity needed to address the identified education needs and give adequate relation to the concept of lifelong learning. The structure of the programme was also an obstacle to providing the right level of support for policy developments in the fields of education and training in a co-ordinated way.

2.10 Complementarity

Socrates II was based on a wide range of Actions covering all fields and people. These Actions were translated into a large number of projects and mobility activities directly involving individual and institutions. The programme brought the 'European dimension' closer to the beneficiaries and widened the reach of the programme. Evidence suggested that in general, there was a considerable level of complementarity to other European and national initiatives. Stakeholders and National Agencies responded positively to issues of complementarity within Socrates II and co-ordinators displayed a good understanding of various programmes, often having experience of working in diverse European programmes. Providing a complete list of areas where this complementarity existed would be challenging; however, the following areas of convergence can be mentioned:

ECOTEC

53

The Socrates II programme had the potential to overlap with eLearning (and the eTwinning Action). During in-depth interviews, stakeholders highlighted that the eLearning programme and Minerva were clear in their intention not to duplicate one another. While Minerva focussed on innovation and pedagogy in ICT, and had a very broad focus, eLearning had a more strategic focus on particular Actions and on generalising activity which had been tried and tested and proven to work. In reality, Minerva worked predominantly within higher education, whereas the majority of eLearning activity focussed on schools, with other funds allocated to activity in a variety of sectors and with specific target groups. In addition, Minerva projects tended to be smaller in size (grants of around 150.000 Euro per year), while eLearning projects were larger and more strategic (for example the average size of Virtual Campuses projects was half a million Euros). Cross-fertilisation and the sharing of experience was encouraged. For example, the Executive Agency organised joint meetings for Minerva and eLearning project co-ordinators.

In terms of school level projects, the Comenius programme and the eTwinning part of the eLearning programme complemented each other well. Qualitative feedback suggested that often applicants would use eTwinning as a stepping stone towards applying for Comenius funding. This coherence has been demonstrated going forwards in the new Lifelong Learning programmes where the two Actions have been brought more closely together. The interim evaluation of Comenius1 indicated that the programme should endeavour to forge closer links with other Socrates II Actions and the Leonardo da Vinci programme, although it was not clear during the evaluation whether this had occurred.

National Agencies and other stakeholders were again positive about the complementarity of the programmes to other European and national schools level policy, primarily because the programmes were general enough to be able to do so. No issues around duplication were raised in relation to the school sector. The focus of the programmes on the European dimension in particular could be seen as complementary since internationalisation of the school sector is prioritised in many national policies (for example the Netherlands). However in some countries, this was not always felt to be a priority, given other national policy pressures (for example in the UK).

No specific issues were identified for adult education (Grundtvig). However, the majority of the positive comments recorded focus on internationalisation, which may have less relevance to adult education, compared with other sectors. It was noted by one National Agency that Erasmus was ahead of the other Actions in terms of complementarity. On the whole, the stakeholder consultation collected a diverse set of views on complementarity, including criticisms from the UK in particular.

In higher education, the focus of the programmes on the European dimension in particular could be seen as complementary since internationalisation of higher education sector is prioritised in many member state national policies. This aspect was particularly highlighted

1 Comenius 1 mid-term evaluation 2000-2003 (2004), interim evaluation of the Comenius 2 Action under the Socrates II programme 2000-2002 (2003) and Interim evaluation of Comenius networks 2001-2 (2004).

ECOTEC

54

by the new EU Member states which are still in the middle of the process and their education systems are currently changing in order to focus more on languages and European issues. In the responses from a number of the new Member States there was a clear theme emerging around improving and/or modernising the education system and they felt the programmes did have the ability to help them do this; in terms of sharing best practice and learning from other countries and therefore adding value to their national initiatives.

However whilst programmes are complementary, there was no clearly formalised links between them so they run the risk of running in isolation from one another.

2.11 Additionality

As far as subsidiarity is concerned, the programme focused on promoting co-operation between Member States in the field of education. It did not attempt to intervene in the structure and content of national education and training systems but focused on areas where European added value could be achieved.

Most of the activity supported by the programme can be viewed as additional to what would have taken place without it. The majority of institutions participating in the programme (85% in Comenius, 72% in Erasmus, 83% in Grundtvig, 78% in Lingua and 69% in Minerva) felt that their activity would not have taken place without funding from the Commission. This evidence provides a strong indicator that activities funded were additional to their core activities. The nature and scale of the mobility opportunities (students and teachers) provided by the programme were clearly additional to other mobility opportunities. In fact, the Erasmus Action can also be considered the precursor of other consequent mobility opportunities.

Where activities would have occurred without Socrates II funding, qualitative feedback gave an insight into the important dimensions which additional EC funding had brought to the projects. This was particularly the case for Erasmus networks, most of whom stated that a network of experts would exist independently of EC funding. Co-ordinators highlighted that EU funding played a vital role in building international relationships and strengthening co-operation through increasing the face-to-face contact of participants in meetings, working groups and conferences and widening reach by involving a higher number of participants from a wide range of actors/organisations. In many interviews, particularly with Comenius schools projects, interviewees took the 'Any further comments?' question as an opportunity to thank the European Commission for funding such projects, mentioning explicitly that they would not have been able to undertake such a project without the Comenius funding and support. This suggested that within many countries international schools activities are led by Comenius funding since we did not find evidence of extensive national programmes to enable transnational partnerships between schools. In that sense the activities funded by the programme were additional to activity that would have taken place anyway.

ECOTEC

55

In the case of mobility, in most of the countries the EU student grant is complemented by national, regional or institutional grants. In the table below is listed the principal source of complementary public/institutional funding per country. Countries can have more than one type of complementary funding but the list below shows only the main type. However this does not provide enough information on the amount of funding, which can vary considerably even between countries with similar type of systems1:

Type of complementary funding

Country

Public student loan/grant systems

DE, DK, CY, FI, IE, IS, MT*, NL, NO, UK, SE

Special national/regional funds AT, BE(Fr), BE(Fl), CZ, EE, ES, FR, HU, LI, LT, PT, SK

Funding from HEIs ES, PL, LV, GR, IT

Phare funds RO, SI

No complementary funds BG**, LU

* Only for undergraduate students. ** Occasional institutional funding.

Evidence gathered show that clearly without the European funding provided by the programme less people would have moved within Europe and, the additional funding provided by national, regional and local initiative and private bodies would have stopped, or even not have existed, without the EU contribution. This would have an impact on aspects such as European citizenship and the competences of the workforce (capacity for mobility, language proficiency).

1 Data from the report Erasmus Student and Teacher Mobility 2003/2004.

ECOTEC

56

3.0 Effectiveness

3.1 Introduction

This section focuses on the contribution of activities funded to the achievement of the programme and considers outputs, target audiences and dissemination. It draws on information collected through document and data analysis and in-depth interviews with National Agencies, stakeholders, co-ordinators (including Erasmus co-ordinators involved in organising mobility) and partners, as well as the project scrutiny and responses to the surveys.

3.2 Programme objectives

The reconstruction of the intervention logic discussed the linkages between the global and specific objectives of the Socrates II programme and its Actions. Overall, the objectives had a focus on contributing to the development of quality education1 and strengthening the European dimension in education. It emphasised the promotion of lifelong learning (all types of learning and all stages (schools, HE, adult education) and the building of a Europe of knowledge by opening access. These objectives were pursued through supporting individual mobility; facilitating exchange of information and expertise through networks; promoting languages and ICT skills; promoting transnational partnerships aimed at broadening participation, developing innovation and quality of education and the development and updating of reference material and data.

Overall, the most commonly cited objective was around strengthening the European dimension in education, followed by the objective of encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials. Most of the respondents reported working towards more than one objective which was to be expected given the complementary nature of the objectives. It is notable that comparatively few respondents listed the exploration of matters of common policy interest amongst their top three objectives.

However, there are significant variations across the Actions that reflect the differing priorities, as follows:

In Comenius the European dimension was clearly the pre-eminent objective (at 80%) with none of the other objectives being mentioned by a majority of respondents. A further one half cited the promotion of co-operation and mobility. The promotion of languages was significantly more common than in all other Actions except Lingua.

In Erasmus the European dimension and mobility promotion were cited by nearly three quarters of respondents (72% and 73% respectively). Compared to the other Actions, the encouragement of innovation in educational practice and materials was not a key feature.

1 Although there was not specific objective dealing with 'quality' in education.

ECOTEC

57

In Grundtvig European co-operation and innovation appear to have been equally important. Equal opportunities was also much more prominent than in the other Actions. The promotion of equal opportunities scored highly (42%) as an objective compared to the average response (19%). This reflected the emphasis within Grundtvig upon widening access to educational opportunities and targeting educationally disadvantaged adult groups. It is also noteworthy that nearly one in five projects gave exploration of matters of common policy interest as a top three objective – double the Socrates average.

In Lingua, not surprisingly the promotion of knowledge of EU languages was most common, along with innovation: a significantly higher percentage (83%) of Lingua respondents felt their objective had been the promotion of knowledge of languages in EU teaching and learning, compared to an average reported by Actions (32%). Strengthening the European dimension was cited by only just over one half of respondents – along with Minerva, the lowest figure across the Actions – whilst facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources was common to more than two in every five respondents, the highest amongst the Actions.

In Minerva itself innovation was clearly the most common objective. Scores for encouraging innovation in education were particularly high (85%) in comparison to the average (56%). This is an appropriate distinction in consideration of the strategic aims of the Minerva Action; to improve understanding and European implementation of new technologies in education. Other objectives were cited by only minorities of respondents, the most common – cited by just over one third of respondents in each case – being the European dimension and facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources.

To some extent the match between Action design and objectives stated is inevitable and indicative of the selection process. Stakeholders highlighted this point observing that as the application rate is high, projects/partnerships/networks are selected in terms of their relevance to the objectives of the programme and wider needs identified.

We can also look in more detail at each of the Actions in terms of their specific objectives.

In Comenius, at this level the importance of the promotion of intercultural awareness becomes apparent; indeed, it actually surpasses the European dimension. Promoting the learning of languages and enhancing quality were somewhat less significant. As noted in the analysis of intervention logics Comenius actually replicated the global objective of the European dimension as a specific objective; so these are interesting findings since it suggests that amongst schools the European dimension is perhaps more strongly coupled with the less tangible benefit of intercultural awareness than language learning or quality improvement.

The finding in relation to 'quality' is also significant since, as noted above, the Action was designed primarily with European co-operation in mind as the primary effect with other effects in terms of practice being conceived as 'induced effects'. Clearly schools and teachers did not envisage this in quite the same way and appear to have assumed that

ECOTEC

58

they would use the co-operation in a practical way to make improvements in their classrooms and schools and not in an abstract fashion in relation to a notion of 'Europeanisation'. (As we shall see below, this is reinforced by findings in relation to effects in the curriculum.)

All four of the Erasmus specific objectives were logically and directly linked to the global objectives of strengthening the European dimension and promoting co-operation and mobility which were most often cited by our survey respondents. Evidence gathered showed that the Action programme fitted well the identified needs in higher education and it stimulated co-operation in the higher education sector across Europe. The Action offered a wide range of measures designed to support the 'European dimension' of higher education, by encouraging co-operation between higher education institutions, promoting the mobility and exchange of their teaching staff and students, and improving transparency and academic recognition of studies and qualifications.

Within Grundtvig, the most common objective concerned European co-operation, which is congruent with the finding above in relation to the global objective of strengthening the European dimension. However, whereas innovation was as common as the European dimension amongst the global objectives, the translation of this into specific objectives is not straightforward. In particular, it clearly does not map directly onto the development of tangible products that might be used across more than one country, nor onto improved teacher training since the proportions are different. Innovation was thus only to a certain extent linked to these outputs/results: which means that many projects saw themselves as being involved in innovation without translating this into tangible products that are more easily replicated than intangible ones. It is also significant that a sizeable proportion of projects cited furthering the debate on lifelong learning and contributing to the dissemination of good practice as a specific objective which to an extent is in line with the fact that the global objective of exploration of matters of common policy interest was cited by a significant minority of respondents.

In Lingua there was a close alignment with responses to the specific objectives and the global objectives – perhaps because these were better constructed from the start than in other Actions. Interestingly, however, Lingua projects displayed a tendency to contribute most to promotional and awareness raising objectives rather than to more concrete objectives that are more likely to have involved practical system development - such as improving access and increasing support for language learners. It is also notable that raising awareness of the advantages of lifelong language learning does not appear to have had the same prominence as the more general promotional activities.

The dominant global objective in Minerva was innovation and this is reflected in the specific objectives (which, like Lingua were, in any case, better constructed from the start of the programme). Indeed, the findings provided some indication of what 'innovation' meant within the programme, with most respondents citing the more practical objective of

ECOTEC

59

promoting access to improved methods and resources as a key rather than the promotion of understanding or ensuring pedagogies are properly reflected in products and services.

3.2.1 Meeting objectives

In terms of meeting programme and specific objectives most respondents in the surveys gave very positive accounts of their achievement. This was the case across all the Socrates II Actions, with between 74-84% of respondents in each Action surveyed feeling they had met all or most of their objectives. It was encouraging that most respondents considered they had met their objectives, suggesting a degree of satisfaction wit h their participation in the programme.

Despite this positive picture emerging from the survey, other sources of evidence (in-depth interviews with NAs, co-ordinators, partners and results of the project scrutiny exercise) revealed that performance was more mixed. In the case of centralised Actions, in-depth interviews revealed that some projects reported to have exceeded the original planned objectives within the time/budget constraints whereas others experienced many problems (such as needing a long “setting up phase” (extra year) at the beginning of the project; or that their budget was not adequate to meet objectives the project originally set, therefore their original objectives were modified during the implementation.

In addition, the information reviewed during the project scrutiny exercise of a sample of final reports1 did not allow enable an assessment of the degree of achievement of the objectives of the projects. The projects from centralised Actions did report on the outputs produced (e.g. products they had developed, courses they had run, events they had held) but rarely explored the wider results and impacts in terms of their relation to the Socrates programme overall objectives.

3.3 Target groups for participation

Drawing on the intervention logic and details from the EC decision2, the global, specific and operational objectives indicated that the programme was designed to involve and affect a wide range of actors with interests in lifelong learning. The operational objectives identified various sectors and educational fields targeted by the programme: schools sector, higher education, adult education and the educational fields of languages, ICT and Open/distance learning (ODL). The specific objectives conveyed the range of actors within these sectors which the programme intended to involve or impact upon. As well as including European teachers and learners in various educational sectors, the objectives pointed towards the need to incorporate policy makers 'exploring matters of common

1 Please note, not all projects analysed in the project had submitted a final report while for others, a final report was not provided in the documentation supplied to ECOTEC 2 Decision 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 24.1.2000, Official Journal of the European Communities No L28 of 3.2.2000.

ECOTEC

60

policy interest', disadvantaged groups 'promoting equal opportunities' and groups from outside of education who can bring fresh approaches 'encouraging innovation'.

Due to the number of Actions and various and dynamic priorities within them, target groups varied significantly by Action. Table 3.3 displays the general beneficiaries within the Socrates II programme.

Table 3.11 Socrates II programme beneficiaries “Direct” – receive funding directly from EU

“Indirect” – receive EU funding / support, but not directly from EU

“No support” – receive no funding, but benefit from programme activities

Educational institutions (schools, universities, HEIs, learning centres, training institutions, research centres, adult education organisations etc.) Private companies (providers) Non-profit associations and foundations, research institutes Public authorities (at a local, regional, national level Individuals involved in education participating in training activities or student study periods

Partner institutions involved in networks Staff whose costs are partially supported by project grant

Educational institutions (schools, universities, learning centres, training institutions, etc.) Non-profit associations and foundations, research institutes Learners (all ages, including disadvantaged groups) Society at large / citizens Social partners (trades unions etc) Public authorities (decision-makers)

Source: ECOTEC survey, document review and in-depth interviews with stakeholders and co-ordinators, 2007

The largest group (in the third column) are those with no financial support who benefit from the programme's activities. This group includes learners and potential learners who benefit from activities such promotion campaigns (Lingua) or mobility activities (Erasmus) e.g. those learners who gain a European insight by having an Erasmus student in their classes. Social partners, non-profit organisations, educational institutions and policy makers benefit from dissemination of outputs and information from the Socrates activities.

Survey data also gives a more detailed overview of the range and proportion of participants within the Socrates II programme. Fitting with the design of the Action, the participants of the various Actions are centred around the educational sectors specified by the EC guidelines2. More specifically, the encouragement of more 'bottom up' approaches to learning by the EU; placing learners at the centre of educating processes and developments, were reflected in the survey results. That is, students formed a high percentage of project participators across the Socrates Actions, particularly in the mobility aspect. Over half of the respondents in all three the sector-based Actions, Comenius,

1 The presentation of the table in three columns does not imply any relation between the rows. This is only for presentational purposes. 2 European Commission, Socrates Programme Guideline for Applicants, June 2004.

ECOTEC

61

Erasmus and Grundtvig, reported students as a participating group. Participants of Lingua and Minerva projects were reported at an institutional level. Universities were the most common participants in these Actions.

The survey data provided the following overview of participating institutions within Socrates II.

Table 3.2 Participating institutions in Socrates II Comenius

(Base 1856) (%)

Erasmus (Base 711)

(%)

Grundtvig (Base 625)

(%)

Lingua (Base 117)

(%)

Minerva (Base 109)

(%)

School 73 1 7 7 6

University or other higher education institution

6 92 10 33 50

Teacher training institution/centre 3 1 1 3 6

Adult education institution or organisation

1 2 30 10 4

Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc)

1 1 3 4 1

Non-profit organisation 2 1 25 13 8

Public authority – local 2 0 6 0 1

Public authority – regional 2 0 3 1 1

Public authority – national 2 0.4 1 3 1

Private company 1 0 5 17 10

Research institute 0.3 1 1 1 4

Other educational institution 5 1 3 4 4

ICT/multimedia organisation 0.1 0 .6 0 4

Other 1 1 4 3 3 Source: ECOTEC 2007 surveys

The table indicates the cross-section of organisations involved in the programme; all of which were broadly in line with the broad intended participating institutions which were outlined in as direct and indirect beneficiaries in the intervention logic (i.e. the first two columns of the table above).

In most countries that report data on the reach of the programme, a significant amount of institutes are involved in the programme. In Belgium, for instance, a quarter of all secondary schools have been involved, while 50% of all centres for adult education (61

ECOTEC

62

out of 117 of such centres) have also been active in the programme. Where National Agencies and responsible ministries have tried to ensure an equal distribution along the various regions in the countries and institutes, these policies generally appear to be successful. A point noted in most reports, furthermore, is that the institutes participating in Grundtvig partnerships have grown more diverse in nature with many more museums, libraries and municipalities as applicants and partners in addition to the traditional institutes in adult education.

With regard to the participation of disadvantaged groups, limited data was available from National Reports or qualitative feedback. Data was available from the UK regarding the Comenius Action. The data suggested that fewer schools from economically disadvantaged areas had been included in the programme (from 25% to 12%), with pupils at risk of exclusion (18% to 14%) and pupils with special learning needs (12% to 3%). Further information on accessibility and ensuring non-discrimination is provided below.

3.4 Outputs

The outputs from Socrates II focussed broadly on three aspects: the facilita tion of European mobility, the development of tools and methods and the creation of networks. This section looks at these three areas of outputs in more detail.

The reconstruction of the intervention logic illustrated that the intended outputs of the programme (see Figure 1.2) were:

• Transnational study periods for students, teachers and trainers • Networks, platforms and partnerships • Projects • New study courses and programmes • New frameworks, tools and methods for assessment, validation, certification,

transparency and recognition • Innovative learning methods and curricula, including use of ICT The table below derived from responses to all the surveys, gives an overview of the outputs generated within the Socrates II projects.

ECOTEC

63

Table 3.3 Type of outputs from the Socrates II programme Output type % of Socrates

projects

Exchange of experience and good practice 73

New teaching/training material 49

Partnership or network 49

Website(s) 43

Teaching/training methodology and strategy 42

Seminars. workshops, conferences, exhibitions / fairs 38

Transnational meetings (e.g. of network) 35

Media materials 22

Evaluation report(s) 21

Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication 20

Training Course 19

Information/promotional campaign 18

Framework for the organisation of mobility activities 16

New curriculum 14

Linguistic preparation for project participants 13

Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences 12

Provision of periods of mobility / virtual mobility 11

Other awareness-raising tool 10

Valorisation 9

Source: ECOTEC survey of Socrates projects, training activities and study visits, all Actions, 2007 The most common output of Socrates II by a significant margin was 'exchange of experience and good practice' which was reported by around three quarters of co-ordinators and partners (73%). This was not directly in line with the intended outputs listed above from the intervention logic, but would be expected in light of the high level of transnational co-operation built into the design of the projects and activities. However, this figure implied that one quarter of projects did not see exchange of good practice as their focus; this was higher than might be anticipated. This may be explained because some projects and networks focussed on the process of co-operation as an end in itself (for example Comenius school projects) rather than on sharing good practice through that co-operation. Other co-operation projects may have focussed on producing new materials/ courses/curricula (e.g. Lingua or Minerva projects) rather than on sharing good practice.

In Erasmus, for example survey responses indicated that the most common outputs of Erasmus were ‘exchange of experience and good practice’ (72%), ‘partnerships/networks’ (55%), ‘training materials’ and ‘seminars, workshops, conferences’ (35% each) all of which were linked to the intended outputs around networks, platforms and partnerships listed

ECOTEC

64

above. This indicated that funded activity in this Action in particular, but also in many of the others, mainly contributed towards promoting transnational cooperation and collaboration among education institutions.

The focus on co-operation is a challenge for the evaluation as the consequence of this when it comes to establishing the effects is that there is a predominance of intangible outputs, results and impacts (e.g. 'exchange of cooperation'). These 'intangible' outputs are hard to measure except in qualitative terms. Further details on outputs by Action are provided in Section 3.4.1.4 below.

The next most common outputs (i.e. network, websites, and teaching/training materials or methodology) were listed by significantly fewer respondents than the exchange of good practice mentioned above (between 42 to 49% each). All of these outputs were in line with those intended in the intervention logic. It is also relevant that a number of intended outputs were only produced by relatively small numbers of projects notably new curricula (14%), tools for recognition of competences (12%). The proportion of mobility study periods is also low at 11%. This can be explained since there was no mobility survey for Erasmus students, yet this comprised around half of the budget of the Socrates II programme. In co-ordinator, stakeholder and National Agency interviews, however, mobility was identified as a key output of Socrates, most notably through Erasmus mobility, Grundtvig mobility, Comenius mobility and Arion study visits.

The following table illustrates groups the reported outputs (in Table 3.3 above) against the outputs listed in the intervention logic.

Table 3.4 Overview of type of outputs from the Socrates II programme1 Output type % of Socrates

respondents

Exchange of experience and good practice 73

Partnership or network 49

Seminars. workshops, conferences, exhibitions / fairs 38

Networks, platforms and partnerships

Transnational meetings (e.g. of network) 35

New teaching/training material 49

Teaching/training methodology and strategy 42

Training Course 19

New study courses and programmes

New curriculum 14

Framework for the organisation of mobility activities 16

Linguistic preparation for project participants 13

Transnational study periods for students, teachers and trainers

Provision of periods of mobility / virtual mobility 11

Innovative learning methods and curricula, including use of ICT

Website(s) 43

1 Supporting projects was a key aspect of Socrates II. All responses to the survey were from projects, therefore a category for project was not included on the list of possible outputs in the survey.

ECOTEC

65

Output type % of Socrates respondents

New frameworks, tools and methods for assessment, validation, certification, transparency and recognition

Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences

12

Media materials (P, D) 22

Evaluation report(s) (E) 21

Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication (P, D) 20

Information/promotional campaign (P) 18

Other awareness-raising tool (P) 10

Outputs related to Promotion (P) Dissemination (D) and Evaluation (E)

Valorisation (D, E) 9 Source: ECOTEC survey of Socrates projects, training activities and study visits, all Actions, 2007

From the results above, it was clear that networks and partnerships were the most commonly produced outputs of all the intended outputs, from the survey results (although the under-representation of mobility should be taken into account again here). It should also be noted that projects – along with mobility study periods – were a key output of the programme. There was also a strong focus of outputs related to new study programmes and courses. There was evidently less of a focus on innovative learning methods or on methods for assessment, validation, certification, transparency and recognition than was intended in the intervention logic. In addition a significant number of outputs were produced which related to Promotion (P) Dissemination (D) and Evaluation (E) 1 as listed at the bottom of the table. Dissemination is discussed in greater depth below.

3.4.1.1 Networks Qualitative information from National Agencies reinforces findings on the strength and importance of networks in the Socrates II programme. Most National Agencies commented upon witnessing an increase in networks / partnerships in most countries during the period 2000-2006. The strength of networks and partnerships and high levels of knowledge transfer that occurred within the Action also emerged strongly from project co-ordinator accounts. Socrates co-ordinators described the formation of effective, sustainable and productive European networks of educational stakeholders. All projects allowed various European partners with common interests to co-operate in knowledge exchange and production of various outputs.

1 These three terms are used in this context in line with DG EAC's definition, taken from ECOTEC (2006) for DG Education and Culture "Evaluation of mechanisms for the dissemination and exploitation of the results arising from programmes and initiatives managed by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture". ‘Promotion and raising awareness’ was used primarily in the context of publicising the existence of programmes and initiatives, their aims, objectives and activities and the availability of funding for given purposes. This definition excluded the publicising of results. As such, promotion and raising awareness occurs primarily before and during the actual implementation of the programmes or initiatives.

ECOTEC

66

Many projects had a specific focus on the creation of new networks. These networks recruited diverse members to work on specific areas of interest, sharing best practice and creating new tools. In these, and other networks produced in Socrates, members have been drawn from numerous industries, NGOs, local authorities and community and youth work fields, as well as educational professionals and students from more traditional institutions.

The involvement of New Member States in these networks has been especially beneficial for all involved. These countries have been able to gain valuable insights from countries with more developed educational structures, whilst contributing fresh and innovative inputs. Factors affecting the effectiveness of the networks, varied depending on the purpose of the network, experience of the organisations involved and their commitment to continue the co-operation. In-depth interviews with co-ordinators and partners revealed that the most successful networks were the ones with a clear focus on producing ‘outputs’, being the collaborative working a ‘mean not an end in itself’. However, it is worth noticing that in sectors like schools and adult education, transnational working was still fairly novel and therefore fostering that co-operation was still important.

Essentially, collaborative working in Socrates II opened up opportunities for action that otherwise would not have existed. One of the main outputs from the programmes was the actual partnerships and networks formed or "formalised" using the funding. Some networks were already in existence but the funding facilitated the process through the sharing of resources and their production. In the evaluators' view, the programme has generated robust, sustainable relationships which will facilitate further collaboration in the future.

3.4.1.2 Tools/methods Co-ordinator and partner interviews illustrated the significance of tool/method production in the programme. These have involved learners at all levels of education; from pre-school to adult education. Courses and tools have also been targeted at socially excluded, disadvantaged and hard-to-reach groups.

Educational courses tended to be delivered across various European states or as web-based applications. Use of the internet as a platform for educational tools and courses has effectively widened access to participation. Development of educator training tools and methods has been a significant output of the Socrates II programme. Several new training packages have been created for staff addressing new areas of relevance to the profession e.g. violence in class environment, mentoring, intercultural teaching, innovative teaching methods. The development of learner and educator knowledge around existing ICT tools has also been a key feature of many projects.

ECOTEC

67

3.4.1.3 Mobility As mentioned above the survey results under-represent the volume of mobility activity undertaken in the programme. Co-ordinators, partners, National Agencies and stakeholders felt that the Socrates II programme delivered a high level of outputs connected to mobility. Most notably through Erasmus mobility, Grundtvig mobility, Comenius mobility and Arion study visits. Projects within those Actions directly mobilised teachers, learners and other professionals within Europe. Participants were mobilised to attend meetings, workshops, conferences and various other project events. For many participants, particularly in Comenius and Grundtvig, these projects provided their first experience of overseas travel, widening access to European mobility.

The main Action focussing on mobility was Erasmus. The main activity funded under the Action was the mobility of students and teaching staff with reportedly 784,525 students benefiting from Erasmus mobility since 20001 and more than 1.5 million since the start in 1987. It is estimated that 65% of Erasmus students were undergraduate students, 34% graduate students and 1% doctoral students2. To put this into perspective, in 2006 that meant over 150,000 students, or almost 1% of each cohort of students. To reach the target of 10% participation rate specified in the Socrates II decision the proportion of the total student population should be 2% annually. This shows that despite the success in mobilising 1.5 million students it still represents a small proportion of the student population. The proportion is higher among university teachers. In 2004/05, 20,877 people went on a teaching assignment with Erasmus, representing 1.9% of the teacher population in Europe. Grundtvig Project Co-ordinators also reported that mobility was a significant source of outputs under the Action, including mobilisation of partners for meetings and workshops. Many adult learners had their first experience of travel through Grundtvig projects. The work done was reported to have encouraged future migration through development of teachers' and learners' understanding of intercultural relations and experiences of migration. This included, for example, projects based around sharing best practice in intercultural teaching environments, and projects which organised workshops and exhibitions about the experiences of different communities of immigration.

Also connected to mobility were outputs designed to support curriculum development and recognition of competences, easing future mobility for teachers and learners. Data from stakeholder interviews stressed the point that reaching objectives for mobility involved much more than funding peoples' 'actual' movement around Europe. Experts pointed to the importance of activities around promoting language, cultural understanding, and building transparent educational systems and qualifications across Europe

3.4.1.4 Outputs by Action The intended and actual outputs are outlined for each Action in the tables below. The main Actions held annual calls for proposals. They supported a range of activities which

1 European Commission Statistics, Time series Erasmus student mobility (number of outgoing students)1987/88-2005/06 2 See European Doctoral Mobility, Irving Mitchell, 2002. Undergraduate is equivalent to the Bachelors level and graduate to the Masters level.

ECOTEC

68

produced a range of outputs. The following tables illustrates information collected through the document research1, co-ordinator and partners' interviews and the survey, to give a brief description of what each of the Actions of the Socrates II programme achieved against a series of intended output indicators2.

Comenius

Table 3.5 Output indicators for the Comenius Action Output indicators Details

Number of activities supported*

74,688 Schools participating in partnerships 5,268,700 pupils participating in partnerships 60,000 teachers participating in short-term training activities 56,625 Individual training grants given for school educational staff 6,000 language assistantships 386 multilateral projects 41 networks

Size of fund awarded)*

Total budget for whole programme (ex post): 551,091,994 Total amount of grants committed to 3 Actions: 538,305,524

Location and geographical remit**

Top 5 countries with largest number of Comenius projects: Germany (738 projects, 29% of Comenius projects) Spain (634 projects, 25%) Finland (174 projects, 7%) Italy (136 projects, 5%) Hungary (126 projects, 5%)

Organisations involved**

Top 3 participant types of co-ordinating organisation: Schools (1,774 projects, 70%) University or higher education institute (153 projects, 6%) Teacher training institution (87 projects, 4%)

Project partners** Top 3 participant types of partner organisation: Schools (1,529 projects, 81%) University or higher education institution (273 projects, 15%) Teacher training institution or centre (246 projects, 13 %)

Target groups and actors identified and engaged**

The vast majority of co-ordinating institutions were schools (70%). Participants tended to be school teachers (77%), secondary school pupils (51%) and primary school pupils (33%). Target groups for dissemination tended to be teachers in school education (88%), learners (66%) and the general public (27%).

Schools engaged in partnership activities ***

74,000 schools involved in school partnerships. Projects involved teachers and school pupils and focussed on cultural exchange between students, utilising various ICT technologies. Key themes for partnerships reported in interviews were national cultures and languages, language learning occurred in all partnerships interviewed.

Training courses, curricula, modules and other materials produced and used

386 projects produced materials to improve the training of teachers and other categories of personnel working in the school education sector. Training materials were produced on a wide range of topics corresponding with Call priorities. Projects interviewed covered topics such as:

1 The full, detailed programme data tables with full financial and selection details can be found in Annex One. 2 The output indicators were as outlined in the inception report for the evaluation and can be found in table 4.11 on page 116 of the Consolidated Inception Report submitted by ECOTEC in March 2007.

ECOTEC

69

Output indicators Details

by school education staff***

Multi-sensorial stimulation in learners with special needs Mentor training EU/Global futures for teacher education Violence in schools European identity and citizenship Evidence for the quality of these outputs was high. Materials produced are widely across Europe.

Networks created*** 41 networks were created. The majority of participants in the networks had experience of other Comenius projects. Network themes of interview respondents included: Transition between school and work Teaching approaches to European identity and citizenship Method development and uses of ICT throughout Europe Additional outputs have included several conferences and workshops, the dissemination of information in newsletter or from electronic platforms.

Modes of dissemination***

Dissemination activities included project websites, newsletters, articles and publications, conferences and workshops and press activity.

Source: ECOTEC * taken from programme data ** taken from ECOTEC survey responses from Comenius (base size: 2556 respondents).*** Taken from in-depth interviews with projects.

In Comenius, the most common outputs identified in our survey of activity in C1, C2.1 and C3 were ‘exchange of experience and good practice’ (85%) and ‘partnership/network’ (43%). It should be noted that the intended outputs of much Comenius activity (namely in C1 school partnerships) was the co-operation process itself1. Any concrete outputs that C1 schools partnerships produced on top of this process of co-operation should therefore be considered as additional. Exchange of good practice was also an intended output of C3 networks. This survey finding was therefore in line with the intervention logic for the programme with relation to C1 schools partnerships and C3 networks.2 The next most common outputs listed in the survey were ‘training materials’ (43%), 'website' (41%), 'training methodology' (39%) and 'transnational meetings' (37%), which shows that some concrete outputs were also produced, as required of C2 projects and C3 networks. This was also broadly in line with what was intended for the Action, for example the aim of centralised C2.1 transnational cooperation projects was to produce concrete outputs such as training materials and methodologies. Also, the centralised Comenius 3 supported networks for dissemination and joint reflection, but those networks were also intended to create concrete outputs including meetings, websites and reports (whereas C1 schools partnerships were not required to produce concrete outputs). However since a relatively smaller proportion of funding was awarded under these two sub-actions (C2.1 and C3 comprised 13% of the total overall budget, see Table 4.5), less activities were funded than under C1 schools partnerships. Therefore C2.1 and C3 participants were less numerous in the survey. The least common outputs in the survey results were 'awareness raising activities', 'information/promotional campaign' and 'valorisation'. This suggested that C1, C2.1 and C3 were not particularly focussed on raising awareness of their projects

1 Although it should be noted that C2.1 projects and C3 networks were required to produce concrete outputs. 2 See discussion of Comenius intervention logic in section 4.2.1.1 above.

ECOTEC

70

individually. However when this is analysed further we could expect that C3 networks (of which there were proportionately fewer) probably did more dissemination activity than C1 schools partnerships (which were not required to raise awareness or disseminate) but again this activity is underrepresented in the survey, since there were significantly more C1 partnerships. Few projects produced larger outputs such as new curricula, training courses or tools for recognition of competences, as might be expected given the objectives of the programme and the small scale of many grants. The main activity funded under C2.2 was mobility: teacher training or study periods abroad. Nearly three quarters of all training undertaken abroad under Comenius 2.2 was accredited (74%). The equivalent figure from the survey of Grundtvig mobility placements was similar at 72%. In Erasmus, 80% of students considered that the learning agreement on accreditation had been respected by their institution, and that due recognition was given to the activities they had successfully achieved during their Erasmus experience1. Given that these are education and training programmes the proportion of courses being accredited is an area where the evaluators conclude there may be room for further improvement in future. National Agencies also confirmed this view.

The programmes also produced some additional, unintended, outputs. Though the main aim of the Action was primarily to support partnership activity, networks and mobility, a significant number of methods and tools (such as websites or reports) were also produced by schools. These were mainly as a by-product of the main focus of running a network, for example two in five Comenius projects produced a website (41%) or a new training methodology (39%) such as training materials for improving multi -sensory stimulation with special needs groups, and training to deal with violence in schools (see VISTA Comenius project case study below). Qualitative feedback from Comenius project co-ordinators indicated the list of outputs produced by schools was vast and very cross-curricula (for example: photographs, CDs, DVDs, CD-ROMs, video-link-ups, quizzes, exhibitions, articles, newsletters and arts and crafts across areas as diverse as languages, science and history).

Within Comenius 2.2 training activities, the mobility outputs varied in nature, as displayed in Figure 3.7. The Socrates Guidelines for Applicants identifies three areas of activity for mobility study periods:

• Initial training • Language assistantships • In-service training

1 Source: Erasmus @ 20: the Commission launches the celebrations for the anniversary of its flagship education programme, Reference: IP/06/1698 Date: 07/12/2006. Available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/06/467&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=fr

ECOTEC

71

The results of the online survey indicate that well over half of educational staff training activities funded through Comenius 2.2 took the form of in-service training activities. Only 11% of respondents reported involvement in initial teacher training activities. 'Supervised study' was revealed to be a significant area for training activity, although this was not an area outlined in the initial design of the sub-Action. These varying proportions and new areas of activity may indicate the need to reformulate guidelines in this area to reflect the needs of the target group.

Figure 3.1 What activities did you undertake in your host organisation? As percentage of Comenius 2.2 participants

010203040506070

1Perc

enta

ge o

f sta

ff tr

aini

ng

activ

ities

Supervised StudyPractical initial teacher trainingLanguage teaching (assistantship)In-service training courseIn-service placement (commerce/industry)In-sevice placement (public/non-governmental organisation)

Source: ECOTEC Survey of Comenius 2.2 participants (base size 688), 2007

ECOTEC

72

Erasmus

The following table illustrates output indicators for the Erasmus Action.

Table 3.6 Output indicators for the Erasmus Action Output indicators Details


Total budget for whole programme (ex post): 638,222,233 Total amount of grants committed: 1,036,316. 63


Top 5 countries with largest number of Erasmus projects: Italy (132 projects, 19% of Erasmus projects) Turkey (53 projects, 8%) Romania ( 46 projects, 7%) France (44 projects, 6%) Spain (41 projects, 6%)


Top 3 participant types of participating institutions:: University or higher education institution (688 projects, 96%) -Association (teacher, student, staff etc.) (67 projects, 9%) -Teacher training institution or centre (62 projects, 9 %)


The vast majority of co-ordinating institutions were higher education institutions (92%). The fact that 90% of European universities participated in Erasmus1 shows how instrumental it is in encouraging higher education institutions to take part in exchange programmes. Participants tended to be higher education teachers (74%), undergraduate students (55%) and postgraduate students (41%). Target groups for dissemination tended to be higher education teachers/trainers (48%), the research community (14%) and policy makers at a European level (12%).

Mobility opportunities provided for students and teaching staff in higher education institutions throughout Europe***/****

Between 2000-2006, 784, 525 students mobilised to attend courses in higher education. The average duration of overseas study periods in this period was >6 months.109, 997 teachers undertook a teaching assignment.. The average duration of teachers' overseas study periods was 6.7 days.

European programmes of study developed and delivered.*/ ***

520 Curriculum development projects and 1825 intensive programmes were funded through Erasmus over the 2000-2006 period. Tools and courses have been successfully created and implemented within the Erasmus Action, as have new insights into teaching and learning methods. Curriculum development projects have been at the centre of this output, developing new European Higher education courses in areas such as Fluency disorders and European food production. Courses were created through European co-operation between experts and typically incorporated teaching across several EU member states.

The creation of thematic networks*/***

166 networks were created. Erasmus had strong network outputs. Thematic network partners incorporated higher education institutions, professional organisations, student organisations, private companies and NGOs. As well as creating European networks many reached beyond this including non-European partners such as Balkans and Ukraine. Networks were set up in order to develop the work of particular disciplines or professional training at a higher education level. Areas of interest within disciplines include: accreditation systems, improving teaching methods, gaining European outlook on curriculum and increasing employment outcomes for

1 European Commission (2007), Erasmus success stories. DG Education and Culture, p. 3.

ECOTEC

73


particular disciplines. Additional outputs from networks included numerous tools such as handbooks for professionals, books on European directions within disciplines, accreditation tools i.e. descriptors and APEL European guidelines


Projects' dissemination activities varied in terms of scope and quality and included project websites, newsletters, articles and publications, conferences, workshops and press activity.

Source: ECOTEC * taken from programme data ** taken from ECOTEC survey responses from Erasmus s (base size: 715 respondents).*** Taken from in-depth interviews with co-ordinators****European Commission, Erasmus Statistics: http://ec.europa.eu/education/

The main activity funded under the Action was the mobility of students and teaching staff with reportedly 784,525 students benefiting from Erasmus mobility since 20001 and more than 1.5 million since the start in 1987. It is estimated that 65% of Erasmus students were undergraduate students, 34% graduate students and 1% doctoral students2. To put this into perspective, in 2006 that meant over 150,000 students, or almost 1% of each cohort of students. To reach the target of 10% participation rate specified in the Socrates II decision the proportion of the total student population should be 2% annually. This shows that despite the success in mobilising 1.5 million students it still represents a small proportion of the student population. The proportion is higher among university teachers. In 2004/05, 20,877 people went on a teaching assignment with Erasmus, representing 1.9% of the teacher population in Europe.

Over the years there has been a substantial growth in the overall number of students studying in another country but the ratio of incoming to outgoing students has varied substantially by country. Looking at the past 5 years four countries (Denmark, Ireland, Luxembourg and Sweden) experience stagnation in general terms. Some countries (e.g. the UK and Ireland) tended to host more students than the ones they sent abroad. It is interesting that with general mobility (all included) UK has 8 times more foreign students that it sends out, a strong indicator of the demand for English language location exchanges. Germany, Spain and France also are strong net importers. Language is an important factor when students decide where to go, and the ability of countries with less spoken languages to attract students seems to a high degree to rest on the offer of courses taught in English.

The National Agencies' final reports3provided interesting information on the 'absorption capacity’ of countries, in other words their potential to receive students. The report presents for each country its student population as a percentage of the EUR-31 total student population and the country’s number of incoming Erasmus students as a percentage of the EUR-31 Erasmus students at the time of the report. It highlighted the potential of the New Member states and Candidate Countries to receive more incoming students countries like Poland showing a low percentage of incoming students compared

1 European Commission Statistics, Time series Erasmus student mobility (number of outgoing students)1987/88-2005/06 2 See European Doctoral Mobility, Irving Mitchell, 2002. Undergraduate is equivalent to the Bachelors level and graduate to the Masters level. 3 Erasmus Student and Teacher Mobility 2004/05: Overview of the National Agencies' final reports .

ECOTEC

74

with its percentage of the student population. Most of the EUR18 presented the opposite picture. This was particularly the case in Spain, France, Denmark, Ireland, Finland and Sweden. This presents a challenge for the universities in terms of capacity to take on the students and the commitment to the Action given the pressures for the host university (e.g. class sizes, financial implications, increase administrative workload).

Over the period of the programme the number of eligible countries also rose with the addition of new Central and Eastern European countries, Cyprus and Malta. The European Commission statistics show an increase of outgoing students from those countries showing the interest and demand of the New Member States on the initiative as reported in our interviews but represents a challenge given the imbalance between incoming and outgoing students.

Feedback from interviews and survey evidence showed that this mobility has become firmly embedded in University life. Most of the Erasmus co-ordinators interviewed felt that the institutionalisation of mobility at their university was demonstrated in the high numbers of exchanges undertaken. A number of the universities also reported that the mobility element helped raise the profile and visibility of their university (i.e. Erasmus students often came back to the university to do Masters Degrees or further study).

With regard to teaching staff mobility, 109,997 have benefited from the exchanges since 2000. Figure 6.5 shows that the number of Erasmus teachers steadily increased from 7,800 in 1997/98 to 20,877 in 2004/05 (14701 in EUR18 and 6176 in NMS/CC).

Qualitative feedback from the interviews and NAs reports did not provide much information on reasons behind trends in teacher mobility. The most frequently mentioned obstacles are:

• an Erasmus assignment was not valued by the university/government as part of the career development of the teacher;

• lack of complementary funding; • incompatible home and host academic calendars; and • short-term nature.

In terms of decentralised Actions, European mobility is also a common feature in outputs of Erasmus Thematic networks and Curriculum development projects. Within networks members travel to attend conferences and working group meetings with colleagues. Courses developed in curriculum development projects are European in nature, that is, during the courses students and teachers are mobilised to institutions in different member states of the EU.

In the case of networks, survey findings and in-depth interviews confirmed that Erasmus has strong network outputs. These networks recruited diverse members to work on specific areas of interest, sharing best practice and creating new tools. In these and other

ECOTEC

75

networks produced in the framework of the programmes, members have been drawn from numerous industries, NGOs, local authorities and health, community and youth work fields, as well as educational professionals and students from more traditional institutions. The involvement of less developed European countries in these networks has been especially beneficial for all involved. These countries have been able to gain valuable insights from countries with more developed educational structures, whilst contributing fresh and innovative inputs.

Thematic networks involved a transnational cooperation of 31 countries bringing together the key actors in the higher education sector. There are 38 running. These thematic networks can incorporate up to 200 partner institutions. Networks are set up in order to develop the work of particular disciplines or professional training at a higher education level. Some areas of interest within disciplines include: standardising accreditation systems, improving teaching methods, gaining European outlook on curriculum and increasing employment outcomes for particular disciplines.

Tools, methods and courses have been successfully created and implemented within the Erasmus Action, as have new insights into teaching and learning methods. Curriculum development projects are at the centre of this output, developing new European Higher education courses in new areas such as fluency disorders and European food production. Courses are created through European cooperation between experts and usually incorporate teaching across several EU member states.

Grundtvig

The following table illustrates output indicators for the Grundtvig Action.

Table 3.7 Output indicators for the Grundtvig Action Output indicators Details

Size budget Total budget 129, 500, 000


Top 5 countries with largest number of Grundtvig projects: Germany (177 projects, 25%) Spain (141 projects, 20%) Turkey (48 projects, 7%) Romania (43 projects, 6%) Hungary (41 projects, 6%)


Top 3 participant types of co-ordinating organisation: Adult education institution/centre (236 projects, 32%) Non-profit organisation (174 projects, 23%) Higher education institution (73 projects, 10%)

Project partners** Top 3 participant types of partner organisation: Adult education institution (425 projects, 68%) Non-profit organisation (278 projects, 44%) University or higher education institution (216 projects, 34 %)


Several co-ordinating institutions were adult education institutions (32%). Participants tended to be teachers, trainers, mentors and other adult education staff (72%) and adult learners (71%). Educators and learners in adult education also formed the main target groups for dissemination: teachers, trainers, tutors (61%) and learners (51%). Other

ECOTEC

76


significant audiences for dissemination included persons with special needs and other disadvantaged groups (37%) and the general public (31%).

Training courses produced as result of European partnerships */***

417 European co-operation and training courses completed. Qualitative interviews revealed the quality of such outputs to be high with several examples learner engagement with the courses produced at a European level.

Adult education staff mobilised to attend training courses*/***

Between 321 and 1231 adult education staff were mobilised annually to attend training courses. Staff attended structured training courses, study periods, observation periods and participation in conferences/seminars. These activities addressed issues in adult learning such as, content, delivery of adult education, accessibility issues, management and system/policy issues.

Experience exchanged at a European level between adult educators */***

1,980 adult education institutions involved in small scale co-operation activities. Themes for this co-operation have included: Multicultural teaching methods Experiences of immigration Museum-based community learning Regional youth employment opportunities Xenophobia Citizenship

European platforms in adult education created. Knowledge exchanged, shaping policy and research*/***

37 Grundtvig networks created.


Projects' dissemination activities included project websites, newsletters, articles and publications, conferences and workshops and press activity.

Source: ECOTEC * taken from programme data ** taken from ECOTEC survey responses from Grundtvig projects (base size: 746 projects).*** Taken from in-depth interviews with projects.

Grundtvig outputs included a wide range of types. The results of the online survey indicate that the most common outputs related to exchange of experience and good practice (84%); partnerships or networks (54%); websites (50%); seminars, workshops, conferences and exhibitions (48%); transnational meetings (47%); and new teaching/training material (41%). In fact, it is notable that the range of outputs is so diverse – for example the tenth most commonly occurring output (evaluation reports) was cited by 21% of respondents. This diversity may reflect the fact that the primary motivation for participation is European co-operation, so that the nature of activity for individual projects is less important than the opportunity to implement that activity collaboratively. If this was indeed the case, it would be consistent with the primary objective of the Action.

National Agencies and stakeholders did not in general raise any issues with the quality of outputs, although one commented that, for Grundtvig, quality increased over time and software in particular was more relevant to centralized than decentralised Actions. Project co-ordinators interviewed indicated that mobility was the key factor and Grundtvig gave many participants their first opportunity to travel abroad. Again, this suggests that taking part in a project was valued more than the tangible outputs produced. That said, in order to benefit from such opportunities, well planned and tangible outputs ought to be the foundation of any project supported.

ECOTEC

77

Grundtvig Project Co-ordinators reported that mobility was a significant source of outputs under the Action, including mobilisation of partners for meetings and workshops. Many adult learners had their first experience of travel through Grundtvig projects. The work done was reported to have encouraged future migration through development of teachers' and learners' understanding of intercultural relations and experiences of migration. This included, for example, projects based around sharing best practice in intercultural teaching environments, and projects which organised workshops and exhibitions about the experiences of different communities of immigration.

Networks were considered a key output by co-ordinators, and it was reported that the Grundtvig Action developed strong networks of learners and institutions. These enabled the exchange of ideas, best practice and inter-cultural experience and knowledge exchange (the vast majority of Grundtvig interviewees described the development of networks as the main feature of their project). There is evidence that, in particular, networks of adult learning institutions have been strengthened at national and international levels. Although it appears that all Member States have benefited in this way, networks appear to have been of particular benefit to Eastern European states. As well as incorporating a range of formal adult education organisations, including vocational adult education, these networks also included informal sites of learning e.g. Museums, Community Projects. Several projects described how the international events organised by the projects were extremely useful in strengthening networks around particular fields of interest at a national level, bringing together various parties such as teachers, policy makers, managers and members of the public. A good example of a successful Grundtvig Learning Partnership was the "Museum as a source of knowledge" project which, through collaboration between museums in Finland, Norway and Estonia, promoted museums as sites for adult education. The specific focus on local communities and hard-to-reach groups promoted active citizenship, and new methods and techniques were piloted to demonstrate how museums could become important sites for interactive lifelong learning.

Examples of methods and tools developed by Grundtvig projects include: a training course designed to facilitate institutions' self-assessment and improvement of their networking capacity (Socrates II programme, Action 1 European co-operation and training courses, Germany); an arts-based course for adult learners reflecting on community and cultural identity (Socrates II programme, Action 2 learning partnership, Finland); production of a versatile lecture schedule on xenophobia (Socrates II programme, Action 2 learning partnership, Sweden).

Co-ordinators tended to state that their outputs were of high quality, although most offered little evidence or justification to support this claim and it is difficult to verify. In many cases, this was due to the difficulty of measuring the quality of their type of output - the value of adult learners meeting people from different cultures and travelling abroad for the first time for example (Socrates II programme, Action 2 learning partnerships, Germany, Cyprus, Finland). Equally, other qualitative evidence did not point to quality as a significant issue.

ECOTEC

78

Grundtvig training activities are outlined in the Socrates Guidelines as taking three forms:

• Structured courses for adult education staff • Informal training (placement/observation) • Active participation in conference/seminar Survey results (Figure 3.2) highlight that a fairly low percentage of Grundtvig 3 participants (9%) undertook informal training, compared to the other categories of activity.

Figure 3.2 What was the purpose of your grant/placement

05

101520253035404550

1

Perc

enta

ge o

f sta

ff tra

inin

g ac

tiviti

es

Structured training courses

Practical placements/job shadow ing/study periods in foreign institutions/organisations

European conferences/fairs/seminars/w orkshops

Other

Source: ECOTEC Survey of Grundtvig 3 training activities (base size 119), 2007

Lingua

The following table illustrates output indicators for the Lingua Action.

Table 3.8 Output indicators for the Lingua Action Output indicators Details

Number of projects funded* (data excludes year 2000)

144 projects funded: - 66 in Promotion of language learning, Action 1 - 78 in Development of tools and materials, Action 2

Size of fund awarded* (data for committed budget excludes 2006)

Total budget for whole programme (ex post): 35,890,267 Total amount of grants committed: 31,070,228


Top countries with largest number of Lingua projects: Germany (14 projects, 12% of Lingua projects) Spain (9 projects, 8%) Lithuania (8 projects, 7%) Italy, Czech Republic, United Kingdom (7 projects, 6%)


Top 3 participant types of project co-ordinator organisation: University or higher education institute (39 projects, 33%) Private company (20 projects, 17%) Non-profit organisation (15 projects, 13%)

ECOTEC

79


Project partners** Top 3 participant types of project partner organisation: University or higher education institution (94 projects, 80%) Private company (49 projects, 42%) Adult education organisation (46 projects, 39 %)


Co-ordinating organisations tended to be in the higher education sector (33%) Participants tended to be University staff and students (61%), school teachers (47%) and school students and non-teaching staff (44%). Target groups for dissemination tended to be learners (74%), teachers in school education (53%), and the general public (50%).

Language learning promoted at European level */***

66 projects worked towards the promotion of language learning through information campaigns, events and various promotional materials. Specific outputs described by interviewees included: Information booklets and CDs identifying opportunities for language learning. Information disseminated from websites Good practice guides for setting up 'taster sessions' in various EU languages.

Development of tools and materials for language teaching***

78 projects produced materials to improve and widen access to language courses. Evidence from qualitative interviews suggests that themes within the project work complied with those specified as Call priorities. Outputs included: Language courses, materials and resources in a range of languages, including less widely used languages. Training courses for the trainers of language teachers There was an emphasis on the inclusion of innovative teaching methods within materials created.


Within awareness raising and promotion activities dissemination formed the main output of the projects. Activities included: Dissemination through strategically chosen partners (Radio, publisher and or television company) TV broadcasting of cartoons Press articles Presentation on various conferences Website Use of existing national networks of teacher/professor/policy contacts of partners

Source: ECOTEC * taken from programme data ** taken from ECOTEC survey responses from Lingua projects (base size: 117 projects).*** Taken from in-depth interviews with projects

ECOTEC

80

Lingua outputs included a wide range of types. The results of the online survey indicate that the most common outputs related to the production of new teaching and training materials (62%); websites (56%); and exchange of experience and good practice websites (56%).

Most projects aimed at developing new kinds of material: courses, methods, tools, programmes. Some of these were specifically aimed at bringing about an innovative change in practice and improvements in the quality of teaching and learning. For instance, one project developed new material to move away from the traditional language learning method, proposing new methods to involve the learner. Another project aimed to develop a new way of assessing language proficiency among students. There was an emphasis on tangible outputs within the Lingua Action. All project co-ordinators interviewed mentioned very tangible project outputs such as booklets, CDs, CD-ROMs, VHS cassettes and promotion material.

Minerva

The following table illustrates output indicators for the Minerva Action.

Table 3.9 Output indicators for the Minerva Action Output indicators Details

Number of projects funded*

347 grants awarded: - 269 projects in Open and distance learning/Information and Communication Technology in the field of education - An additional 78 grants awarded for preparatory visits


Total budget for whole programme (ex post): 64,086,737 Total amount of grants committed to 3 Actions: 60,471,310


Top 5 countries with largest number of Minerva projects: Italy (13 projects, 12% of Minerva projects) United Kingdom (11 projects, 10%) Spain (10 projects, 9%) Romania (8 projects, 7%) Ireland/Norway (6 projects, 6%)


Top 3 participant types of project co-ordinator organisation: University or other higher education institute (54 projects, 50%) Private company (11 projects, 10%) Non-profit organisation (9 projects, 8%)

Project partners** Top 3 participant types of project partner organisation: University or other higher education institution (91 projects, 84%) Schools (35 projects, 32%) Private companies (34 projects, 31%)


The most common type of co-ordinating institutions was higher education institutions (50%). Participants tended to be Universities (at an organisational or management level) (72%), schools (41%) and resource centres and other institutions with expertise in the field of ICT in the area of education or ODL (33%). Target groups for dissemination tended to be staff in higher education (66%), learners (62%) and school teachers (49%).

Development of Various training courses, modules and institutional guidance for implementing

ECOTEC

81


learning methods/approaches***

courses were produced by Minerva projects. The level of innovation in teaching and learning encouraged via these outputs was high, as reported by project co-ordinators and partners. New target groups such as dyslexic learners were targeted.

European co-operation in partnerships and networks***

Networks in Minerva projects tended to be seen as tools for creating products rather than as outputs by those involved in project activities. Qualitative data suggests that European co-operation was successful and productive and that networks of institutions were strengthened and expanded at a European level.


Projects' dissemination activities included project websites, newsletters, articles and publications, conferences and workshops and press activity. The importance of utilising existing national networks with the dissemination process and delegating dissemination responsibilities amongst partners were stressed.

Source: ECOTEC * taken from programme data ** taken from ECOTEC survey responses from Minerva projects (base size: 109 projects).*** Taken from in-depth interviews with projects.

International exchange of good practice (70%) and new teaching/training materials (70%) were the most common output from Minerva amongst the projects surveyed. The results of the survey suggested that the Minerva Action outputs are heavily concentrated around the production of methods/tools and the creation of networks. Aside from network members' attendance of transnational meetings (31%), only 4% reporting any outputs relating to mobility. This was also highlighted in Minerva project interviews, however interviewees highlighted the importance of the work of the Action for impacting the development of virtual mobility.

3.5 Factors that influenced the achievement of intended outputs and results

In the in-depth interviews the co-ordinators and partners were asked about the quality of the delivered outputs. In general, they were satisfied with the quality of those outputs. However, in other sections of in-depth interviews respondents alluded to conditions which improved or impeded the achievement of intended outputs and results. Factors identified included: Mobility Difficulties to get recognition of qualifications/study period and limited financial support for the individuals undertaken mobility were rated as the key aspects affecting mobility. Most of the obstacles to mobility were outside the programme themselves, relating to the way mobility periods were organised in the different countries, within the organisations and the language skills of the learners. Project management and partners Having effective agreements between partners appeared to have aided the achievement of outputs/results. Several project co-ordinators mentioned the importance of written agreements between co-ordinator and partners at the outset of the project. It was suggested that written agreements should detail exactly what is expected from each partner and were seen to be a real asset to Socrates co-ordinators. This was the case in large networks and smaller co-operation projects/partnerships alike.

ECOTEC

82

A second benefit in relation to partnerships was the strategic incorporation of partner types. In general a mixture of different types of institutions, organisations, enterprises as partners was seen to be effective for maximising the sharing of European knowledge and skills. More specifically, some co-ordinators spoke of practical benefits e.g. use of publishers or media companies can vastly increase quality of outputs and scope of dissemination activities.

EACEA and NA organised events and resources Usefulness of EACEA and NA organised training events and materials were mentioned extremely frequently by respondents across several Actions. Project co-ordinators meetings, conferences, seminars, training opportunities and published materials were all identified as extremely helpful resources, benefiting the project design and ultimately the quality of outputs. In particular respondents highlighted the usefulness of 'Project co-ordinators Survival Handbook'.

EAC and NA support and assistance Problems were widely reported by co-ordinators in centralised projects in relation to changes from TAO to EA. These included: difficulties and time lost through negotiating changes in guidelines; loosing contacts due to staff changes; and queries going unanswered due to general disorganisation. However, many co-ordinators also commented that the service is much improved since the initial change period.

Projects in de-centralised sub-Actions tended to give more positive feedback on the general level of support received from the NAs. NAs were described as having a more personalised, responsive and proactive approach to project support. Specific comments included, NAs being interested in the content as well as the administration of the projects, NAs as giving continuous support throughout projects and being 'approachable'.

Co-ordinators raised specific issues about various aspects of project support and their effect on outputs/results:

• Application – Respondents in all Socrates Actions drew attention to the overly complex and time consuming nature of application forms. This seemed to be a particular concern in Comenius and Erasmus Actions. From experienced co-ordinators there was a general consensus that forms were improving over time, becoming easier to complete. The change to electronic format was highlighted as being particularly beneficial. Another issue which emerged from several Actions was the need for standardisation of the application procedures and requirements across all European countries..

• Selection – Where selection was highlighted by interviewees, reference was made to delays in selection decisions (between 1 and 5 months) after the scheduled start date. Some described the detrimental result of selection delays on their project work. Although in most cases where final decisions were delayed, the projects were given a

ECOTEC

83

good indication that their project would be selected and were able to start project work as scheduled.

• Contracting – Similar delays in funding, however, caused a great deal of stress and many practical problems for projects. These delays had the most significant impacts on projects in Grundtvig and Minerva Actions. As the institutions involved in these projects tend to be smaller and less likely to be able find temporary, alternative sources of funding. A smaller amount of projects in Comenius and Grundtvig found that their contracted grant was reduced from the amount originally requested. It was felt that problems caused by this could be reduced by giving the projects more notice of such decisions; allowing them time to redesign projects and objectives accordingly.

3.6 Unintended outputs

In-depth interviews revealed that several projects exceeded the level of outputs and results. This was particularly valid for networks, where collaborations facilitated by the networks produced a high volume of various outputs.

In Comenius some additional, unintended, outputs were produced. As stated in the intervention logic, it was felt that Comenius funding was not intended primarily to support the creation of transferable outputs but instead to facilitate the process of co -operation.

The primary focus of Comenius Schools Partnerships is the co-operation process itself – the carrying out of a project with a number of partners from other European countries. (Commission, 2004)1

As the quote above highlights, the primary focus of the C1 projects in particular was the co-operation process itself and outputs or products developed by the school partnerships were seen to be unintended or additional. The focus was on bringing partners from different European countries together to work on a common project. For this reason, the products from these partnerships have been classified as unintended outputs. However Comenius projects did produce a significant number of methods and tools (such as websites or reports). These were mainly as a by-product of the main focus of running a network, for example two in five Comenius projects produced a website (41%) or a new training methodology (39%) such as training materials for improving multi-sensory stimulation with special needs groups, and training to deal with violence in schools.

The 'Accompanying Measures' Action funded several overarching projects e.g. Humanistic and Scientific archipelagos and 'Tuning' project. These projects played key roles in increasing the quality of the work of higher education networks and disseminating outputs, thus increasing results and impacts.

1 Socrates Programme Guidelines for Applicants, June 2004 Edition

ECOTEC

84

3.7 Dissemination

Following the production of outputs, the programme aimed to reach a range of target audiences through dissemination activity1. In order to ensure the wider impact needed to achieve the broad objectives of the programme, projects aimed to reach a variety of audiences beyond their immediate participants. The figure below, drawn from the survey, displays the main intended target audiences for dissemination of Socrates by Action.

Table 3.10 Who were your target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? As percentage of respondents by Action

Comenius (%) Base size: 1839 respondents

Erasmus (%) Base size: 720 respondents

Grundtvig (%) Base size: 627 respondents

Lingua (%) Base:117 respondents

Minerva (%) Base:109 respondents

Average

Teachers (school) 88 9 21 49 53 44

Teachers/trainers (higher education) 15 48 15 66 44 38

Teachers/trainers/tutors (adult education) 7 5 61 31 37 28

Trainers of teachers/trainers/tutors 13 10 22 38 33 23

Learners 66 30 51 62 74 57

Apprentices / Workers 3 1 7 7 9 5

Other administrative staff 2 4 7 0 3 3

The unemployed 1 1 17 5 13 7

Persons with special needs / disadvantaged groups

9 2 37 15 19 16

Citizens in general / general public 27 6 31 13 50 25

Administrative staff in schools, including head teachers

20 2 5 10 9 9

Administrative staff in higher education establishments

2 12 5 9 5 7

Policy / decision-makers at national level 5 12 13 17 12 12

Policy / decision-makers at regional level 9 8 16 12 9 11

1 These three terms are used in this context in line with DG EAC's definition, taken from ECOTEC (2006) for DG Education and Culture "Evaluation of mechanisms for the dissemination and exploitation of the results arising from programmes and initiatives managed by the Directorate-General for Education and Culture". ‘Promotion and raising awareness’ was used primarily in the context of publicising the existence of programmes and initiatives, their aims, objectives and activities and the availability of funding for given purposes. This definition excluded the publicising of results. As such, promotion and raising awareness occurs primarily before and during the actual implementation of the programmes or initiatives.

ECOTEC

85

Comenius (%) Base size: 1839 respondents


Grundtvig (%) Base size: 627 respondents

Lingua (%) Base:117 respondents

Minerva (%) Base:109 respondents

Average

Policy / decision-makers at local level 13 7 19 13 9 12

Policy / decision-makers at European level 4 12 8 7 5 7

Inspectors / Advisors 8 2 3 10 9 6

Government and administration / Education authorities

9 11 11 15 10 11

Training providers 4 5 16 17 20 12

Curriculum development specialists 3 11 3 13 10 8

e-Learning Industry 1 5 4 19 11 8

Publishers / Broadcasters / Multimedia content providers

5 3 3 4 14 6

The research community 3 14 6 20 5 10

Chambers of commerce / Professional bodies 1 4 3 3 5 3

Social partners (trade unions etc) 2 3 9 3 6 5

Source: ECOTEC survey of Socrates projects (excluding Comenius 2.2, Grundtvig 3), 2007

The overall concentration of target groups for dissemination is around educators and learners. The different priorities of the Actions are clearly reflected in the distribution of survey responses (for more details of priorities see annex two, annual calls for proposals). For example, Grundtvig's focus on engagement of local communities and hard to reach groups is reflected in the figures where it records higher than average proportions of unemployed people (17% compared to average of 7%), persons with special needs and other disadvantaged groups (37% compared to 16% average), and policy and decision makers at a local level (19% compared to average of 12%). Similar patterns can be identified within other Actions. For instance, the focus of Lingua 1 on awareness raising and promotion is illustrated by 50% of respondents stating that a main target group for dissemination was the general public compared to the average for all Actions of 25%.

3.8 Types of dissemination

Data from in-depth interviews with project co-ordinators revealed that dissemination activities were extremely varied, with most Actions providing contrasting examples of well planned dissemination activities as well as projects with a lack of planned activity. Data on outputs extracted from in Table 3.12 above and highlighted in Table 3.13 below also

ECOTEC

86

indicated that a significant proportion of projects produced outputs related to promotion (to raise awareness) and dissemination such as websites, media materials and awareness-raising tools.

Table 3.11 Type of dissemination outputs from the Socrates II programme Output type % of Socrates

projects

Media materials (P, D) 22

Evaluation report(s) (E) 21

Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication (P, D) 20

Information/promotional campaign (P) 18

Other awareness-raising tool (P) 10

Valorisation (D, E) 9

Outputs related to Promotion (P) Dissemination (D) and Evaluation (E)

Website(s) (P, D) 43 Source: ECOTEC survey of Socrates projects, training activities and study visits, all Actions, 2007

Well-developed dissemination strategies demonstrated a strategic nature and innovative ways of appealing to their target groups. For example Lingua and Grundtvig projects made use of various media such as cartoons, radio broadcasts and calendars in order to get their messages across effectively. Within Lingua projects co-ordinators described selecting project partners specifically with their contribution to dissemination in mind, for example publishing houses, television companies.

Qualitative interviews uncovered that another detail which distinguished the quality of dissemination was whether the projects had produced generalised dissemination materials. Projects which had general websites, written materials or had organised dissemination events were more able to explain the effectiveness of their strategies. In less developed strategies co-ordinators spoke of dissemination occurring at a national level, with partners utilising their national networks. In these cases co-ordinators were often unsure of the details of dissemination outside of their own country.

In terms of how effective projects were at reaching their target audiences, evidence f rom the survey is mixed. Having the capacity to conduct an effective dissemination campaign appeared to be a potentially limiting factor: 42% of Socrates projects surveyed stated that they had had no dissemination strategy for the outputs and results of their projects. Of the 58% of projects with dissemination strategies, only 22% reported that they had a dedicated dissemination officer or someone responsible for the project/networks dissemination. Survey responses indicated that this lack of planning around dissemination was particularly common in the three sectoral Actions. Minerva and Lingua projects reported more frequently that their projects had developed specific dissemination strategies (86% of Minerva and 79% of lingua projects).

Qualitative data from co-ordinator interviews displayed that co-ordinators and partners often conceptualised what constituted as a dissemination strategy very differently. For

ECOTEC

87

instance, some Erasmus Network co-ordinators explained that they 'did not' have a separate dissemination strategy as dissemination was so integral to the network's activities and overall purpose. This type of response may explain the low level of dissemination activity recorded in the survey.

Qualitative feedback from co-ordinators appears to support this cautious response, suggesting strongly that dissemination (together with evaluation) seemed to have received less attention than other aspects. Co-ordinators felt in particular that there was insufficient time and funding to deliver in these areas and that more help in planning and implementing dissemination would be useful. One co-ordinator highlighted dissemination as a specific weak point of the project and, again pinpointed the reason for this as a lack of time and funds. One stakeholder expressed it quite forcefully:

'Dissemination is really only relevant to centralised Actions… Expectations are exaggerated or over-ambitious on the part of the EC when it comes to smaller de-centralised activities.'

This was echoed by other co-ordinators, who stated there was simply insufficient time to achieve effective dissemination within the project's life span. Some projects did manage to secure an extra year's funding specifically for dissemination.

These concerns found some support from National Agencies who commonly described this element as "difficult" (to administer). One NA described dissemination as a weak point of the programme. Several stakeholders mentioned that evaluation and dissemination are not high on the agenda (again for Socrates as a whole), probably due to lack of resources. For example, visits to projects to explore good practice and demonstrate learning are very rare and there was contact with projects it is most-often related to problems with finance or other issues.

ECOTEC

88

3.9 Effectiveness of Dissemination

Survey responses revealed that most Socrates co-ordinators and partners felt that their dissemination activities had been successful in reaching their target groups. This was the case across all Actions without exception (see figure 3.14).

Table 3.12 To what extent have your dissemination activities reached your target groups? As percentage of projects by Action. Comenius (%)

Base size: 1839 respondents


Grundtvig (%)


Lingua (%)

Base:117 respondents

Minerva (%)


Reached all our target groups

33 21 21 28 28

Reached most of our target groups

43 39 47 39 43

Reached some of our target groups

15 21 23 18 19

Reached none of our target groups

1 1 1 0 0

Not applicable 4 10 6 12 6

Do not know 3 8 4 4 3

Source: ECOTEC survey of Socrates II, 2007. (Figures may not sum to 100% due to rounding)

However, the project scrutiny exercise of centralised Actions highlighted the mixed quality of dissemination, also seen in the project co-ordinator interviews. Again, there appeared to have been a mix of success in terms of dissemination. Some projects appeared to have been relatively active and used a range of dissemination techniques, including publicity materials, the internet, international conferences, publications and reports and network activity.

The project scrutiny analysis suggested that dissemination was a weakness for a number of the projects. In a number of cases, dissemination appeared to be synonymous with ‘marketing’ rather than issues such as sharing good practice. In several cases, the evaluations of the project reports (of either applications or interim/final report) noted that dissemination was weak, for example in one case where only 2% of an Erasmus project budget was allocated to dissemination.

ECOTEC

89

Scrutiny also uncovered that although a number of the projects appear to have been successful in engaging some or all of their target audiences, others were unsuccessful, particularly where dissemination activities had been poor or neglected. In some cases, target audiences were not clearly defined at the outset and some projects appear to have overlooked key target audience stakeholders, such as political decision makers, which was detrimental to the success of the projects' dissemination activities.

Many stakeholders added to criticisms of dissemination in Socrates II projects, believing this to be a particular weak point of the programme. As a UK stakeholder notes:

' …many applicants include dissemination [in their application/reports], but the actual level of dissemination is very low. The project partners mostly disseminate outputs to each other, but not externally. Especially the leap to the policy maker is difficult to make. I've noticed that not many policy makers have an idea of the programme's results!' (Socrates stakeholder, UK)

Other stakeholders suggested that too often projects start to disseminate too late and do not have enough time to do so effectively. They also observed that only a few projects applied to accompanying measures to continue to disseminate further.

Various evidence from project scrutiny and in-depth interviews suggests that the barriers to effective dissemination and meeting target needs are derived from lack of importance placed upon the activity by project staff and difficulties in meeting time and budget constraints.

Participating institutions should be made aware of the importance of developing a robust dissemination strategy which identifies key audiences and the methods to be employed in order to reach these target audiences. Dissemination to key policy and decision makers should be strengthened, perhaps by involving stakeholders in the development of the programme, for example by setting up thematic networking events on a national and transnational level.

A recommendation might therefore be that the timeframes for the projects should be extended, to allow for adequate dissemination activities to take place. A built-in 'dissemination phase', after outputs had been produced, might be more effective. An example of where such a strategy has been successful is the Equal Programme. It should be made clear that dissemination should be an ongoing activity throughout the lifetime of the project and that this final period is an opportunity to disseminate/exploit outcomes, rather than continue project activities. Projects should also perhaps be advised to ensure that a number of partners have a role in dissemination, in order to avoid the risk of relying on one partner (who might drop out of the project).

Political, structural dimensions to the exploitation of educational projects were highlighted by co-ordinators. National level exploitation was harder to achieve in particular countries particularly for projects in the schools sector. One project co-ordinator described that only

ECOTEC

90

one third of the national dissemination strategies from his network were effective. In his view this was often not due to lack of effort on the partners behalf but due to structural issues:

'In Bulgaria schools do not have much say, they find it harder to be heard than is the case in older member states. They do not have the power to be taken seriously yet at a policy level, their politicians interests are elsewhere' (Comenius co-ordinator, Austria)

Project co-ordinators, stakeholders and project scrutiny drew attention to the need for increased support in dissemination and exploitation more generally. Several project co-ordinators mentioned that specific training events on and more dialogue with the EACEA/NA post-project were required. The mobility aspect would also benefit for a more proactive dissemination strategy aimed at raising visibility of the benefits for participants in mobility exchanges. This is particularly essential to help achieve the mobility targets in the new Lifelong Learning programme. The results of the evaluation reinforced the conclusion from the Interim evaluation of Socrates that the good results under the programmes are not well disseminated. Disseminating the outcomes of Actions supported under the programmes, whether these be products or co-operation processes, and spreading good practice is a hard task made more difficult by the need to overcome national cultural and structural barriers. Again, progress has been made in this area compared with the first phase with the inception of specialised dissemination projects within Socrates. But there was still room for improvement.

3.10 Equality and accessibility

An important feature of the Socrates programme is that projects/activities are accessible and non-discriminatory. This section addressed this issue in terms of projects and then mobility.

The programme had a focus on equality and accessibility, particularly through projects in Grundtvig, Lingua 1 publicity campaigns and Minerva's focus on developing ICT technologies, with their associated potential to reduce disparities between Member States. Qualitative feedback indicated that several projects focussed on disadvantaged groups. Some of the key target groups included:

• Children and young people; • People with learning or sensory disabilities; • Older people or the elderly; • Adult learners; • Groups at risk of social exclusion;

ECOTEC

91

• Women; • Immigrants and asylum seekers; • Ethnic minority groups and travellers; and • Blind and visually impaired people. Comenius also incorporated work towards equality and accessibility, particularly through networks and the development of training products. One project for example created a training package to aid teachers’ understanding of xenophobia. Other projects focussed on exploring active citizenship and its application within schools. Feedback from the survey on equal opportunities, indicated that 60% of the projects felt they focussed on some aspect of equal opportunity: such as disabled people, socio-economic disadvantage or equality between men and women.

The project scrutiny suggested that equality was an area of weakness for the projects. Although some projects' overall aims related to relevant issues (improving intercultural understanding, facilitating accessibility for disadvantaged groups, gender issues) very few indicated in the documentation how they would address equality/accessibility issues in the actual running of the projects. Few projects appear to have ensured diversity in the target groups engaged. Some projects demonstrated appropriate partnership-working procedures and one Grundtvig project did include an accessibility section on its website, with information about its accessibility features. No projects achieved the highest score in the scrutiny ranking for this question and it appears that the transversal issues were often included as an afterthought rather than an integral part of the projects.

With regard to Erasmus mobility, it was not always possible to be both accessible and non-discriminatory because of a limited budget. There is a tension between making the programme accessible to as many students as possible and making sure that students can participate regardless of their social background. As reported by the ECOTEC survey on the socio-economic background of Erasmus students (ECOTEC, 2006), there are still many students that cannot participate in the programme due to financial reasons. Over half of the Erasmus students that participated in the ECOTEC survey knew other students who had been deterred from participating in the programme mainly due to financial reasons. The Erasmus Student Network 2006 Survey reported that for a third (30%) of the respondents the grant covered just a very small part of their expenses, for 23% a quarter or for 22% of respondents about a half of their expenses. About half of the students (45%) did not receive any additional support besides the Erasmus grant, a quarter (24%) received help from the home country and one in five (18%) from the home university. More than one in ten (14%) of students received financial support from a private foundation. The expenses not covered by the grant were covered from other sources but the majority (74%) of students covered their additional expenses with the support of their parents. This appeared to show that student mobility remained primarily self-financed by students and their families so students from lower economic and educational backgrounds are therefore less able to participate.

ECOTEC

92

4.0 Results and Impacts

4.1 Introduction

This section looks at the results and impact of the Socrates II programme. It focuses on the shorter terms results (or benefits) on institutions and participants and then looks at longer term impacts in line with the evaluation impact typology. The section also considers the overall utility of the programme; the sustainability of the activity and effects for the future programmes. It draws on information collected through document and data analysis and in-depth interviews with National Agencies, stakeholders, co-ordinators and partners as well as the project scrutiny and responses to the surveys.

4.2 Results

The intended results (also known as benefits or short-term impacts) of the Socrates II programme were stated in the intervention logic, as below:

• Increased and sustained co-operation amongst institutions • Greater sharing of good practice across Member State boundaries • Increased intercultural awareness of participants in transnational study periods • Improved knowledge, skills and competences of students on transnational study periods • Improved knowledge, skills and competences of teachers and trainers on transnational

study periods • Wider access to frameworks, tools and methods for assessment, validation,

certification, transparency and recognition • Improved information and support services (adult learners) • Greater knowledge, skills and competences likely to foster active citizenship and

improve employability. Participants were asked in the survey and in-depth interviews what the results of their activity had been for organisations, teaching staff and students. The following tables sections explore these results in more detail.

4.2.1 Results for organisations/institutions

The following table illustrates the most and least common benefits for organisations/ institutions in the main Actions.

ECOTEC

93

Table 4.1 What were the main benefits (results) of the project/activity for your organisation?

Top three benefits for organisations

Comenius Base size: 1839 respondents

Erasmus Base size: 720 respondents

Grundtvig


Lingua


Minerva


1 Greater European outlook (80%)


1. Greater European outlook (74.8%)


1 Improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models (68%)

2 Increased knowledge and skills (64%)

2 Increased co-operation amongst higher education institutions/other organisations (53%)

2. Increased co-operation and sharing of good practice in teaching and learning (71%).

2 Increased skills, knowledge and competences (60%)

2 Innovative changes in practice in teaching and learning (65%)

3 Co-operation and sharing good practice (49.6%)

3 Establish a network with institutions from other European countries (45%)

3 Access to a platform for co-operation with colleagues across Europe (45%)

3 Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools and frameworks (54%)

3 Increased awareness of innovation/good practice in other European countries (46%)

Least common benefits: Increase supply of teacher training/career development opportunities, improved quality of in-service training, better trained teachers and managers,

Least common benefits: Improved working relationships within the organisation, improved communication and management, improved organisational and institutional profile.

Least common benefits: Improved organisational profile; Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies; Generated innovative changes in practice.

Least common benefits: Increase in number of learners taking up opportunities in the organisation; improved information and guidance for learners and providers; Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners competence

Least common benefits: Improved organisational profile; improved information services and systems, increase capacity to share good practice in the future; improved equipment and educational software

Source: ECOTEC, 2007 (figures may not sum to 100% due to multiple responses to each question)

ECOTEC

94

Survey results confirmed that the most common positive benefit for organisations was the greater European outlook (in all Actions except Minerva). Increased co-operation with other organisations and colleagues was the second most common benefit for organisations, followed by increasing co-operation and exchange.

It was interesting that at the organisational level, respondents did not report that the projects had benefited the organisations strategically in terms of raising the organisational profile, improving communication and practice within the organisation, benefiting the managers or better trained teachers and staff. This is probably because these can be considered second order effects and the causal link was not clearly perceived.

The survey findings summarised above were generally supported by evidence from interviews with co-ordinators, in particular on achieving a greater European outlook and awareness of other cultures and EU institutions. For both sources of evidence there is a focus on cultural and contextual benefits (individual development, attitudes and opportunities for co-operation), rather than on the benefits through application of outputs such as courses, methods and tools.

In Comenius, the results for schools were broadly in line with what was intended in the intervention logic, primarily around encouraging the process of co-operation between schools. It is interesting to note that although the promotion of languages was cited as an objective by 35% of Comenius projects (and was significantly more common than in all other Actions except Lingua) the proportion of projects citing this as a benefit was much smaller. This suggests a gap between projects' intention and actual effects. It may also suggest that the achievement of the objective for many projects was assumed to occur simply as a natural consequence of co-operation as much as through some the intentional development of tools and methods or improved language teaching.

In Erasmus the results for organisations were around greater European outlook for the organisation, increased co-operation and establishing a network of contacts (though to a lesser extent that in other Actions such as Comenius and Grundtvig where European collaboration was more of a novelty for these less experienced sectors).

In Grundtvig the key results were also around improving co-operation between organisations. However while projects reported interaction with other organisations, and the development of methods and tools, the extent to which these results represented: wider access to new products/materials/approaches; new educational pathways; and better information and guidance, (as intended in the intervention logic) is not clear.

In Lingua and Minerva organisations benefited more from improved skills/competences and widening access and developing methods, tools and frameworks. This is a clear difference between the three “targeted” Actions of Socrates II (Comenius (schools), Erasmus (higher education), Grundtvig (adult education) and the more activity-led Actions: Lingua (languages) and Minerva (ICT) and was in line with the intended results of those Actions. This was probably linked to the clearer definition of objectives and intended

ECOTEC

95

results in those Actions. The in-depth interviews in Minerva strongly supported the argument that project outputs led to wider access to methods and courses and increased take up of the teaching and training materials. The interviewees also underlined the emergence of innovative practices in teaching and learning methodology and better quality of the methods and courses. Projects resulted in more confidence in using technology in the classroom and during personal and professional development of teachers. Individual interviewees also stressed the improvement in equipment as some schools decided to invest more in ICT or increased capacity to share best practice. Lingua co-ordinators and partners cited new methods, materials and courses such as methods outside the classroom (self-study and e-learning) to actively engage learners, new ways of assessing language proficiency among students etc as the main benefit accrued.

Although a trend towards 'innovative' practices in education occurring mainly within the Minerva Action is clearly identifiable, it can be noted that good examples of innovative practices in education can also be seen in projects from the other Actions. For example, the Finnish co-ordinated Grundtvig project, highlighted as a case study in the evaluation facilitated both new teaching methods and the engagement of new target groups for participation in adult learning. Similarly, some Comenius projects interviewed focussed specifically on the application of new technologies at a school level or on the implementation of a new teaching approach or method.

4.2.2 Results for participants

The following table illustrates the most and least common benefits for teachers/staff in the main Actions where this was relevant.

Table 4.2 What were the main benefits (results) of the activity for your teachers/staff? Comenius Base size: 1839 respondents


1 Greater European outlook (49.6%) 1 Greater European outlook (58%)

2 Contacts with other schools in Europe (49.4%) 2 Awareness of innovative changes in teaching and training practice (47%)

3 Time spent abroad (36.8%) 3 Personal development (39%)

Least common benefits: increased access to methods tools, frameworks; increased capacity to share good practice, awareness of innovative changes in teaching practice; improved teaching and training skills

Least common benefits: Improved employability and career prospects, better involvement in the life of the organisation; desire to transfer benefits to staff not directly involved; and increased ICT skills


ECOTEC

96

The survey suggests that overall the key benefits for staff/teachers was, once again, in terms of greater European outlook – awareness of other cultures and EU institutions. This was followed by raising awareness of innovative changes in teaching and training and widening contacts. This is clearly in line with the organisational benefits of increasing co-operation and exchange described above. Effect on personal development and giving participants an opportunity to spend time abroad were also identified as benefits for the staff/teachers. However it was not seen as having a particular effect on the career development of the teaching staff.

In Erasmus intended results for staff were specifically around improved skills and knowledge and greater European outlook for staff. While the second of these was clearly rated highly as a benefit for staff, the first was less likely to be listed as a result. This suggested that the institution’s view was that teachers in Erasmus were benefiting less directly in terms of academic skills, mainly due to the shortness of the stay, but were benefiting more broadly in terms of personal development. Evidence confirmed that Erasmus had positive effects in terms of developing skills and competences, in transferring good practice and therefore supporting education and training communities across Europe to exchange, innovate and thereby to improve the quality of teaching and learning and in the case of languages the volume of learning. However it was not seen as having a particular effect on the career development of the teaching staff.

In Comenius, teachers also said they had benefited from time spent aboard, as intended through the Comenius mobility sub-Action. Teachers participating in projects were unlikely to say that the project benefited them in terms of improved teaching skills (7%), improved quality of teaching (7%) and foreign language teaching skills (9%) whereas these results might have been expected as per the intervention logic. This was confirmed in qualitative feedback, where teachers suggested that projects were often conducted in one of the three main languages and partner schools and pupils could not often help each other in language skills.

The following table illustrates the most and least common benefits for students in the main Actions.

Table 4.3 What were the main benefits (results) of the activity for your students? Comenius Base size: 1839 respondents


Grundtvig


Lingua


Minerva




1.Greater European outlook (71 %)

1 Increased skills, knowledge and competences (65%)

1 Improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models (56%)

ECOTEC

97

Comenius Base size: 1839 respondents


Grundtvig


Lingua


Minerva


2 Foreign language learning (41%)

2 Improved foreign language skills (55%)

2 Increased knowledge, skills and competences (42%)

2 Increased co-operation with colleagues from European partner organisations (62%)

2 Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks (51%)

3 Contacts with contemporaries in Europe (37%)

3 Maturity and personal development (51%)

3 Awareness of good practice in other European countries (39%)

3 Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools and frameworks (58%)

3 Increased awareness of innovation/good practice in other European countries (48%)

Least common benefits: Increased involvement of pupils at risk and with special needs, increased other skills, knowledge and competences, involvement in the development of products

Least common benefits: Increased ICT Skills; preparation for future employment and work

Least common benefits: Better/wider spread of tools for validating knowledge, skills and competencies; Awareness of innovative changes in teaching and teacher training practice; Improved access to methods, tools and frameworks etc.

Least common benefits: Improvement in recognition/ recording of language learners competences; improved equipment and education software

Least common benefits: Improved information services and systems; increased other skills, knowledge /competences; greater European outlook-awareness of other cultures and EU institutions


The most important result for participants was a greater awareness of other cultures and EU institutions; visiting another country and socialising with its citizens enhanced participants' knowledge about different countries and cultures. This, together with benefits around language skills were the most important results.

The results from the main Actions are also consistent with the results of the survey of participants in Comenius 2.2 (Teacher mobility) and Grundtvig 3 (Training Grants) (Table 4.4 below).

Table 4.4 Results for participants in mobility sub-Actions Comenius 2.2 (Teacher mobility)

(%) Base size: 666 teachers Grundtvig 3 (Training grants)

(%) Base size: 118 trainees

1. Increased language skills (61%)

1. Greater European Outlook (54%)

2. Understanding of new teaching techniques or methodologies (54%)

2. Understanding of new teaching techniques or methodologies (54%)

Benefits for the participant

3. Greater European Outlook/dimension (47%)

3.Building contacts with contemporaries (46%)

ECOTEC

98

In Grundtvig 3 the most common benefit was in terms of greater European outlook – awareness of other cultures and EU institutions (54%). The second most common benefit was the understanding of new teaching techniques and methodologies (54%). This clearly corresponded with the objective of the sub-Actions aimed at encouraging participants to gain a broader understanding of the school education in Europe.

In the case of Comenius 2.2, a greater European outlook is also one of the top 3 benefits cited by the respondents (47%) but the most common benefit reported was the increased language skills (61%), a result which was in line with the intervention logic since more than half (56%) of the respondents were language teachers and a further 10% student language teachers. The second most common benefit was the understanding of new teaching techniques and methodologies (54%). As in Grundtvig, this clearly corresponded with the intended objective of the sub-Action aimed at encouraging participants to gain a broader understanding of the school education in Europe.

In Erasmus, the key benefits for participants were around the European dimension, improved language skills and personal development. The first two of these were clearly in line with intended results from the intervention logic around European outlook and improved skills. The wider results from these are important to consider. As previous studies have also shown1, a temporary period of study in another European country helps to enhance international competences and contributes to international mobility. The involvement in the activity also shaped the attitudes and values of participants substantially, particularly in personal values and personal development but also in terms of career aspirations or educational competences, the broadening of their general education, their personal values and their understanding of people from another cultural or ethnic background. It was surprising that relatively few participants in Erasmus cited preparation for future employment or work. However, this could be due to the fact that the survey targeted institutions and not students. Indeed, this result stands in marked contrast to the findings from surveys of former Erasmus students2 which show that students believe that the Erasmus period abroad was helpful in obtaining their first job. But as the INCHER-Kassel study (2006) highlights this advantage seems to be declining: it was perceived by 71% of the 1988/89 Erasmus students, 66% of those graduating in 1994/95 and only 54% of the 2000/01 Erasmus generation. In the evaluator's view this decline could be linked with the increased number of mobility opportunities apart from Erasmus that could affect the perception of the added value of the Erasmus study period.

Feedback from interviews with Socrates II co-ordinators as a whole also corroborated the survey results showing an emphasis on European outlook gained by all participants and the related increased ability to share good practice and co-operate with other institutions. These were followed by widened access to methods, courses and programmes, changes

1 ECOTEC, Survey on the socio-economic background of Erasmus students, August 2006 2 INCHER-Kassel, The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility, November 2006

ECOTEC

99

in practice and improvements in the quality of teaching and training through increased co-operation. Once again, this evidence suggests strongly that the majority of respondents perceived the value of participation not only in terms of the collaboration process but also the generation of specific outputs.

The project scrutiny on centralised Actions also reported examples of unintended positive outcomes that included the production of additional outputs such as outputs in different languages and additional benefits for project participants such as increased awareness of the importance of language learning or improved language skills.

The results reported should be considered against those identified in the intervention logic for the programme and the original objectives of the programme, and the following table (Table 4.5 below) provides an overview of that. Clearly a key programme objective that was met through the programme was around strengthening the European dimension in education. Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials is also one of the key specific objectives in Socrates II, where evidence showed that there is still clear room for improvement. Minerva respondents were the only ones who highlighted innovation as one of the main benefits. For the other Actions (centralised ones in particular) innovation seemed to be more context-oriented (new working arrangements and networking) rather than process-oriented (new methods, technologies and ways of supporting integration) or goal-oriented (new target groups)1. It appears to be more focused on widening partnership work to include other organisations and the “European perspective” by involving partners in other countries than the joint development of tangible outputs.

Table 4.5 Achievement of intended results Intended results*

Commentary**

Increased and sustained co-operation amongst institutions

Evidence gathered showed that Socrates II programme has made the European dimension a reality not only for higher education institutions but increasingly in schools (74,000 schools participated in School partnerships in Comenius) and adult education institutions (1,980 adult education institutions were funded under Grundtvig). This was done by supporting transnational project work that brings together key actors and stakeholders to co-operate to develop some joint work. The co-operation was also extended to a wider range of social and institutional actors (e.g. industry, NGOs, civil society), taking into account the reality in which the project operated, closing the gap between the education sector, labour market and society at large.

Greater sharing of good practice across Member State

Linked to the increased co-operation, there is an element of sharing and exchanging information amongst institutions and across Europe (e.g. ranging from large high-level European networks (Erasmus) and projects bringing together the key specialists in a particular subject area, to small groupings of schools or adult education institutions in different countries). This brought opportunities for learning and sharing.

1 Types of innovation: NEI/FHVR A methodology for the European evaluation of the Employment Initiative from: Equal Innovation Policy Paper 3 – October 2006

ECOTEC

100

Intended results*

Commentary**

boundaries However it was observed that in multiple cases co-operation was not developed in a clear framework with defined joint concrete objectives. As part of the exchange, some useful ideas were exchanged but in some cases this happened by chance, rather than by design, and there was not systematic transfer of knowledge, experience or expertise. Some guidance and support is therefore needed, especially for schools and adult education institutions that do not benefit of the transnational experience of the higher education institutions.

Increased intercultural awareness of participants in transnational study periods

Across the programme the main benefit cited by organisations/staff/students alike was greater awareness of other cultures and EU institutions. Visiting another country and socialising with its citizens enhanced knowledge about different countries and cultures.

Improved knowledge, skills and competences of students

Increased skills, language learning in particular, and personal development were cited as main benefits by participants.

Improved knowledge, skills and competences of teachers and trainers

The programme had positive effects in terms of developing skills and competences, in transferring good practice and therefore supporting education and training communities across Europe to exchange, innovate and thereby to improve the quality of teaching and learning and in the case of languages the volume of learning.

Increased cultural dialogue between educational institutions

Increased cultural dialogue was mainly observed at individual level rather than institutional level.

Wider access to frameworks, tools and methods for assessment, validation, certification, transparency and recognition

There was an emphasis on widening access to methods, courses and programmes, changes in practice and improvements in the quality of teaching and training through increased co-operation. Evidence gathered showed that issues assessment, recognition, validation, certifications, transparency and recognition were not clearly addressed by the projects and not many results have been observed.

Improved information and support services (adult learners)

This was not identified as one of the main results of the programme.

ECOTEC

101

Intended results*

Commentary**

Greater knowledge, skills and competences likely to foster active citizenship and improve employability

Project co-ordinators, in particular Grundtvig ones, commonly described projects as having a community approach, For example, projects which focus on teaching and learning methods in adult education are often informed by community perspectives. Those involved with projects were encouraged to reflect on and engage with their local community.

In general, because of the European dimension to projects, participants became better informed and one can argue that also became active citizens of the European community.

Source: ECOTEC: * Taken from Intervention logic diagram for the Socrates II programme, see chapter one. **Multiple sources including seven surveys and qualitative feedback.

4.2.3 Quality of results

The scrutiny of projects of centralised Actions addressing the overall Socrates II programme found that around half of the projects appear to have achieved their results, according to the documentation, while around half did not. Some of the factors which suggested that the projects were "unsuccessful" / “less successful” in achieving their results included: scope of project results was only at national level, not transnational; more dissemination was needed for results to be successful; and insufficient funding/resources or inability to deliver results within the timeframe allowed. As observed with the survey results and the in-depth interviews, successful results included increased co-operation between institutions, increased access to learning opportunities/tools, beneficiaries gaining skills and knowledge.

4.3 Impact

The intended impacts of the Socrates II programme were as defined in the intervention logic. The part of the intervention logic that addresses intended impacts should provide the links to the Socrates global objectives. These impacts may be considered on three levels: people (the impact on society and the economy), practice (multiplying the outputs and results to a wider set of players) and policy (mainstreaming into national, or regional, education and training policies and programmes). These link to the meta-level typology of impacts developed during the inception stage, as illustrated below. Meta-level impacts are in brackets after each impact:

• People (impacts at individual level, on society and economy) • Increased mobility subsequent to participation (socio-economic impact) • Improved employment prospects (socio-economic impact) • Improved quality of life (socio-economic impact). (This was originally included in the

intervention logic but it is very long term consequence of other socioeconomic

ECOTEC

102

impacts and it is almost impossible to measure. Therefore it was not included in our analysis.)

• Practice (impacts on practice/institutional level) • Institutions (and individuals) participating in self-sustaining communities of interest

(creation of a European education area) • Increased EU language teaching and learning (impacts in teaching and learning) • Improved in teaching practice and management on account of transnational study

periods of individuals and enhanced co-operation amongst institutions (impacts in teaching and learning)

• Improved teacher training (impacts in teaching and learning) • Improvements on the quality of teacher training (impacts in teaching and learning)

• Policy (impacts at national/regional/local/European policy level) • Integration into institutions and into national (and regional) education and training

policy and practice of methods/tools/ frameworks (impacts in policy and practice). • Greater transparency and recognition (impacts in policy and practice). • Convergence in policy and practice between Member States, especially in HE

(impacts in policy and practice).

During discussions with stakeholders on reconstructing the intervention logic, no specific level of priority was given to one impact or another, but in practice, as the following section shows, some clear priorities were realised.

The following table illustrates the key areas of common impact1 of the different Actions from the responses to the surveys.

1 The current evaluation aimed at evaluating the Socrates II programme and constituent actions collectively and in relation to the contribution of the programme to the achievement of the developing body of education and training policy related to Lisbon (i.e. Education and Training 2010 and Bologna processes). The evaluation therefore extracted a coherent set of results and impacts that were common across the programme. This approach was also dictated by the fact that this was a joint evaluation of three different programmes (Socrates II, eLearning and Leonardo da Vinci) and the second stage of the evaluation examined those programmes collectively. (See chapter 9 of Joint Report).

ECOTEC

103

Table 4.6 How far do you agree that your project/activity has led to..

Sour Source: Ecotec surveys of Socrates II Actions, 2007 Scores include ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’

Surveys results suggested that the greatest areas of impact were around increasing European outlook of individuals/organisations; increasing and sustaining co-operation and increasing capacity for mobility of participants. This is consistent with the identified short-term results of the programme. Each of the impacts is then discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

Statement

Comenius

Base size:1839 respondents

Erasmus


Grundtvig


Lingua Base size: 117 respondents

Minerva

Base size:109 respondents Average

Increase the European "outlook" of individuals and institutions. 94% 90% 90% 85% 79% 88%

Increase and sustain co-operation amongst institutions/organisations. 88% 93% 93% 90% 67% 86%

Increase capacity for mobility of participants. 90% 90% 83% 73% 67% 81%

Improve quality of teaching/curricula. 81% 76% 71% 67% 76% 74%

Improve teaching/teacher training practice, approaches to learning and management 72% 71% 74% 72% 78% 73%

Improve the employability/adaptability of participants. 58% 70% 56% 51% 64% 60%

Increase the teaching and learning of EU languages 65% 66% 46% 76% 35% 58%

Lead to greater transparency and recognition between member states of curricula, study programmes, 58% 78% 43% 33% 48% 52%

Lead to the integration of methods/tools/ frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice. 64% 55% 52% 42% 42% 51%

Improve the employability and adaptability of participants facing disadvantage. 31% 41% 46% 25% 33% 35%

ECOTEC

104

4.4 Impacts on people

The intervention logic for Socrates II identified the potential impacts of the programme on people as being increased mobility subsequent to participation; improved employment prospects of individuals and improved quality of life.

The socio-economic impacts were related most directly to the mobility aspect of the programme. Like its predecessor, Socrates II provided a huge volume of opportunities to students, learners and teachers to study and work in another country and this had an effect on their personal and professional development. For instance, from 2000, Comenius awarded 56,625 individual training grants; Erasmus mobilised 784,525 higher education students and 109,997 teachers.

4.4.1 Capacity for mobility subsequent to participation

Survey results showed that an average 81% of survey respondents across the programme agreed that they had impacted on the capacity for mobility of participants, this being the second highest ranked impact from the programme.

In-depth interviews with co-ordinators and partners showed that in addition to the mobility activities, projects directly mobilised teachers, learners and other professionals within Europe. Participants were mobilised to attend meetings, workshops, conferences and various other project events. For many participants, particularly in Comenius and Grundtvig, these projects provided their first experience of overseas travel, widening access to European mobility. European higher education courses created through Socrates II (Erasmus) have also had significant mobility outcomes. Students were mobilised within Europe throughout the courses and got a European view of their field of interest. This plays a role in encouraging future mobility, as this Europe-wide perspective translates to working practice for the students.

Qualitative feedback from institutions also supported the argument that mobility may have led to an increased capacity for mobility in the future (e.g. school partnerships were in particular seen as beneficial for pupils who experience other cultures at a formative life stage and may then wish to be more mobile themselves) but also further a-field, students who experienced the mobility exchanges also considered further mobility options outside Europe.

Increased language learning, particularly evident in Erasmus, Comenius and Lingua, also played a key role in impacting future European mobility and cohesion. For instance, Lingua projects sometimes provided courses in less widely used European languages, encouraging wider mobility to newer member states e.g. Romania, Estonia.

A high proportion of the institutions interviewed reported that mobility participants evaluated the experience as having a positive impact on their personal development. It helped them to develop a more open attitude and a clearer and better informed perspective for their subsequent studies or professional life.

ECOTEC

105

A greater European ‘outlook', widely commented upon by co-ordinators and cited as the most common result by our surveys, afforded individuals a greater awareness of their European community and their role as a citizen within it not only through their mobility activity but also their involvement in the projects. For example, in the case of Erasmus, some universities also felt that the activities have improved not only the European outlook of the participants but also the non-mobile students and teachers benefiting from the exchanges, the contact with people from other countries and cultures, making participants and non-participants aware of “belonging to a large European family”.

During our in-depth interviews with co-ordinators and stakeholders international experience was seen as a positive asset to participants. In a survey undertaken by ECOTEC (2006) on the Socio-economic background of Erasmus students, the students assessed their Erasmus period abroad very positively. Around 87% of students considered their overall experience abroad positive/ very positive. Students’ already high levels of language competence were boosted by Erasmus with the proportion of students saying they had at least some proficiency in a third language increasing by eight percentage points during their mobility period, and by 14 points for a fourth language. The Erasmus period also shaped the attitudes and values of Erasmus students substantially, particularly in personal values but also in career aspirations or educational competences, with between 65% and 95% of students reporting large changes or changes to some extent in their career-related attitudes and aspirations, the broadening of their general education, their personal values and their understanding of people from another cultural or ethnic background.

This was echoed by the national reports that without exception indicated that the mobility aspect of the programmes had a very significant impact on the participants. It had a very positive effect regarding personal development, language skills and professional competences. They also reported a high level of satisfaction of the participants with their mobility period.

4.4.2 Employability

Evidence gathered concluded that international experience was seen as a positive asset to participants. However co-ordinators and partners were less convinced that activity had ‘directly’ improved the employability or adaptability of individuals with an average 60% agreeing this had improved as a result of the project/activity. Stakeholders felt a period of mobility may have had some second order (or unintended) impacts in that individuals become more employable through support for professional development and enhanced skills but these cannot be fully attributed to the temporary experience in another country. Although there are not many examples of direct employment impacts, many indirect impacts are highlighted by co-ordinators and partners (i.e. the increased employability of project management team members as a result of gaining European project experience).

ECOTEC

106

The highest percentage of 70% was reported in Erasmus. This was confirmed by interviewees (National Agencies, stakeholders and Erasmus co-ordinators) felt that employment prospects were ‘increased’ by the participation in the Action. This argument was supported by a recent study on the professional value of Erasmus mobility which shows that employers consider internationally experienced graduates superior to other graduates as far as many competences are concerned, and many of them believe that formerly mobile students will be more successful in their long-term career1.

Overall stakeholders and co-ordinators continued to appreciate the cultural and social value of study abroad more highly than the academic or professional value. As pointed out by a National Agency:

“They learn that the world is bigger than your own village, city or country. Learning another language is particularly important because it opens up people’s ability to be mobile, live, work, learn and be in contact with other cultures. This has a social impact such as improved tolerance, creation of an international network and increased self-confidence to move in an international atmosphere, learning more skills and feeling closer to the problems across Europe”

It should be noted that the employability of students is not just dependent on the programme but it also dependent on ‘external’ factors. Those cited by interviewees included the type of career chosen (e.g. international orientation) and the European ‘outlook’ of the employer (e.g. for a local business, international experience might not be an important factor for recruitment).

The ‘timing of the mobility’ is also a factor to take into account. For instance, the impact on career development of an Erasmus student doing the mobility period towards the end of her/his degree might be greater than early on. The student might decide to take up opportunities to continue the studies (e.g. masters) in the host country (or another country) reinforcing the international experience or to take up a job abroad. In that particular case, the links between the mobility period and the professional development can be seen more directly. However the evaluation did not cover this particular aspect.

It is important to distinguish between mobility for students on the one hand and professionals on the other as the intended links to results and impacts were different. The mobility schemes for students enabled participants to undertake periods of study at a partner institution in a host country. Generally the studies were recognised and counted towards achieving a qualification but this was not always the case. The 2006 Survey of the Erasmus Student Network2 revealed that certain majors of studies received full recognition more often, 61% from medical studies received full recognitions as well as 58% of those from the engineering and technology. The smallest percentage was in the area of education and teacher training (34%). The Student Survey also reported a higher

1 INCHER-Kassel, The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility, November 2006 2 Exchange Students' Rights Research Report of Erasmus Student Network Survey 2006

ECOTEC

107

percentage of BA (54%) than MA students (50%) gaining recognition. The lack of recognition had an effect of the length of the study, 28% of respondents lost a semester/s of their studies at home university because they went on an exchange. Within that group only 34% had received full recognition and 11% did not receive any recognition. Participants got to learn another language, to find out about a different culture and develop their European citizenship identity without putting at risk the pace of their studies or training. It is worth noting that most of the obstacles to mobility were outside the programmes themselves, relating to the way mobility periods were organised in the different countries, within the organisations and the language skills of the learners. Therefore, the impact of the mobility period also depended on the removal of such obstacles and the existence of favourable conditions (i.e. additional funding, teaching of languages) in order for learners to take-up and fully maximise the opportunities available. The evaluation team supports the recommendation of the Student Survey that calls for Universities to take full responsibility of granting every student recognition for studies abroad, as this recognition is granted in the Erasmus University Charter so it should not be left to the discretion of the lecturers and the fully introduction of ECTS credits (or an adequate credit system) for easy recognition.

In terms of the mobility for teaching professionals, the evaluators concluded that this had positive effects in terms of personal development, in transferring good practice and in developing the capacity of education and training communities in Europe to exchange, innovate and thereby to improve the quality of teaching and learning and in the case of languages the volume of learning. Previous evaluations stated that mobile teachers often become more active, more intellectually engaged and also in some cases more visibly successful in their careers.

However, in-depth interviews with co-ordinators, National Agencies and stakeholders did not report such a clear link between the mobility period and the professional development of teachers and it was mainly consider a second order effect. This is linked to the fact that the mobility period tended to be short and some participants reported that they did not receive recognition from employers or educational authorities. The recent survey on Erasmus mobility concluded that mobile teachers tend to be already internationally experienced, are mature persons often well established in their career and spend only a short teaching period abroad. The formerly mobile teachers accord a strong professional value to the Erasmus-supported teaching mobility period. The majority of them observe enhancement in international research co-operation and in their general academic competences, while a slightly lower proportion report a substantial value for subsequent teaching activities. Some of the mobile teachers note visible career advantages and some opt subsequently for an academic career in another country, not infrequently that of their Erasmus supported teaching period. These opposing views of the value of the period abroad are interesting as they show the different perceptions from the institutions and the teachers participating in the mobility scheme. This could explain the reluctance of some institutions to acknowledge these teaching assignments.

ECOTEC

108

The survey also reported a limited impact on improving the employability and adaptability of participants facing disadvantage (average of 35% across the Actions in Table 4.6 above). This was a transversal issue of the programme but it was not a particular focus of the Actions. The highest score is for Grundtvig (46%) reporting some impact through their activities targeting people with low skills, special needs and ‘hard to reach’ groups. This reinforced the argument that equality and accessibility was one of the areas where the programme could be improved. A smaller than expected number of projects reported a focus on this transversal issue and some projects have a very limited understanding of inclusion issues (and see section 3.11 on Accessibility and non-discrimination above).

A pan-European project led by National Agencies focused on the analysis of the mobility carried out in Arion, Comenius 2.2.C in service teacher training; and Grundtvig 3 training activities illustrated some of the points and provided recommendations for the new programmes.

MODE – Mobility and European Dimension (Accompanying measures): Mode explored the impact of individual mobility carried out in Socrates II projects: Arion study visits; Comenius 2.2.C in-service teacher training; and Grundtvig 3 training activities for adult educators. Mode conducted a survey measuring the quality of impact in areas of personal development, professional development and impact on the workplace and the community. The main impact of the Mode project has been an increased understanding of the impact of Socrates II individual mobility activities. This has been achieved by the strategic dissemination of results and outputs to grant holders, school teachers, head teachers, teacher-trainers, visit organisers, National Agencies, the Commission and potential future beneficiaries. The report includes suggestions to improve the impact of individual mobility activities. For example, an Action plan to increase the impact on institutions and the identification of areas in which greater control needs to be exercised by NAs such the quality of the activity. In particular with regards to innovation of the academic content of courses and visits, the European dimension concerning both the content and the organisation of visits, dissemination amongst new potential candidates within the educational sector at which each Action is directed; and rejection of grant applications to people who have received them in the last two years. The results of analyses have been successfully fed into the new LLP design (2007-2013). This was a key objective for the project and the achievement of this outcome was integral to the project design. New elements added include: more support for job-shadowing; lump sums for language preparation; mobility up to six weeks; updated tables for subsistence rates.

As the results above show, the programme had a particular role in promoting deeper understanding of the European reality, enhancing skills, competences and values. Therefore the programme had an impact regarding ‘active citizenship’ by ‘providing individuals with skills and knowledge to take part and contribute to economic and social life’, while enhancing their perception of being European citizens. Examples were featured under Comenius, Erasmus and Grundtvig. For instance, projects which a focus on teaching and learning methods in adult education are often informed by community

ECOTEC

109

perspectives. Those involved with projects were encouraged to reflect upon and engage with their local community. In general, because of the European dimension to projects, participants became informed and active citizens of the European community. This has been a significant achievement for those projects which focus on intercultural issues. Examples provided of the impact on active citizenship included: local businesses working together with their community to encourage young adults into traditional regional occupations; and a series of international workshops exploring active citizenship in the teaching environment. A particular successful example of impact on active citizenship is illustrated by the Citizen-E project. Citizen-E (Minerva project): The project aimed at establishing peer network for teachers in the field of citizenship enabling them to communicate and exchange experiences and at creating support tools that they can use during classes. The main project activities included workshops for teachers, preparation of teaching materials in the field of citizenship education, school twinning activities and mini-projects between schools and students. In total, there were 9 workshops, 8 of which were organised in 4 partner countries and 1 was a cross-border event, co-financed by Comenius and Italian partners. Dissemination strategy was designed at three levels: at partnership level, at national level (meetings in institutions) and at partner level (for example, through peer networks in each partner country). The project was externally evaluated twice, namely for the interim and final report. The impact of the project was different in different countries, mainly due to the fact that citizenship teaching is quite varied (in Belgium/Flanders citizenship as a subject does not exist and its elements are incorporated across the curriculum) and some notions that are taught in the framework of citizenship classes, such as nation and identity, are very sensitive. However, the project succeeded in providing a common framework for teaching citizenship by providing common definition to the subject or the notion of nationality. In Ireland, a group on citizenship teaching has taken up some of the results of the project as ongoing examples for teachers to be used in classrooms.

The impact achieved by the project also lay in the fact that the target group were the teachers from teacher training institutions who further provided training to other teachers (multiplication) and who can still access the online support tools.

4.5 Impacts on practice (multiplying the outputs and results to a wider set of players in the educational sector)

There were key areas of intended impact at practice level from the intervention logic as follows:

• Practice (impacts on practice/institutional level) • Institutions (and individuals) participating in self-sustaining communities of interest

(creation of a European education area) • Increased EU language teaching and learning

ECOTEC

110

• Improved in teaching practice and management on account of transnational study periods of individuals and enhanced co-operation amongst institutions (impacts in teaching and learning)

• Improved teacher training (impacts in teaching and learning) • Improvements on the quality of teacher training (impacts in teaching and learning) These are discussed in more detail below.

4.5.1 Communities of interest in lifelong learning and the creation of a European education area

The development of increased European outlook for organisations and participants was a key area where the programme had a clear impact, along with the development of networks and communities of interest in lifelong learning. An average of 88% of co-ordinators and partners across the Actions agreed that their project had impacted on increasing the European outlook of individuals/institutions. An average 86% reported an increased and sustained co-operation amongst institutions. These results mirrored those for shorter term results described above and suggested that shorter term results were translating into longer term impacts.

Survey results and in-depth interviews revealed that transnational co-operation through mobility and project activity under Socrates II appeared to have fostered the establishment of formal and informal European partnerships and networks beyond the funding period. Co-ordinators and partners reported that the creation of partnerships and networks improved communication between partners and actors (schools, higher education institutions, projects, Member States, etc) and increased their commitment and understanding of the problems faced. Participating in European networks and building contacts in other Member States opened up opportunities for future co-operation and sustainable collaboration, while adding a European dimension to domestic activities. As pointed out by Deans of Humanistic faculties in Italy:

'It is necessary to foresee that areas of innovative and ‘emerging’ knowledge have space for development. This same awareness has also been expressed by the disciplinary humanistic thematic networks and their co-ordination (Human Plus). It is opportune to study shared solutions at European level, being aware that our country (Italy) possesses in this field a specific wealth and can become a promoter of pilot initiatives'.

Evidence gathered suggests that the Socrates II programme created several effective (in terms of producing expected outputs) and sustainable European networks of educational stakeholders. These networks recruited diverse members to work on specific areas of interest, sharing practices and creating new tools. In these and other networks produced in Socrates II members have been drawn from numerous industries, NGOs, local authorities and health, community and youth work fields, as well as educational professionals and students from more traditional institutions. This wider co-operation is itself, an interesting

ECOTEC

111

development as it shows the need to bring together the different players in order to provide a co-ordinated approach to address the challenges faced. It responded to the need of closing the gap between the education sector, the labour market and the civil society.

The self-sustaining nature of the networks created is widely commented upon by co-ordinators in Socrates II. For many co-ordinators this aspect was integral to the design of the projects (e.g. internet forums were created to ensure the continued growth and longevity of networks post project). Little concrete evidence was available on the issue of sustainability, from sources other than projects themselves.

National Agencies, co-ordinators and partners agreed that co-operation opened up new opportunities. Co-ordinators and partners reported that co-operation led to joint applications for grants from other Actions within Socrates II, eLearning and Leonardo to sustain the co-operation within the partnership or network. This sustainability is further discussed later on in the chapter.

As the figure below shows, the two most cited methods of getting in contact with partners were ‘through involvement in a previous project’ (average 34%) and ‘existing network’ (30%) confirming a certain degree of on-going collaboration and the value of partnerships/networks. Scores from Minerva (45% reported ‘through involvement in a previous project’) and Erasmus (42% through ‘existing network’) were high in comparison with the averages. These results also mirrored the ones to the question “have you got any previous EU experience?” where 90% of Minerva respondents and 83% of Erasmus reported some previous EU experience. ‘Preparatory visits’ seemed to have been particularly successful for partner search in Comenius (25%) while ‘Contact seminars’ scored highly in Grundtvig (28%). Despite the positive results suggesting an on-going and sustained collaboration, it is worth noticing that in order to 'strengthening the European dimension and promote co-operation' is also important to encourage wider participation, targeting schools and other institutions that have no pre-existing European links and no previous involvement in European programmes.

Figure 4.1 How did you first get in contact with your partners?

05

101520253035404550

Throughinvolvement in

a previousproject

Existingnetwork

Contactseminar

Preparatoryvisit

Partnersdatabase

Pro-activerecruitmentbased onreputation

and/or status

Other

Comenius Erasmus Grundtvig Lingua Minerva

Source: Ecotec surveys of Socrates II Actions, 2007

ECOTEC

112

The collaborative working was seen by co-ordinators and partners as a way of ‘driving change and improving the understanding of European processes (e.g. Bologna process) of the actors involved’ and supporting less developed European countries to ‘get up to speed’. These countries have been able to gain valuable insights from countries with more developed educational structures, whilst contributing fresh and innovative inputs. An example of successful information exchange is also provided by Eurydice. The sub-Action had responded to a quantitative and qualitative increase in information needs, thanks to the development of an activity with intense productivity supported by the European Union through Socrates funding. Successful activity was due in particular to the active coordination role taken by the EU in the development of the network and improving the quality of the network's outputs1.

There are also examples of collaborative working and co-operation within and across Actions/programmes, for instance, projects under ‘accompanying measures’ that brought together a group of Erasmus networks and joint meetings organised by the EACEA for Minerva and eLearning to foster cross-fertilisation and sharing experience. These constitute examples of effective structured and formalised exchange. Some co-ordinators and partners report that they would have benefited from being able to network with other projects working in their thematic area but that opportunities to do so were very limited and tended to be ad hoc. This is particularly important for programmes divided into Actions. The Actions in Socrates II embodied the key objectives in education and training but these cannot be dissociated. There is a need for more cross-fertilisation and synergy between Actions and programmes in a ‘formalised’ way (e.g. networking meetings, supporting ‘project matching’, proactive exchange of information between EC staff/EACEA during the different stages of the life of a project (selection, implementation). As highlighted in the interim evaluation of Socrates II, this is particularly relevant to foster the kind cross-cutting activity needed in the framework of the lifelong learning strategy.

The experience from the programme shows that co-operation within a partnership is essential. It will be effective if the partners share a strategic vision, pursue compatible targets and are all equal members in a predetermined organisational structure. It is also important to share the "ownership" of the project, described as the emotional binding of the organisations and individuals involved. Thus the partnership should be able to bring together different actors in collaborative Action as well as in collaborative efforts to effect change.

In general, the evaluator's view is that the partnerships formed could lead to more effective ‘joined-up working’ in the future – both with existing partners and with other networks. Working together has strengthened relationships between institutions and increased their understanding of one another to identify a range of ideas for ways of working together in the future. Most of the partnerships stated that they have committed themselves to more collaborative working in the future. Most of the projects agreed that there has been a

1 Barbier, Frinault and Associes. Evaluation de l'action EURYDICE, Rapport Final, October 2002.

ECOTEC

113

greater degree of discussion and cross-reference between the partner organisations since the projects had commenced, and this is envisaged to continue and grow.

Co-ordinators, partners and stakeholders agreed that institutions and organisations have received real benefits from the co-operation even though it is very difficult to provide an exact assessment. The benefits and impact seemed to refer to building ‘social and professional capital’, being defined as the networks of social and professional relations that provide access to needed resources and support. Therefore the added value of the transnational co-operation can be defined as ‘networking production’, creation of ‘networks of co-operation’ which have been set up to achieve a common objective. Programmes like Socrates do not guarantee only physical outputs, results and impacts but also networks and networking (understood as all the effects conveyed by networks) at different levels aimed at accessing resources in order to tackle a problem/need identified in the field of education and training in Europe.

Although it brings many benefits, transnational co-operation has not always been easy. Successful co-operation has been predicated upon taking time to understand different cultures, histories and systems. It has been particularly important for partnerships to appreciate that work in each country may vary both in approach and rate of success.

The creation of a European education area is regarded as one of the main means for the Lisbon Strategy in order to achieve the goal of Europe becoming the most dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world and setting the standards for education. This area should facilitate mobility of people, transparency and recognition of qualification, quality and European dimension in education. To achieve this aim, an increase in the European outlook of the organisation involved and the development of sustainable networks/ partnerships are essential to provide operational support to this process by fostering and sustaining co-operation. It would appear, on balance, that while activity has resulted in transnational co-operation and has benefited a number of participating organisations and individuals, the resulting strengthening of the European dimension has tended to be widely dispersed at local level. A more focused impact would require the sector and its main players to be able to exercise a much greater influence on policy development, an outcome which, in sectors such schools and adult education, remains underdeveloped.

4.5.2 Impacts in EU language learning and teaching

Survey results indicated that on average 58% of co-ordinators and partners across Actions reported an increase of teaching and learning of EU languages as a result of the project/activity. The highest score was reported by Lingua with three quarters (76%) of respondents reporting a strong impact on teaching and learning of EU languages. Lingua was particularly prominent on the development of language courses with the aim of increasing teaching and learning of EU languages. For the other Actions, it is not surprising that qualitative feedback from the interviews reported that the mobility aspect was seen as contributing the most to language learning and awareness(e.g. Erasmus, 66%), being regarded as a major incentive for language learning. In fact, the Action also

ECOTEC

114

funded a selected number of institutions to organise Erasmus Intensive Language Courses (EILCs) which provided language training for students going to countries with less widely spoken languages (since the start of Erasmus in 1987, funding was given to 3,192 students to undertake the courses). Many participants also benefited informally from language learning or language practise during their mobility period abroad .For Actions like Comenius (63%), the focus on language at a pre-school/school level was difficult to measure. However, increasing familiarity with languages amongst children and young people is thought to have an important and lasting impact, encouraging a European openness amongst a new generation. Furthermore, teachers reported improvements in attitudes with pupils being more enthusiastic and open towards EU language learning at an early age as a result of their participation in the programme. Encouraging early language learning was an identified need the Comenius programme aimed to impact upon, and it appeared some small impacts were being made in this direction.

Figure 4.2 How far do you agree that your project/activity has increased the teaching and learning of EU languages

65% 66%

46%

76%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Comenius Erasmus Grundtvig Lingua Minerva

Comenius

Erasmus

Grundtvig

Lingua

Minerva

Source: Ecotec surveys of Socrates II Actions, 2007 Scores include ‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’

In general, co-ordinators and partners reported that the language courses produced have most commonly been implemented locally. This explains the moderate impact reported by the respondents in the survey. Where courses have been more widely disseminated, for example, using a web platform, there has been significantly increased interest in language courses (e.g. from European and non-European states not involved in the production of the materials). Where language courses did not form the main output of the project, courses were frequently incorporated into the project to aid communication between partners or to ensure a student could fully maximise the period of study. As this co-ordinator and designer of an Erasmus funded European Master's course explains:

ECOTEC

115

'Students are required to speak English and French fluently. These are the languages that the modules are delivered in. They are offered additional language assistance to achieve this. If both of these are already well spoken by the student we do strongly encourage them to take up a third language- Romanian or Spanish. They will be spending time in these countries so it will enhance their experience' (Erasmus Curriculum Development co-ordinator, France)

Within almost all projects, participants were exposed to and practiced speaking various European languages which were not native to them. Project meetings were most commonly held in English, Spanish and German. Although courses were created in less widely used languages, which had a reported high take up, these languages tended not to be used in project meetings.

Qualitative feedback from interviews also reported an impact on widening access and making language learning more attractive by introducing new methods (e.g. self -study and elearning). Lingua sought to develop improvements in teaching practice with a view to having a positive impact on the diversity of languages spoken within the EU. Projects also focused on less widely used and taught language. An illustrative example is the Oneness projects aimed at creating an online facility for learning the less widely used languages: Lithuanian, Polish, Finnish, Estonian and Portuguese.

Oneness (Lingua project): The curricula and methodology of the courses was based on the principles of the 'Common European Framework of Reference for Languages'. The courses incorporated a didactic or communicative approach. The main goal of this style of teaching / learning is to develop real-life communicative competence in listening, reading, speaking and writing. Socio-cultural background information on the countries was also integrated into the courses. As a result of this project there is wider access to less widely used language courses. elearning strategies have been employed to maximise this access. Partners were able to share best practice and gain a European outlook in the production of the outputs. The courses produced are user friendly, containing elaborate new teaching content. The products aim specifically to aid and encourage trans-national mobility through improving quality of learning for migrant groups. Oneness city courses have been widely accessed and used to acquire language skills in less widely used European languages. Uptake of the courses has greatly exceeded expectation. Requests have been made by institutions outside of the partner countries to translate the course instructions so that the uptake can be increased further. The course has been targeted at exchange students and migrants within the partner countries. This will aid the migration process and encourage mobilisation of students and others to the partner countries. Plans to make the courses accessible to a wider audience (e.g. Russia) will increase trans-national mobility further.

ECOTEC

116

In general, Lingua co-ordinators, partners and stakeholders reported that less widely used languages were becoming ‘slightly more popular’ but the attention has mostly been put on the main languages (French, English, German and Spanish). National Agencies strongly argued that there is an identified the need to more effectively promote LWUT languages as a way of encouraging wider mobility and the ‘preservation of cultural richness of the EU’.

National Agencies from the ‘new’ Member States reported an increase in language learning since they had become involved in the programme. For the ‘old’ Member states the influence of the programme is more difficult to assess. Countries such as the Netherlands, Finland, Luxembourg and Belgium with a recognised long history of language learning in their country felt that the programme may have had an impact when they first participated but language learning is now an integral part of their culture and the contribution made by the programme is therefore difficult to ascertain.

Overall improvement of foreign language skills of participants, particularly in the mobility aspect, was identified as a relatively important short term result of the programme, both for students and teaching staff. In order to achieve wider effects, both teaching and learning of (EU) languages would need to be increased particularly with regard to teaching staff. Evidence gathered through the evaluation showed that although ‘languages’ are a cross-cutting issue for all the Actions, having an Action dedicated to languages brought more focus to the activities. While being a small programme with a focus on devising new approaches to language learning, by no means all projects saw their role to increase the volume of language learning and teaching, but rather to improve the way in which language learning takes place. However given that the Lingua budget was comparatively small and that it supported about 20 projects a year, major impact could only be achieved if the resources were deployed strategically where it could lever significant change, and if there was effective dissemination and exploitation of outputs. Our results are in line with the findings of the evaluation of the extent to which Socrates and Leonardo achieved the programmes’ linguistic objectives1. This evaluation concluded that the programmes had most impact in relation to intercultural understanding and support for activities involving linguistic diversity or language knowledge. Less impact was achieved in terms of the more specific "linguistic knowledge" objectives and only a limited number of beneficiaries had learned a new foreign language. The impact achieved was in general confined to project coordinators and direct beneficiaries and had not been embedded in any long-term way. The report recommended the creation of a single programme, rather than two (Socrates and Leonardo) in order to achieve the linguistic objectives more effectively by allowing economies of scale and facilitating greater coherence.

1 Deloitte & Touche for DG EAC: Evaluation ex-post/midterm of the extent to which Socrates (1995-1999 and first phase of Socrates II) and Leonardo da Vinci have achieved the programmes' linguistic objectives, 18 October 2003.

ECOTEC

117

Our evaluation echoed the recommendations of dealing with language issues and linguistic objectives more coherently across all Actions with a close monitoring of the achievement of linguistic objectives. This would also help to raise visibility of the Actions. In the particular case of LWULT languages, these would also benefit from setting in place specific exchange and dissemination networks for the promotion of LWULT languages.

4.5.3 Improved teaching practice and management on account of transnational study periods of individuals and enhanced co-operation amongst institutions

Qualitative feedback from the interviews to co-ordinators and partners concluded that teaching staff mobility had positive effects in transferring good practice and in developing the capacity of education and training communities in Europe to exchange and innovate thereby improving the quality of teaching and learning and in the case of languages the volume of learning. Previous evaluations stated that mobile teachers often become more active, more intellectually engaged and also in some cases more visibly successful in their careers. This strong perception was highlighted by one stakeholder:

'There has been a strong impact on staff, providing inspiration and the opportunity to reflect on practice, transfer new ideas and so on. In this field EC projects are rated very highly' (Stakeholder)

During the in-depth interviews, a number of universities commented that the teacher exchanges have helped make university staff more familiar with the idea of mobility and that it has made them more flexible and inclusive in their teaching methods. An impact on the institution was also reported through building contacts with other institutions, the motivation of getting involved in further European activities, the improvement of their practices and positive impact on learners. In this line, the recent survey on the Professional value of Erasmus mobility reported that formerly mobile teachers were convinced that Erasmus teaching mobility had a positive impact on their institution of higher education. More than half of them argued that teaching mobility had been helpful for improving advice provided to mobile students and for providing knowledge on other countries. Almost half considered teaching mobility beneficial to improve the co-ordination of study programmes between the participating institutions, the range of foreign language teaching, the developments of new study concepts and the growing relevance of comparative approaches1.

Overall, co-ordinators and partners funded through the programme clearly felt that there was high added value obtained in their organisation’s teaching and learning from collaborating at European level as illustrated in the following figure.

1 INCHER-Kassel, The Professional Value of ERASMUS Mobility, November 2006

ECOTEC

118

Figure 4.3 How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at the European level on teaching and learning in your organisation?

05

101520253035404550

Very low Low Moderate High Very high

% o

f pro

ject

s/or

gani

satio

ns

comenius

erasmus

grundtvig

lingua

minerva

Source: ECOTEC Socrates II surveys, 2007. Answers do not sum to 100% due to exclusion of don’t knows.

Co-ordinators and partners reported that Socrates II has achieved this added value by providing for:

• Better teacher training and teaching due to exchange of ideas, methods and approaches;

• Better foreign language skills;

• Exchange and sharing of good practice; and

• New and innovative approaches, tools and courses.

Linked with this last point is that fact that in Socrates II, the greatest impacts appear to have been in the curriculum (an average 74% of respondents across the Actions agreed that the projects had an impact on the quality of teaching and curricula). This is particularly interesting in cases like Erasmus because a high percentage of respondents (62%) were reporting on their mobility activities showing that even student and teaching exchanges were seen to have an 'indirect' impact on curriculum development.

ECOTEC

119

Figure 4.4 How would you rate the impact of the project/activity in the curriculum?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Major across allcurriculum

areas

Major in somecurriculum

areas

Minor across allcurriculum

areas

Minor in somecurriculum

areas

No impact oncurriculum

Not applicable

comenius

erasmus

grundtvig

lingua

minerva


The figure shows most of the co-ordinators and partners reported that the activity had a ‘major impact in some curriculum areas’ which implies that most impacts were not ‘whole institution’ but only in parts of the institution or targeting specific disciplines. For example, a particular successful initiative is the 'Tuning educational structures in Europe' project which aims to standardise courses Europe wide, in line with Bologna principles. The project has successfully fostered agreement on core competences and therefore facilitating the comparison and recognition of degrees, whilst respecting the autonomy of the university and its capacity to innovate and experiment. 'Competence descriptors' assist universities in curriculum development and can also be used for internal and external quality assurance. Co-ordinators and partners reported that curriculum development courses added a European dimension to the curriculum. The curriculum projects aimed at changing the curricula in the participating members “making it richer” by exchanging and developing methodologies of teaching and enhancing its European dimension through co-operation between the institutions, mainly higher education institutions. Evidence gathered seemed to suggest that the international focus of the curriculum developments in the framework of Socrates II ranged from school partnerships encouraging international communication and cultural learning, to higher education curriculum 'tuning' activities, developing accreditation tools and structure at a European level. Stakeholders and co-ordinators agreed that European co-operation has allowed for the identification and production of materials in curriculum areas and addressing subjects at a European level.

ECOTEC

120

Experts and National Agencies also reported that the mobility of teaching staff had a positive and ‘qualitative’ impact on the curriculum. As the results of our survey to Comenius 2.2 (Teacher training) and Grundtvig 3 (Training grants) surveys revealed where “understanding the new teaching techniques and technologies” was cited by 54% of individuals (majority of the respondents being teachers) as the second most common benefit for participants. Evidence gathered showed that teachers gained experiences through the programme (e.g. learning and exchanging information with other teachers) and these new ways of working were fed indirectly back into their curriculum development through the slow adjustment of their own practices. Experts observed this particularly in Lingua, Comenius and Grundtvig. As reported by stakeholders, co-ordinators and partners the incorporation of partners from non-traditional educational settings has also had a particularly positive impact on the curriculum in line with the Lisbon objectives. Increased co-operation with industrial and community-based partners has led to more vocationally led outcomes in many projects, addressing labour market demand. This evidence certainly suggests a solid, moderate scale impact on teaching professionals and curriculum development and consequently, an impact on the institutions and practices. The teaching staff were seen as 'agents of change' with potential wider effects on other practitioners and their own institution.

In terms of impacts on management, the most common impact was a ‘major impact in some management areas’. This impact was observed not in the ‘whole institution’ but presumably in those management areas directly affected by the Socrates II project/activity. Managers were involved in knowledge exchange and have produced materials specifically for other managers in order to disseminate lessons in best practice. In Erasmus many networks had working groups dedicated to management issues. Handbooks were produced for managers outlining key issues within the discipline relevant at management level. Networks which did not have a specific focus on management issues, stressed the usefulness of being able to share best practice informally amongst the managers within their membership. Managers benefited from the programme by becoming more informed of developments in their fields but they were rarely direct participants across the programmes and often only benefited from dissemination or networking.

ECOTEC

121

Figure 4.5 How would you rate the impact of the project/activity in management?

05

1015202530354045

Major across allmanagement

areas

Major in somemanagement

areas

Minor acrossallmanagement

areas

Minor in somemanagement

areas

No impact onmanagement

Not applicable

comenius erasmus grundtvig lingua minerva


Impacts on management were registered to an extent that had not really been anticipated in the process of reconstructing the intervention logics for the programmes. It is likely that respondents to our surveys and interviews have applied a wide definition to 'impact on management' but this still shows a profound and potentially sustainable impact in certain areas within the participating institutions.

There is thus likely to have been a wide variety of small scale impacts within the management of institutions and it is thus hard to generalise. However it is significant that the majority of the new Member states NAs reported that management of institutions and organisations which had participated in the programme had become more European focused, having a role in "building capacity" of organisations in Eastern Europe (pre-accession stage) by providing a learning experience for the organisations and creating a culture to run European programmes. This also had a potential impact on the public administrations of those countries that had to adapt to the EC rules and manage transnational co-operation in a transparent manner.

4.5.4 Improved teaching training and quality

Most of the National Agencies felt that there were positive effects on teacher training mainly through the teacher mobility part of Erasmus, reporting a strong impact on staff by providing inspiration and the opportunity to reflect on practice and transfer new ideas. In Comenius the survey, of the 444 language teachers1 undertaking mobility the majority (422 or 95%) reported that upon returning they were able to use what they had learned in improving their teaching of the foreign language they taught before. Qualitative feedback indicated that teachers had been able to gain and use new skills (predominantly ICT or foreign language skills) or use innovative approaches which they had learned through participation on the programme, to help improve the quality of the teaching they deliver. National Agencies reported that feedback from teachers and adult educators suggested

1 Language teachers includes 380 language teachers and 64 student language teachers completing the survey.

ECOTEC

122

they had used the learning in the classroom and had encouraged them to become involve in other projects and networks. The following example helps illustrate these points. VISTA (Comenius): The VISTA project produced a training package aimed at reducing violence in schools. The training was developed by a variety of international experts in research, practice and training from the disciplines of sociology, psychology, education and criminology. The VISTA training was designed to benefit and inform not only teachers and educators but also local education authorities (LEAs) and policy-makers Europe-wide and young people themselves. The VISTA training package contains five modules and eighteen units. A key strength of the package is its flexibility. Due to the interactive, bottom-up approach of the materials, they can be suitably applied to all members of school communities at pre-school, primary and secondary level. Training activities include: information on current research and practice about violence reduction and prevention; needs analysis including preparation and planning, implementation, and review and evaluation; pupil and school self-audit, and strategies for improving the school and classroom climate; exercises on conflict resolution, mediation, restorative practice, peer support; exercises for integrating a wider-society approach with political initiatives1. This innovative design has led to wider access to training tools, throughout local communities. The team have also produced written publications and papers addressing how to implement and sustain their approach in various contexts2.Having been taken up by institutions widely across Europe, in partner and non-partner countries alike, VISTA has had many positive effects on teaching and learning. The VISTA package introduced a new topic to the teacher training curriculum. The 'whole school' approach utilised by VISTA meant that the training engaged managers and policy makers as well as educators, encouraging them to reflect on their practices and their possible impacts on the wider community.

In line with the previous results on curriculum development, evidence gathered suggests that the Socrates II programme has particularly impacted the teacher training curriculum. Materials and training programmes have been implemented in areas such as: teaching methods-intercultural teaching and non traditional teaching methods, violence in schools, mentoring, ICT. Impacts have been seen at a national level e.g. the incorporation of GIS into geography teacher training as standard in the UK. Evidence from the project co-ordinators and partners suggested that European co-operation has aided in allowing shortages of certain teachers to be identified. Countries have been able to share experience and knowledge of successful recruitment campaigns to address this. An example that illustrates this is the identification of a Europe-wide

1 http://www.vista-europe.org/ 2 Cowie, H. & Jennifer, D. (2007 in press) Managing Violence in Schools: a Whole-School Approach to Best Practice. London: Sage. Cowie, H. (2007) VISTA in Europe. Keynote address at the 13th International Congress of the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) 'Bridging the Gaps: Integrating Perspectives in Child and Adolescent Mental Health', Florence, Italy August 26-29.

ECOTEC

123

shortage of science teachers (secondary, tertiary and higher education) and a wide reaching promotion campaign aimed at science graduates. The European dimension of the network was extremely beneficial for this work. Countries that could easily attract funding for this promotion developed the campaigns, whilst less developed countries were able to learn lessons from this and implement aspects of the campaigns which had proven effective.

4.6 Impacts in policy (transferring practice into national/regional education and training policies and programmes)

The intervention logic for Socrates II highlighted three key areas of intended impact on policy as follows:

• Policy (impacts at national/regional/local/European policy level) • Integration into institutions and into national (and regional) education and training

policy and practice of methods/tools/ frameworks (impacts in policy and practice). • Greater transparency and recognition (impacts in policy and practice). • Convergence in policy and practice between Member States, especially in HE

(impacts in policy and practice).

Mobility, transnational co-operation and collaborative working provided the opportunity for participating institutions and projects to influence the policy agenda by looking at issues from a new perspective and joining forces. Immediate transfer and incorporation of results into policy and practice is not automatic. It usually takes time. Therefore measuring impact on policy and practice, particularly in the areas of education and training, requires a medium to long- term analysis which was difficult within the constraints of the evaluation. Even though the programme began in 2000, the volatility of policy1 (a natural consequence to a certain extent of the democratic process) means that the sustainability of policy impacts is at best debateable.

1 See for example McCoshan et al (forthcoming), 'Beyond Maastricht' for examples of policy volatility in the VET field.

ECOTEC

124

Figure 4.6 Policy impact of the projects. To what extent have the results or learning from your project/activity adopted at each policy level?

Source: ECOTEC Socrates II surveys, 2007.

The greatest impacts were felt mainly at local level (see Figure 4.6) and this reflects the fact that this is the level where most projects/activities were implemented. At local level around half of all projects in all Actions felt they had an impact on policy to a small or great extent. At regional level the impacts were more limited, although Grundtvig in particular demonstrated impact to a small or great extent (45%). At national level the impacts tended to be more limited with the most significant proportions across all Actions stating 'don't know'. At European level, Erasmus co-ordinators reported the highest level of impact ‘to a great extent’ (at 24%). This was probably a reflection of their thematic networking and joint production of courses. Other Actions reported minimum impact at European levels, for example one fifth of Comenius co-ordinators (20%) suggested there had been 'no impact' at European level. It is particularly interesting that the highest scores were in the “do not know” category. This suggested that showing impact on policy was not a priority for the projects and therefore little attention was paid to monitor that aspect, especially given that such monitoring would also require a follow-up exercise, limited in some cases by the lack of funding.

impact on regional level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60


Not at all To a small extent To a great extent Do not know

Impact on national level

0

10

20

30

40

50

60



Impact on European level

010203040506070



Impact on local level

05

1015202530354045



ECOTEC

125

Co-ordinators across Socrates II Actions gave several examples of the integration of their products and ideas within regional and national policy. Many project members described having a continuous rapport with local and national government authorities and reporting feedback from their projects which was fed into new policy documentation. But overall , this influence on policy depends on the flexibility of the national context and its structure. Co-ordinators felt that the extent to which they could have an impact within their country was highly dependent on the political context within which they worked. This Minerva co-ordinator gives an example of structural issues aiding his project's ability to contribute to national policies:

'Our [Wales] national representatives are very keen on pushing e-learning at the moment so we have been lucky. We've had ongoing discussions with National Assembly for Wales e-learning officers' (Minerva co-ordinator, Wales)

Most of the national reports highlighted some successful exceptions normally linked to other developments in the country. National reports attributed this to the limited number of organisations participating in the programme and to results having not been fully disseminated and successfully exploited. Stakeholders with influence in policy-making are scarcely involved in the projects, limiting the opportunity of the projects to transfer practice into policy. The impact on national policy is likely to be limited to informing policy-makers and making them aware of good practice and new ideas, rather than actually generating policy change. The evaluation team considers that the limited impact was due to a variety of reasons:

• Evaluation of impact on policies requires a more long-term approach. • Transfer of results of projects (usually implemented a local level) to the policy arena

(regional and national) has occurred in a small scale. • The causal- link between the programme and policies is in many cases gradual,

however useful and necessary. • There has not been an effort to monitor the 'actual' transfer of the results into policy and

practice, and therefore, sometimes, it has not been identified. • 'Weak capitalisation on experiences and the insufficient valorisation of the projects limit

the impact of certain Actions'. This point was clearly illustrated in the Evaluation of Action 6.1.2-6.21 where the evaluation concluded that the Action achieved some of its specific objectives and demonstrated a degree of effectiveness by helping to mobilise researchers at European level, networking them and enabling to share experience. However, the Action's main weakness was the insufficient "external" knowledge of the results of the projects, limiting its effects. This situation partly explains why so little is known of the Action and its limited scope in terms of impact.

1 Ernst & Young, Evaluation of Action 6.1.2-6.2 of the Socrates Programme 2000-2006. September 2006.

ECOTEC

126

With regard to the mobility aspect, evidence gathered confirmed that one of the major obstacles for people wanting to work or study in another country or indeed to move between different parts of the labour marked is the lack of recognition of qualifications and competences. Co-ordinators identified lack of recognition in educational accreditation systems as a barrier to the impact of their projects and activities (mobility). This was apparent in projects Minerva and Erasmus focusing on creating tools and courses. For instance, co-ordinators described how plans to implement these courses and tools in countries such as Bulgaria and Romania were not possible due to differences in accreditation systems. In terms of greater transparency and recognition of qualification (including informal and non-formal learning) did not emerge as a major impact. The issue of recognition of qualifications is a particularly important aspect affecting mobility. In the framework of the Erasmus Action, the host university (or other institution of higher education institutions) is expected to admit students from the partner institutions for the Erasmus-supported period of study, provide them appropriate study opportunities and assess their achievements during the study period. The home institution is expected to recognise on return all study achievements that their students had acquired during the Erasmus period. Therefore the temporary study period is not to be considered an add-on but rather as a component of a study programme. Recognition is therefore a crucial issue for the success of Erasmus. Results from previous surveys show contrasting views between institutions/teachers and students on the level of recognition provided, with teachers sometimes portraying a more positive picture of the extent of recognition they actually grant. However, identified barriers for full recognition were both 'institutional' (the differences in the extent of recognition by individual universities, by fields of study, and by countries) and also student-related, since some students are not linguistically well prepared for study in another country, they often take fewer courses abroad than the ones needed and the difficulties they experience in adapting to a new environment that can have repercussions on their performance. Although substantial work has been achieved in Erasmus (introductions of ECTS and Diploma supplement, the production of course descriptors, creation of European Bachelors and Masters) there was little mention of this impact in other Actions. Not many of the interviewees (co-ordinators, partners, NAs) felt able to answer this question, but those who did thought in general it was improving, but there was still a long way to go.

ECOTEC

127

'This is starting to happen - through Bologna and Qualifications Framework. This is improving but is not completely working at the moment - there is not complete transparency at the moment'. (Belgium) 'This is very important. But recognition is only possible when a common European Qualifications Framework is created. The EQF is not yet in place so recognition is not widely spread. In Bulgaria, there is recognition of Erasmus mobility but not Comenius'. (Bulgaria) 'The programme requires ECTS and qualifications recognition, but this is not always the case, which has a negative impact on the programme's outcomes'. (Spain)

It is in this particular aspect where the NARIC network can play an important role as the EC's instrument available to those national bodies in charge of the implementation of policies on the recognition and transparency of qualifications for academic purposes (the Recognition centres). The network provides a forum for the exchange of ideas, experience and information among the centres. However, the external evaluation of NARIC1, highlighted at the time of the evaluation (2002) that the network faced a lack of formal institutional definition and structure which limited its effectiveness. The evaluation concluded that a better definition of its operational activities coupled with better resourcing and increase visibility of its results would have increased the overall value of the network.

Convergence in policy and practice between Member States is closely related to the above mentioned issue. Only some interviewees were positive (only cautiously so) about the developments made to induce convergence between Member States. Project co-ordinators interviewed believed that projects had made an important impact on the convergence of policy and practice between Member States, in particular, tools, curriculum development and teaching methods. Widespread sharing of best practice between Member States took place, visible in the outputs of these projects, leading to a greater European outlook for people involved. Materials have been produced which are versatile and can be used across Member States. This convergence was thought to be particularly important to improve the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the education systems. An interesting example is the Tuning2 project. This project addresses several of the Bologna Action lines and aims to identify points of reference for the general and subject-specific skills which should be covered by university degrees in a number of disciplines. This methodology has been adopted by the Thematic networks of Erasmus in 2002.

1 DG EAC, External Evaluation of the NARIC Network, August 2002. 2 http//europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/educ/tuning/tuning_en.html

ECOTEC

128

The following example illustrates this point:

Polifonia (Erasmus): Polifonia aimed to implement at a practical level the 'Bologna Declaration Process' principles, in relation to professional music training across Europe. International expert working groups were set up focusing on different areas relevant to curriculum development and delivery. There were over sixty partner organisations in the Polifonia Thematic Network. The majority of partnership organisations were higher education institutions involved with professional music training, other organisations were directly involved with the music profession. The organisations were based in thirty-two European countries. A major output is the production of music qualification descriptors, meant to illustrate the typical profiles of the three study cycles in professional music training in higher education. The descriptors follow the official ‘Shared Dublin Descriptors’ of the three cycles for higher education made by the Joint Quality Initiative1. 'Tuning Counsellors' visit higher education institutions giving specific training and advice on curriculum management related to 'Polifonia Dublin Descriptors'.

These outputs are tools resulting in an increased comparability and improvement in quality of professional music teaching across Europe. The trans-national nature of the working groups led to a European outlook within the materials produced and to a greater European understand for those involved. The network fostered co-operation between extremely large and diverse groups of partners. The main impact of the Polifonia TN has been an increased comparability and quality improvement of the professional music training curriculum, in line with Bologna process principles. The network has strengthened relations between professionals, promoting a wider understanding of the needs of the profession at a European level. Handbooks and curriculum developments have been utilised at a national level in participating nations. Employment prospects for students are thought to be improved by the enhanced quality of courses and the fact that this quality is now recognised throughout Europe. The European working group for pre-college music education structure demonstrates the life-long learning approach taken by this project. The project recognised the importance of appreciating this stage of education when addressing later stages i.e. bachelor, masters, post-masters. Relationships within the network were successful and sustainable. For instance, interesting side projects have been developed by those involved in the network: two European Master's courses; Intensive projects; Culture 2000 and Leonardo projects. Sustainability of the project outcomes formed a key issue, built into the design of the network. Institutions are now being supported practically at a national level in delivering Bologna Process driven work.

1 Polifonia Newsletter II, 2006

ECOTEC

129

It is worth noticing that qualitative feedback from co-ordinators and partners also highlighted some reticence regarding this convergence in policy and practice:

'Convergence of methodologies, [yes], but policy and practice are not and should not be convergent across all member states. This is specific to geography - natural resources in one country means its geographical practices will and should differ from others' (Erasmus network co-ordinator, UK)

It was also not always an appropriate goal for projects. Analysis revealed that this was particularly relevant to applications of ICT at a system level. As this Comenius network co-ordinator notes:

'What was standardised was countries' knowledge of ICT use within other European countries [standardisation of knowledge as project impact]. Practices will and should differ because each institution, in each country will have slightly different needs. There isn't one IT solution or strategy, what's important is finding something that works for a particular school in a particular country…giving them the knowledge to find the right way for them' (Comenius network co-ordinator, Norway)

Other areas commonly mentioned in the National Reports were equality and ICT. Equality impacts were seen to result from the large amount of work focusing on disability, intercultural issues and various other socially disadvantaged groups. Work was completed through Socrates II informing educators of the uses of ICT and promoting its use amongst learners.

Equality issues are present across the programme but appeared to be most frequently addressed in the Grundtvig programme. Most national reports indicated that the priorities of the programme in these areas complement national priorities in education as these are considered key issues in policy-making. Sometimes, these EU transversal priorities had helped to strengthen national policies by drawing attention to these particular issues.

The evaluation findings showed that the extent to which activities were intended to have impacts on policy and practice beyond the partners involved varied significantly depending on the Actions concerned, the nature of the activity and the EU's competence in each sector (schools, higher education and adult education). The fact that some types of activity were decentralised whilst others were centralised is also highly pertinent here. Of these two types it is decentralised activities that were more likely to have had an effect on national policy and practice through dissemination. Impacts on policy and practice at national levels within countries came through the efforts of individual projects to disseminate their results; in the main national authorities did not play an extensive active role in gathering together and disseminating the results from projects. Thus with the exception of Erasmus, the other Actions, as we have seen, had the greatest impact on policy at local level.

ECOTEC

130

4.7 Sustainability

Ensuring benefits and impacts are sustained beyond the end of the project is a key area of concern for the Commission. Evidence from the survey suggests that in a significant number of cases outputs from projects are still in use (beyond the end of the funding) and most of the projects reported that this was the case within the organisation and within a partner organisation. However projects reported a far lower use of outputs within other (non-partner) organisations. Interviews with project co-ordinators suggested that a number of partnerships were sustained beyond the life of the project. In practice the ‘sustainability’ of the co-operation took different forms, formal or informal sustained collaboration between organisations, involving most or only part of the partners.

Co-ordinators and partners also reported that they were seeking funding to extend these relationships and their European activity, and/or embarking on new projects designed to extend the networks formed.

For Socrates II in general, the self-sustaining nature of networks created was widely viewed by project co-ordinators and partners as integral to project design, with use of web-based forums to ensure longevity being particularly common. Little concrete evidence was available on the issue of sustainability, from sources other than projects themselves. However, there was some evidence from Socrates II stakeholder interviews that sustainability was a challenge, since networks were on the whole dependent on EU funding and network meetings expensive.

Figure 4.7 Sustainability of outputs. Are your outputs still in use..?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Yes, w ithin yourorganisation

Yes, w ithin partnerorganisation

Yes, w ithin other (non-partner) organisation

No, not in use

Sources: ECOTEC Socrates II surveys,2007

ECOTEC

131

Table 4.7 Sustainability of activities and partnerships by Action

The extent to which the outcomes of the programme (including the partnerships/networks developed under it) are sustained is an important measure of programme success, although it requires a longer timeframe to provide definitive findings in this regard.

The project scrutiny revealed that some projects did develop some sustainable products/outputs e.g. networks, courses and websites. The internet was used to ensure the sustainability of products in the long-term, e.g. by making them available for download and, in several cases, the high quality of the outputs was felt to be a positive factor in the potential for sustainability. In other cases the partnership shows signs of sustainability; some projects went on to form an association or other legal entity to ensure the partnership work continued. It appears that if dissemination activities had been stronger, the projects would have been more sustainable as this was dependent on obtaining

Comenius Erasmus Grundtvig Lingua Minerva Average

Will the activities continue after the end of the Socrates II funding?

Yes , all activities will continue 13% 26% 14% 19% 20% 18%

Yes, some of the activities will continue 57% 46% 68% 53% 65% 58%

No 12% 11% 6% 9% 7% 9%

Don’t know 18% 17% 12% 19% 8% 15%

Total responses 1832 715 627 117 109 3400

Will the partnership continue?

Yes, all partners will continue to work together 21% 22% 15% 5% 14% 15%

Yes, most of the partners will continue to work together 18% 42% 28% 21% 28% 27%

Yes, some partners will continue to work together 31% 20% 34% 45% 38% 34%

No 10% 4% 8% 5% 6% 7%

Don’t know 20% 12% 15% 24% 14% 17%

Total responses 1832 715 627 117 109 3400

ECOTEC

132

funding and buy-in to carry out further activity. For example some projects had not at the point of the final report been able to secure sponsorship to continue activities.

The sustainability of project impact was and will be dependent on a number of factors. These include: on-going commitment to partnership-working, obtaining financial support and dissemination and exploitation. Many projects indicated that partnership working had enabled the project to be more effective and had led to a sense of ‘ownership’ among the organisations involved, thus promoting sustainability of the project outcomes. Working in partnership enabled partners to learn from each other and to replicate good practice. Many projects stated that partnership working had brought unexpected benefits and led to additional outcomes. Less than one in ten (7%) co-ordinators and partners reported that the partnership will not continue in any way. Most projects indicated that the partnerships and relationships formed during the programme will continue in some form which suggests that a lasting impact of the programme will be increased collaboration among organisations in the education field and beyond (enterprises, NGOs). Those projects that drew up strategies and Actions plans and those with built-in income generation methodologies were more likely to be sustainable in the longer-term. Success also depended on take-up and buy-in from the organisations themselves. Dissemination and exploitation activities are there vital in order to ‘sell’ the project findings to stakeholders and policy makers.

ECOTEC

133

4.8 Utility

The utility of a programme is the extent to which the impacts achieved corresponded to the needs and expectations of stakeholders and wider society, and to the needs it sought to meet.

In general, Socrates II was seen as being relevant to the needs of education and training in Europe, since the objectives of the programme were broadly defined. This provided the flexibility to meet institutional or national priorities and for the programme as a whole to respond to shifts need over time. The specific and operational objectives of the programme demonstrate a strong compatibility with the needs and challenges for education in Europe identified in this review. In particular the organisation of Actions within Socrates II displayed a clear correspondence with the cross-sectional priority areas identified. Importance of lifelong learning is indicated through the structuring of Actions by sector. Minerva and Lingua address the two remaining cross sectional challenges of ICT and language learning.

Activities selected for support were generally relevant to the objectives of the programme and thus also the key needs identified in education in Europe. The main focus of the activities has in practice (as the aggregate of individual project activity and individual mobility) been relevant to the objectives of the programme although more could be done in the areas of ‘quality’ and 'accreditation, validation and recognition'.

The very broad global and specific objectives of the programme and its Actions have enabled it to contribute on the one hand to major European debates like the 'Bologna process' and on the other to the development of teaching materials. Whilst such flexibility is a strength, lack of focus could lead to difficulties. Concerns were sometimes expressed that the broad scope of its Actions might be reducing their potential impact by spreading resources thinly over a large terrain.

All the sources of evidence explored in this evaluation indicated that the most important contribution of Socrates II has been through the promotion of European co-operation. Most of the survey respondents saw their project as contributing to the objective of strengthening the European dimension in education and promoting European co-operation. The National Agencies and stakeholders see European co-operation as the area where the programme has added most value and where it has broadened the horizons and practice of the education community (schools, adult education institutions, higher education institutions) and individual participants.

ECOTEC

134

4.9 Value for money

Achieving the very broad objectives of the programme required a very broad range of activities and overall the programme has effectively supported a very wide variety of activities across the Action. Based on the ratio of financial resources to results achieved, the programme appeared efficient with a wide range of activities of small and medium scale undertaken. The results and impacts reported regardless their extent covered the different sectors (schools, higher education, adult education) and identified transversal issues relevant for the education field. Socrates II appeared to add value in a number of ways and across the entire geographical spectrum form the very specific and local (changing teaching practices in individual institutions) to the more general and European (supporting Bologna process). There was also a broad spread across the 31 participating countries and the organisations participating were also very diverse. Activities delivered a wide range of results from those to be more abstract and intangible ( 'greater European outlook’) to those that are concrete and tangible (development of new tools).

4.10 Lessons learnt for the new programmes

The Actions in Socrates II embodied the key objectives in education and training but these cannot be dissociated. There is a need for more cross-fertilisation and synergy between Actions and programmes in a ‘formalised’ way (e.g. networking meetings, supporting ‘project matching’, proactive exchange of information between EC staff/EACEA during the different stages of the life of a project (selection, implementation). As highlighted in the interim evaluation of Socrates II, this is particularly relevant to foster the kind cross-cutting activity needed in the framework of the lifelong learning strategy. The integration of the Actions in the new Lifelong Learning Programme is expected to facilitate better exchange across Actions. But this process needs to be facilitated as it does not come naturally for the projects. In addition to that policy units within DGEAC and other relevant DGs could be more involved in future work of the exchange platforms and networks to make the transfer of practice into police more effective, stimulating a close interaction between the experiences on the ground and the EU policy development.

The experience of Erasmus has shown that the stimulation of mass-mobility of students in Europe can serve to create incentives for higher education institutions to collaborate and undertake joint work with potentially higher and more sustainable gains at individual and institutional levels. Mobility was seen as beneficial but the evaluation has identified the need to improve the quality of the mobility period, support provided and the recognition of the study in order to increase the demand and achieve the intended targets.

ECOTEC

135

5.0 Conclusions

5.1 Evaluation questions and sub-questions

5.1.1 Relevance, coherence and complementarity.

To what extent were the interventions objectives pertinent to needs, problems and issues to be addressed?

This question has been answered by responding to a number of specific sub-questions, which are addressed below.

To what extent did programme objectives match the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy and the integrated Guidelines during the period 2000-2006? Including:

• expanding and improving investment in human capital through Education and Training policy

• adapting Education and Training systems to new competence requirements

Despite preceding the Lisbon Strategy, the objectives of the Socrates programme, as set out in the decision which established the programme1 and incorporated into the intervention logic for this evaluation, displayed a clear correspondence with the Lisbon Strategy objectives and Integrated Guidelines. Expansion of the investment in human capital was cohesive with the Socrates objective of facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources while promoting equal opportunities throughout all fields of education. The design of the Socrates programme objectives also promoted improvements in this investment in human capital through its aims to increase mobility and language competencies. Improvements in these conditions further the creation of a flexible workforce. The new competency requirements of the Education and Training system were visibly addressed in the objectives of the Socrates programme. Innovation in the development of educational practices and materials were a key objective of the programme, as was the encouragement of transnational co-operation at an institutional level in relation to system issues such as: the development of open and distance learning and broadening recognition of qualifications and educational activities.

1 Decision 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24.1.2000, Official journal of the European Communities No L28 of 3.2.2000.

ECOTEC

136

To what extent does the programme have the potential to contribute to achievement of the Lisbon goals in the future?

The Socrates programme displayed clear potential to contribute towards the Lisbon goals. In particular, the programme has the capacity to aid:

• Creating an information society for all • Developing a European area for innovation, research and development • Increasing social inclusion • Returning people to the workforce • Upgrading skills. The increase in the quality of education systems, individual competencies and widening of educational participation, built into the programme objectives, contributed towards the formation of a knowledge economy/information society. Socrates Actions, sub-Actions and their dynamic annual priorities displayed the possibilities of the programme for developing a European area for innovation, research and development. The design of the Minerva Action is particularly relevant to developing innovation within the education system, as it targets, for example, the achievement of European co-operation in the field of Open and Distance Learning (ODL) and Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). Other Actions maintained this focus on innovation e.g. ICT and teaching methods, concentrating on delivery in various educational sectors and in language learning. Objectives and activities within Erasmus are closely linked to developing a European education area for research and development. In particular, the creation of European courses and thematic networks have the potential to consolidate national approaches and knowledge in higher education areas. Social inclusion is promoted across many Socrates Actions, with annual calls for proposals identifying key target groups and issues, for example, gender issues, people with physical and learning disabilities, racism and xenophobia. Grundtvig's focus on widening participation in adult learning displays potential for achievement in terms of adults returning to the workforce.

To what extent were the activities covered compatible with the priorities of the Education and Training 2010 programmes?

The activities covered within the Socrates programme were highly compatible with the priorities of Education and Training 2010 programmes:

• improving the quality and effectiveness of education and the measurement of progress through agreed instruments, training systems in the European Union;

• facilitating the access of all to education and training systems; and • opening-up education and training systems to the wider world.

ECOTEC

137

Improvements in quality and effectiveness of all levels of European education formed the key global objective of both the Socrates programme and Education 2010 programmes. To this end, particular activities relevant to the Education and Training work programme were sharing of best practice and the development of staff training tools/methods. The facilitation of inclusive access to education and training systems was visible in Socrates activities in terms of the inclusion of all European states and inclusion of traditionally educationally disadvantaged groups. Several activities developed standardised materials, tools and courses, with the capacity to be utilised across all European states and all Actions were designed to facilitate transnational links between learners, educators or other educational stakeholders, allowing less developed countries to gain insights into best practice. The opening up of education and training systems to the wider world was the least commonly addressed Education and Training 2010 priority within Socrates and was not expressed explicitly as an objective. However, examples of non-European involvement were commonly reported by co-ordinators. For example, several networks were able to involve non-European participants. Students from outside of Europe were also reported to have been keen and successful participants in European postgraduate courses designed by the programme. To what extent are the objectives, priorities and activities of the programme, Actions and sub-Actions in line with the needs of their target groups?

The Socrates programme design fitted the needs of target groups well. Within school education, key needs identified at an individual level included improving ICT and language skills and promoting European citizenship. Comenius schools partnerships were particularly responsive to these needs. School projects are designed not only to afford participants a European outlook, but also to incorporate the use of ICT into the school curriculum. School language projects sought to increase young people's motivation, capacity and confidence to communicate in other European languages.

For education systems, the main issues to be addressed were: the re-conceptualisation of 'knowledge' as 'competencies', placing the learner and their skills at the centre of the educational process; ensuring quality and equality of opportunity across Europe, despite the devolution of decision-making power to individual school level; effective deployment of new technologies; reorganisation of curriculum, structure and culture of schools to promote social inclusion; and strengthening dialogue and co-operation between schools at a European level. The strengthening of transnational communication between schools was a key priority of various Comenius sub-Actions e.g. European co-operation projects, and Comenius networks.

For higher education the priorities were: improving employment outcomes; widening access to participation; encouraging international mobility and exchange; promoting collaboration and convergence of practice amongst EU institutions; incorporating mobility and language learning into higher education courses; encouraging dialogue with local and regional enterprises and social partners. Erasmus was designed to address those issues.

ECOTEC

138

Networks and European co-operation projects were designed to enhance quality through knowledge exchange between a diversity of partners across Europe. Mobility activities formed their own sub-Action within Socrates.

Within adult education, the key priority areas identified were: the distribution of skills across the population, particularly focusing on skills in those over 45 years old and migrant populations; increasing computer literacy; recognition and validation of learning outcomes. The design of the Grundtvig Action fed into these the needs identified within adult education well. Calls for proposals explicitly mentioned all the above areas as priorities.

To what extent was there coherence between the different Actions and sub-Actions under the programme, including objectives, target groups, activities and intended outputs, results and impacts?

In terms of internal coherence, this evaluation echoed the recommendation of the interim evaluation of Socrates that called for a better synergy and coherence between the Actions. The Actions were managed separately from each other and Socrates as a whole lacked a common unified identity, despite many of the Actions having very strong individual identities or 'brands'. Opportunities for greater coherence between the Actions were not optimised.

To what extent have the programmes remained complementary to other relevant EU and national initiatives and avoided duplicating them? Degree of duplication/overlap between programmes and similar national programmes and measures?

National Agencies and other stakeholders were positive about the complementarity of the programmes to other European and national schools level policy, primarily because the programmes were general enough to be able to do so. Generally, the Socrates II programme complemented to a fair degree the other activity being undertaken. The programme (through the Minerva and Comenius Actions) had the potential to overlap with the eLearning programme and specifically the eTwinning Action of that programme within schools. While Minerva focussed on innovation and pedagogy in ICT, and had a very broad focus, the eLearning programme had a more strategic focus on particular Actions and on generalising activity which had been tried and tested and proven to work; and, where possible, learning from the two Actions was shared - through joint co-ordinator meetings for example. Links between eTwinning and Comenius were also complementary. The evaluation found that many schools used eTwinning as a stepping stone towards applying for Comenius funding. This complementarity has been demonstrated going forwards in the current Lifelong Learning programmes, where the two Actions have been brought together.

ECOTEC

139

To what extent would projects have taken place without EU support (additionality)?

As far as subsidiarity is concerned, the programme focused on promoting and co-operation between Member States in the field of education. It did not attempt to intervene in the structure and content of national education and training systems but focused on areas where European added value could be achieved. Therefore, most of the activity supported by the programme can be viewed as additional to what would have taken place without it. This was corroborated by the vast majority of co-ordinators and partners in the programme who felt that their project would not have taken place without funding from the Commission. Where activities would have occurred without Socrates II funding, qualitative feedback gave an insight into the important dimensions which additional EC funding had brought to the projects. This was particularly the case for Erasmus networks, most of whom stated that a network of experts would exist independently of EC funding. Co-ordinators highlighted that EU funding played a vital role in building international relationships and strengthening co-operation through increasing the face-to-face contact of participants in meetings, working groups and conferences and widening reach by involving a higher number of participants from a wide range of actors/organisations. The nature and scale of the mobility opportunities (students and teachers) provided by the programme were clearly additional to other mobility opportunities. In fact, the Erasmus Action can also be considered the precursor of other consequent mobility opportunities. Evidence gathered show that clearly without the European funding provided by the programme less people would have moved within Europe and, the additional funding provided by national, regional and local initiative and private bodies would have stopped, or even not have existed, without the EU contribution. This would have a negative impact on aspects such as European citizenship and long term in aspects such as the competences of the workforce (capacity for mobility, language proficiency).

5.2 Effectiveness of programmes

To what extent were the programmes successful in attaining the objectives set and achieving the intended results?

This question has been answered by responding to a number of specific sub-questions around outputs and target audiences, which are addressed below.

To what extent did the programmes and Actions achieve their general and specific objectives?

The general and specific objectives of Socrates were pursued through supporting individual mobility; facilitating exchange through networks; promoting languages and ICT skills; promoting transnational partnerships aimed at developing innovation and quality of education and the development and updating of reference material and data. The most common objective was around strengthening the European dimension in education, followed by the objective of encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials.

ECOTEC

140

Many of the respondents reported working towards several of the objectives which was to be expected given the complementary nature of the objectives.

Despite this positive picture emerging from the survey, other sources of evidence (in-depth interviews with NAs, co-ordinators, partners and results of project scrutiny) revealed that performance was mixed within projects. In-depth interviews revealed that some projects reported to have exceeded the original planned objectives within the time/budget constraints, whereas others experienced many problems, (such as needing a long “setting up phase” (extra year) at the beginning of the project; budget not being adequate to meet objectives the project originally set) therefore their original objectives were modified during the implementation. The project scrutiny exercise revealed that although projects did report on the outputs produced (e.g. products they had developed, courses they had run, events they had held) they rarely explored the wider results and impacts in terms of the Socrates programme overall objectives. The evaluation team considers that, although the contribution of the projects to the achievement of the programmes’ objectives is on the whole positive it is also true that such objectives (i.e.” enhancing the quality and reinforcing the European dimension of higher education”), although relevant to needs, were not specific, challenging to measure and hard for projects to achieve within the timeframe. What outputs, both tangible and intangible, were produced?

Exchange of experience and good practice was the key output emerging from projects. This is an anticipated finding in light of the high level of transnational co-operation built into the design of the projects. The production of teaching and training materials, creation of networks and facilitation of mobility activities were also highlighted as significant Socrates output types by various data. Other outputs in line with the intervention logic, as reported by projects included:

• Linguistic preparation for project participants • New curriculum (descriptors, guidelines) • Training course • Teaching/training methodology and strategy • Website(s) • Evaluation report(s) • Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication • Framework for the organisation of mobility activities • Transnational meetings (e.g. of network) • Seminars. workshops, conferences, exhibitions / fairs • Information/promotional campaign • Media materials • Other awareness-raising tool • Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences • Valorisation.

ECOTEC

141

Mobility of students and teachers was one of the key areas of outputs. In Erasmus in 2006, over 150,000 students, or almost 1% of the European student population, took part. However to reach the target of 10% participation rate specified in the Socrates II decision the proportion of the total student population should be 2% annually. This shows that despite the success in mobilising 1.5 million students it still represented a small proportion of the student population and the target was not met.

What factors have favoured or prevented the achievement of intended outputs?

Key factors with the capacity to affect achievement of intended outputs were: having effective working agreements and management structures within the partnership; being inclusive (bringing together the key 'strategic' and 'operational' partners), better support and assistance for the project and having opportunities for networking with projects within/across the programme. In the mobility aspect, in particular, difficulties to get recognition of qualifications/study period and limited financial support for the individuals undertaken mobility were rated as the key aspects affecting mobility. Most of the obstacles to mobility were outside the programme themselves, relating to the way mobility periods were organised in the different countries, within the organisations and the language skills of the learners.

Projects in de-centralised sub-Actions tended to give more positive feedback on the general level of support received from the NAs. NAs were described as having a more personalised, responsive and proactive approach to project support. Specific comments included, NAs being interested in the content as well as the administration of the projects, NAs as giving continuous support throughout projects and being 'approachable'.

Project co-ordinators also raised specific issues about various aspects of project support and their effect on outputs and general results within application, selection and contracting.

To what extent has the programme generated unintended/unplanned outputs?

In-depth interviews revealed that several projects exceeded the level of outputs and results. This was particularly valid for networks, where collaborations facilitated by the networks produced a high volume of various outputs. In Actions where the 'process' of co-operation was the intention, and outputs themselves were considered additional to that.

To what extent did Actions succeed in reaching their main target audience?

Dissemination was a key focus of the programme, and the majority of projects completed some form of dissemination activity. The effectiveness of dissemination varied, with some projects able to provide good evidence of effects, whilst others were unable to demonstrate how their outputs were taken up and used by others, particularly by those outside their original partnership. Evidence suggests that more could have been done to

ECOTEC

142

ensure effective dissemination – and more importantly exploitation – of programme outputs.

To which extent has the programme been accessible and non-discriminatory?

Equality was highlighted as an area of weakness for many projects within Socrates. Although some projects' overall aims related to relevant issues (improving intercultural understanding, facilitating accessibility for disadvantaged groups, gender issues) very few indicated in the documentation how they would address equality/accessibility issues in the actual running of the projects. Few projects appeared to have ensured diversity in the target groups engaged. Some projects demonstrated appropriate partnership-working procedures and one Grundtvig project did include an accessibility section on its website, with information about its accessibility features.

How effective has the dissemination and exploitation of results been and what further should be done? What factors have facilitated and inhibited effective dissemination and exploitation?

Various evidence suggested that the barriers to effective dissemination and meeting target needs were derived from lack of importance placed upon the activity by project staff and difficulties in meeting time and budget constraints. Projects need to be more informed of the importance of developing a robust dissemination strategy which identifies key audiences and the methods to be employed in order to reach these target audiences. Dissemination to key policy and decision makers should be strengthened – perhaps by involving stakeholders in the development of the programme, e.g. by setting up thematic networking events on a national and transnational level. The mobility aspect would also benefit for a more proactive dissemination strategy aimed at raising visibility of the benefits for participants in mobility exchanges. This is particularly essential to help achieve the mobility targets in the new Lifelong Learning programme.

5.2.1 Impacts

To what extent has the programme produced visible results/impacts?

The programme achieved a variety of shorter term results and longer term impacts, which were broadly in line with what was intended. The results of projects should be considered against those identified in the intervention logic for the programme and the original objectives of the programme. Clearly a key programme objective that was met through the programme was around strengthening the European dimension in education. Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials is one of the key specific objectives in Socrates II, where evidence showed that there is still clear room for improvement. Minerva respondents were the only ones who highlighted innovation as one of the main benefits. For the other Actions innovation seemed to be more context-oriented (new working arrangements and networking) rather than process-oriented (new methods, technologies

ECOTEC

143

and ways of supporting integration) or goal-oriented (new target groups)1. It appears to be more focused on widening partnership work to include other organisations and the “European perspective” by involving partners in other countries than the joint development of tangible outputs. To what extent did projects meet their general and specific objectives?

In terms of meeting programme and specific objectives most respondents in surveys and in-depth interviews gave very positive accounts of their achievement, suggesting a high degree of satisfaction with their participation in the programme. Despite this positive picture emerging from the survey, other sources of evidence (in-depth interviews with NAs, co-ordinators, partners and results of project scrutiny) revealed that performance was mixed within projects. In-depth interviews revealed that some projects reported to have exceeded the original planned objectives within the time/budget constraints whereas others experienced many problems (such as needing a long “setting up phase” (extra year) at the beginning of the project; budget not being adequate to meet objectives the project originally set) and therefore their original objectives were modified during the implementation.

An additional, specific target set in the overall Decision establishing the Socrates programme related specifically to Comenius, to attain a participation rate of around 10% of schools2. This target was difficult to measure since a formal count of the number of schools in Europe was not available3, however qualitative feedback from stakeholders suggested the target was not met by the programme during 2000-6. As a comparator, information was sought on the number of school age pupils in Europe. Eurostat data suggests 98,318,300 students in 2005 were enrolled in school education but this included learners up to post-graduate level and was not an appropriate comparator for primary, and lower and upper secondary school-age pupils. Using this figure as a (non-equivalent) comparator the participation rate is around 5% though this could be expected to be slightly higher if graduate and post-graduate studies were excluded4 although still below the 10% target.

What have been the longer term and wider impacts of these results to date? Including on policy and practice.

Looking across the programme, it is clear that with the exception of major parts of Erasmus the first order effects were generally intended to be social capital effects – shaping policy and practice, creating a European area of education and training and

1 Types of innovation: NEI/FHVR A methodology for the European evaluation of the Employment Initiative from: Equal Innovation Policy Paper 3 – October 2006 2 Decision No. 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 January 2000 3 Not available in Eurostat Education Statistics, 2007. 4 Source: Eurostat, 2007, available at: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,45323734&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=welcomeref&open=/C/C3/C32&language=en&product=Yearlies_new_population&root=Yearlies_new_population&scrollto=0

ECOTEC

144

developing lifelong learning. Activities such as fostering co-operation amongst professionals within the system or developing new methods and tools were often seen as ends in themselves with wider impacts regarded as what were described as 'induced effects'. Only in Erasmus was there a significant intention accompanied by substantial resources to deliver direct socio-economic benefits. The mobility aspect generated a clear impact on people with the majority of respondents (surveys, in-depth interviews) reporting a very positive impact. This impact led to an increased capacity for mobility in the future (within and outside Europe), more open attitude and a clearer and better informed perspective for their subsequent studies or professional life; greater understanding of Europe and ‘belonging to a European family’, improved knowledge of EU language(s) and better contacts with European colleagues. Professional impact is also significant in the improvement of new skills, knowledge of other education systems and practices. As a result of the mobility period, participants became more ‘employable’ (international experience, foreign languages skills) but this was considered as an ‘indirect’ effect. The positive attitude of participants towards the experience and mobility in general has a potential ‘multiplier effect’ by motivating others to take part and also for non-mobile students to benefit from the contact with international students and teachers.

All the sources of evidence explored in this evaluation indicated that the most important contribution of the programme has been through the promotion of European co-operation. Most of the survey respondents saw their project as contributing to the objective of strengthening the European dimension in education and promoting European co-operation. The National Agencies and stakeholders see European co-operation as the area where the programme has added most value and where it has broadened the horizons and practice of the education community (schools, adult education institutions, higher education institutions) and individual participants. However, the extent of this co-operation was difficult to measure.

What factors have enabled and inhibited the achievement of longer term, wider impacts?

The key factors influencing the achievement of longer term impact are normally level of funding, timing and what we can describe as 'contextual' factors. These 'contextual' factors relate to the nature of the sector (HE is better well-established and more experienced in European co-operation than adult education and schools) and the flexibility and structure of the national context.

To what extent did project results bring benefits to the (implementing) organisation?

Socrates II programme has made the European dimension a reality not only for higher education institutions (over 2,500 universities signed the Erasmus University Charter) for schools (66,331 grants awarded for School partnerships in Comenius) and adult education institutions (1,980 institutions funded under Grundtvig). This was done by supporting transnational work that brings together key actors and stakeholders to co-operate to

ECOTEC

145

develop some joint work. The co-operation was also extended to a wider range of social and institutional actors (e.g. industry, NGOs, civil society), taking into account the reality in which the project operated, closing the gap between the education sector, labour market and society at large. This wider co-operation brought opportunities for innovation and increase capacity for dissemination of results. This also brought capacity at European level for the exploration of matters of common policy interest and the subsequent discussion of such matters to ensure that education and training is developed to fit the context and needs of the knowledge society. Linked to the increased co-operation, there is an element of sharing and exchanging information amongst institutions across Europe. (e.g. ranging from large high-level European networks (Erasmus) and projects bringing together the key specialists in a particular subject area, to small groupings of schools or adult education institutions in different countries). This brought opportunities for learning and sharing.

Co-ordinators, partners and stakeholders agreed that institutions and organisations have received real benefits from the co-operation even though it is very difficult to provide an exact assessment. The benefits and impact seemed to refer to building ‘social and professional capital’, being defined as the networks of social and professional relations that provide access to needed resources and support. Therefore the added value of the transnational co-operation can be defined as ‘networking production’, creation of ‘networks of co-operation’ which have been set up to achieve a common objective. Programmes like Socrates do not guarantee only physical outputs, results and impacts but also networks and networking (understood as all the effects conveyed by networks) at different levels aimed at accessing resources in order to tackle a problem/need identified in the field of education and training in Europe.

To what extent have the programmes inspired the introduction of similar measures and Actions by national or regional authorities in the participating countries? To what extent did the programmes stimulate national authorities to exchange information and best practice and to co-operate in the area in question?

Impact depended heavily upon the flexibility and structure of the national context. Co-ordinators across Socrates II Actions gave several examples of the integration of their products and ideas within regional and national policy. Many project members described having a continuous rapport with local and national government authorities and reporting feedback from their projects which was fed into new policy documentation. But overall, this influence on policy depended on the flexibility of the national context and its structure.

ECOTEC

146

5.2.2 Utility

To what extent do the results and impacts of the programme actually meet the needs and expectations of its stakeholders and intended beneficiaries? To what has the programme generated the expected impacts?

In general, Socrates II was seen as being relevant to the needs of education and training in Europe, since the objectives of the programme were broadly defined. This provided the flexibility to meet institutional or national priorities and for the programme as a whole to respond to shifts need over time. The specific and operational objectives of the programme demonstrate a strong compatibility with the needs and challenges for education in Europe identified in this review. In particular the organisation of Actions within Socrates II displayed a clear correspondence with the cross-sectional priority areas identified. Importance of lifelong learning is indicated through the structuring of Actions by sector. Minerva and Lingua address the two remaining cross sectional challenges of ICT and language learning. Activities selected for support were generally relevant to the objectives of the programme and thus also the key needs identified in education in Europe. The main focus of the programme has in practice (as the aggregate of individual project activity and individual mobility) was relevant to the objectives of the programme although more could be done in the areas of ‘quality’ and 'accreditation, validation and recognition'.

5.2.3 Sustainability

To what extent can any positive changes resulting from the intervention be expected to last/have lasted after it has been terminated or when beneficiaries? Include scaling up effects, mainstreaming and multiplication. What factors enable or inhibit this taking place and how could sustainability be improved in the future?

Ensuring benefits and impacts were sustained beyond the end of the project is a priority for the Commission. Evidence from the survey suggested that in a significant number of cases outputs from projects are still in use (beyond the end of the funding); most of the projects reported that this was the case within the organisation and within a partner organisation. However projects reported a far lower use of outputs within other (non-partner) organisations. Interviews with project co-ordinators suggested that a number of partnerships were sustained beyond the life of the project. In practice the ‘sustainability’ of the co-operation took different forms, formal or informal sustained collaboration between organisations, involving most or only part of the partners. The extent to which the outcomes of the programme (including the partnerships/networks developed under it) were sustained is an important measure of programme success, although it requires a longer timeframe to provide definitive findings in this regard.

ECOTEC

147

5.2.4 Value for money

To what extent have the desired effects and objectives been achieved at a reasonable cost? (Extent to which budget of the programme and human resources deployed for implementation are commensurate with intended outcomes and impact?)

Achieving the very broad objectives of the programme required a very broad range of activities and overall the programme has effectively supported a very wide variety of activities across the Action. Based on the ratio of financial resources to results achieved the programme appeared efficient with a wide range of activities of small and medium scale undertaken. The results and impacts reported regardless their extent covered the different sectors (schools, higher education, adult education) and identified transversal issues relevant for the education field. Socrates II appeared to add value in a number of ways and across the entire geographical spectrum form the very specific and local (changing teaching practices in individual institutions) to the more general and European (supporting Bologna process). There was also a broad spread across the 31 participating countries and the organisations participating were also very diverse. Activities delivered a wide range of results from those to be more abstract and intangible (greater European ‘outlook’) to those that are concrete and tangible (development of new tools).

Is funding considered appropriate (from point of view of commission/ beneficiaries)?

Little feedback was provided on the appropriateness of the level of funding available for the projects. However Erasmus co-ordinators, stakeholders and participants voiced their concern about the low level of financial support provided for mobility activities. This was seen as a factor discouraging individuals to take part, particularly in the case of teaching staff.

5.2.5 Lessons for current programmes

Which activities have the greatest potential to contribute to the achievement of the objectives of the new Lifelong Learning programmes?

The experience of Erasmus has shown that the stimulation of mass-mobility of students in Europe can serve to create incentives for higher education institutions to collaborate and undertake joint work with potentially higher and more sustainable gains at individual and institutional levels. Mobility was seen as beneficial but the evaluation has identified the need to improve the quality of the mobility period, support provided and the recognition of the study in order to increase the demand and achieve the intended targets.

To what extent and in what way can the lessons learned be used in the new Lifelong Learning programme?

In terms of lessons, some key things can be appreciated. The Actions in Socrates II embodied the key objectives in education and training but these cannot be dissociated.

ECOTEC

148

There is a need for more cross-fertilisation and synergy between Actions and programmes in a ‘formalised’ way (e.g. networking meetings, supporting ‘project matching’, proactive exchange of information between EC staff/EACEA during the different stages of the life of a project (selection, implementation). As highlighted in the interim evaluation of Socrates II, this is particularly relevant to foster the kind cross-cutting activity needed in the framework of the lifelong learning strategy. The integration of the Actions in the new Lifelong Learning Programme is expected to facilitate better exchange across Actions. But this process needs to be facilitated as it does not come naturally for the projects. In addition to that policy units within DGEAC and other relevant DGs could be more involved in future work of the exchange platforms and networks to make the transfer of practice into police more effective, stimulating a close interaction between the experiences on the ground and the EU policy development.

Programmes require SMART objectives (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Timebound) that allow measuring performance and impact throughout the life of the initiative. The lack of clear indicators laid down in the initial decision made it difficult to assess the impact of the programme. With regard to measuring impact, two key learning points for future programmes can be drawn from the experiences of the projects. Firstly, greater support should be provided in measuring and monitoring their impact and secondly, the building in of a longer-term evaluation in order to be able to measure their full impact.

ECOTEC

149

6.0 Recommendations

Programme level

Objectives need to be made SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic and Timebound). This requires the effort of 'prioritising' objectives according to their expected impact. Activities should also be more sharply focus and demand led. A positive development for the new programmes is the fact that the formulation of the objectives in the new programmes contains an indication of the results that are expected, having some quantified targets works towards ensuring a significant and measurable impact for the programme.

There is a need for more cross-fertilisation and synergy between Actions and programmes in a ‘formalised’ way (e.g. networking meetings, supporting ‘project matching’, proactive exchange of information between EC staff/EACEA during the different stages of the life of a project (selection, implementation). The integration of the Actions in the new Lifelong Learning Programme is expected to facilitate better exchange across Actions. But this process needs to be facilitated as it does not come naturally for the projects. In addition to that policy units within DGEAC and other relevant DGs could be more involved in future work of the exchange platforms and networks, to make the transfer of practice into policy more effective, stimulating a close interaction between the experiences on the ground and EU policy development.

Experience of the programmes has shown that the stimulation of mass-mobility of students in Europe can serve to create incentives for institutions to collaborate and undertake joint work with potentially higher and more sustainable gains at individual and institutional levels. Mobility was seen as beneficial, but the evaluation has identified the need to improve the quality of the mobility period, support provided and the recognition of the study period in order to increase the demand and achieve the intended targets.

Mobility can also be stimulated by the active participation and involvement of other actors such as private organisations, social partners etc. Fostering public-private partnerships and bridging the gap between the education sector, labour market and civil society could add a new (more practical) dimension to the mobility exchanges, making it more attractive to teachers and students.

Linked to increased co-operation, there is an element of sharing and exchanging information amongst European institutions (e.g. ranging from large high-level European networks (Erasmus) and projects bringing together the key specialists in a particular subject area, to small groupings of schools or adult education institutions in different countries). This brought opportunities for learning and sharing. However it was observed that in multiple cases co-operation was not developed in a clear framework with defined

ECOTEC

150

joint concrete objectives. As part of the exchange, some useful ideas were exchanged but in some cases this happened by chance, rather than by design and there was not systematic transfer of knowledge, experience or expertise. Some guidance and support is therefore needed, especially for schools and adult education institutions that do not benefit from the transnational experience of the higher education institutions. The spread of good practice is therefore better achieved through facilitation of more structured co-operation within and across programmes.

Projects/partnerships/networks should be more 'inclusive', involving organisations outside the educational sectors (e.g. industry, NGOs) that can bring their knowledge and expertise to address the needs in the education field, help bridge the gap between the education community and the labour market and help achieve the Lisbon goals.

There is also some room for improvement with regard to the procedures employed by the NAs and EACEA for monitoring, disseminating and ‘validating’ activities undertaken within the programmes, in order to identify good practice that can be transfer across and to facilitate dissemination at national and European level.

Applicants need to be asked to identify the intended outcomes (results) as well as intended outputs (at application stage) and methods for evaluating impact to ensure that what was achieved as a result of the funding can be identified.

EC/EACEA should provide support and guidance for applicants on partnership working through:

• providing a brokering service; • a guidance note providing generic advice on building and maintaining effective

partnerships; and • support events featuring examples of good practice; and providing one-to-one

support during monitoring visits.

National Agencies and stakeholders also highlighted the importance of dissemination, so that project benefits were more consistently shared and translated from individual/project benefits into longer term and wider impacts, not only in the sector but also the education system as a whole. Despite the evidence on positive take up of the outputs of the programmes, in many cases they had not really thought through strategies for transferring that learning beyond basic, standard dissemination normally by final conferences, publications and websites. The effectiveness of the events organised depends largely on the degree to which the participants are targeted and the innovation or relevance of the content and methodology used.

Projects/partnerships/networks should be made aware of the importance of developing a robust dissemination strategy that identifies key audiences and the methods to be employed in order to reach these target audiences. Dissemination to key policy and decision makers should be strengthened – perhaps by involving stakeholders in the development of the programme, i.e. by setting up thematic networking events on a national

ECOTEC

151

and transnational level. In some cases, timeframes for the projects could be extended, to allow for adequate dissemination activities to take place. A built-in 'dissemination phase', after outputs had been produced, might be more effective. An example of where such a strategy has been successful is the Equal Programme funded through the European Social Fund. It should be made clear that dissemination should be an ongoing activity throughout the lifetime of the project and that this final period is an opportunity to disseminate/exploit outcomes, rather than continue project activities. Projects should also perhaps be advised to ensure that a number of partners have a role in dissemination, in order to avoid the risk of relying on one partner (who might drop out of the project).

As a result of the experiences in the programme, certain organisations have learned a lot. The experience gained by such organisations guarantees the correct use of the funds in accordance with the ideas underlying the project and activities’ design. The evaluation team considers that this should be capitalised and used to maximise the use of resources in the current programmes. This could be by valuing such experience positively at selection stage (providing that the principles of competition, innovation and complementarity are complied with, which would be effectively distorted in the event of continued repeating of beneficiaries). Or by drafting a Vademecum of best management practices, following criteria such as optimum composition and organisation of partnerships, best internal co-ordination approaches, exploitation etc. This guide should go further than classic compilations of best practice, which include final products but not the processes which have made them possible.

The evaluation concluded that equality and accessibility was one of the areas where the programmes could be improved. A smaller than expected number of projects reported a focus on this transversal issue and some projects have a very limited understanding of inclusion issues. To ensure issues of social disadvantage receive sufficient attention, they should be taken forward more strongly through annual priority setting, perhaps through the identification of more specific issues such as early school leaving and encouraging adults from disadvantaged communities to participate in lifelong learning,

It is also important that participating institutions in the future demonstrate that they have considered how equal opportunities and empowerment will be integrated into all aspects of their activities. Steps could include the following:

• Set a comprehensive equality and empowerment policy that outlines the rights and responsibilities of all participants. This is best developed in consultation with stakeholders and participants. The policy should be made accessible to all participants.

• Make concrete commitments to Actions, both internally and externally in Action plans which are regularly reviewed.

• Promote and track progress in equality and empowerment policy and practice, either through dedicated officers, or developing a group to oversee implementation. Participating individuals can also be involved in this.

ECOTEC

152

• Assess the needs of participating institutions and individuals to ensure that all relevant needs in relation to equal opportunities are being addressed.

• Provide support, materials and processes that take the needs of target groups into consideration. The format for materials, project activities and the environment where they are delivered are also central; these vary from one disadvantaged group to another and therefore need to be considered. Using participants in the development of materials can also ensure that they are responsive to target groups’ needs.

The limited impact on national level policy reinforces the idea that Actions need to address and take into account the specific needs of individual Member States, and should therefore respond to priorities set within that Member State if they are to have an appropriate impact on national policy and practice. Actions should be more decentralised. National Agencies possess a better understanding of national context and needs and could undertake a better monitoring, but there is a risk if the NAs are not properly resourced and trained to do so.

Measuring impact is complex and requires long-term commitment. EC/EACEA should provide projects with support and guidance in measuring and monitoring their impact and programmes should build in a long-term evaluation. Project level

Projects/partnerships/networks should plan carefully at proposal stage to ensure that planned objectives are SMART that they support the programme's objectives, will lead to the desired outputs and that these will achieved the desired results and impacts.

Projects/partnerships/networks should identify and closely monitor indicators to identify if the project is going off track and be flexible to implement remedial action if necessary.

Projects/partnerships/networks should be based on identified needs. Partners should adopt a demand-led approach – consulting with their end users (learners) on their needs to ensure that methods/tools/services are tailored to these.

Projects/partnerships/networks should identify learner/user needs and ensure these are incorporated into any new method/tools during its development and ensure that learners are enabled to input into new developments/products.

The selection of the partnership is a key element of its success, with more inclusive partnerships being more effective. This requires not just good internal organisation and co-ordination, but also maintaining the commitment of different organisations with different interests and motivations. For such purposes, we recommend clear planning and distribution of responsibilities between the partners, in order to maximise their participation, taking into account their expertise, capacities and contributions, also to be clear about each organisations’ expectations. It is essential to show each partner the benefits of its participation in order to ensure its commitment to on-going co-operation.

ECOTEC

153

Accurate definition of objectives and setting of schedules will provide the partnership members with a clear idea of where and how to channel their resources.

Projects/Partnerships/Networks should take time to ensure that there is the right mix of partners with the required competencies and skills. It is important to focus clearly on what the project is intending to achieve overall, before the project starts to allow assessment of who needs to be in the partnership to ensure it can deliver its aims. Each partner should bring a specific contribution to the project based upon their skills, experience and capacity, thus adding value to the project. Dissemination and exploitation are key to ensuring project/partnership/network impact in the longer term. Projects/partnerships/networks should build in dissemination and exploitation activities/strategies alongside project delivery. In general, there is a need to improve the evidence that supports the claim that this transnational co-operation and exchange adds value to the individuals and institutions by improving the monitoring and evaluation arrangements, one of the weakest areas for the projects. Projects should undertake an on-going monitoring and assessment of their own work and achievements, assessing them to improve management, performance and impact. Thus with regards to measuring impact, we feel that two key learning points for future programmes can be drawn from the experiences of the projects. Firstly, it may benefit projects if greater support is provided in measuring and monitoring their impact; guidance on setting baselines and benchmarks for example and how to measure both hard and soft outcomes. Secondly, it is important to build into programmes a longer-term evaluation in order to be able to measure their full impact.

Projects/partnerships/networks have identified good practice and lessons learned which they felt would be useful share with each other. Provision for ‘internal’ mainstreaming should be included among projects through methods such as an event, the production of dissemination materials such as case studies and good practice guides.

ECOTEC

A1

Annex One: Intervention logics

ECOTEC

A2

Intervention logic of the Comenius Action 2000-06

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES • C1: To support school partnerships • C2: To support the training of teachers and

other school education staff • C3: To support the development of networks

GLOBAL OBJECTIVES To fulfil the following objectives insofar as they relate to school education: • Strengthen the European dimension in education and to

facilitate wide transnational access to educational resources while promoting equal opportunities

• Promote knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught

• Promote co-operation and mobility in education • Encourage innovation in educational practice and materials


IMPACTS People : Individual beneficiaries have increased mobility subsequent to participation (L) Individual beneficiaries have improved employment prospects (M) Individual beneficiaries have improved quality of life (N) Practice: Increased teaching and learning of EU languages (O) Improvements in teaching (and teacher training practice), approaches to learning and management (P) Policy: Practitioners and policy makers are aware of outputs/learning from Comenius and better-informed of national and transnational good practice and innovation (Q) Integration into national (regional) education and training policy and practice of methods, tools and frameworks (R)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES • To enhance the quality and reinforce the European dimension

of school education • To promote the learning of languages • To promote intercultural awareness

INPUTS Budget of 599.5 million Euro maximum (27% of Socrates budget) over 2000-06.

RESULTS To generate the following results among the participants/organisations involved in activities funded through Comenius: Individual beneficiaries and partner schools and institutions gain greater “European outlook” including awareness of other cultures and EU institutions (D) Individual beneficiaries (school pupils, trainee teachers, teachers and education staff) gain skills, knowledge and competences (E) Joint products developed and language training delivered by C1 projects Self-sustaining partnerships among schools and partner organisations Increase in supply of transnational training opportunities for student teachers and teachers Improved access to training opportunities in other participating countries Self-sustaining networks relating to school partnerships and/or teacher training partnerships Increased cooperation among participating schools and institutions (F) Increased capacity to share good practice in future (G) Innovative changes in practice and improvements in the quality of teaching and learning (inc. use of ICT) (H) Wider access to methods, tools, frameworks etc (J)

OUTPUTS • C1: School Partnerships • C2: Transnational Cooperation Projects (TCPs) on teacher training • C2: Periods of transnational mobility for school education staff (initial teacher training,

language assistantships and in-service training for school education staff) • C3: Networks relating to school partnerships and/or teacher training partnerships and

minimum of supporting outputs (websites, annual reports, annual meetings)

A3

Intervention logic of the Socrates II /Erasmus Action- 2000-06

IMPACTS People (Individual level) Increased capacity for mobility in the future of students and teaching staff involved in the placements (L) Increased employability of students (M) Increased quality of life of students (N) Increased proportion of individuals and institutions with a European "outlook" Practice (Institutional/practice level) Increased proportion of higher education institutions which have participated in transnational exchanges Increased comparability of higher education degrees (K) Increased convergence of study programmes (K) Improved quality of teaching/curricula (P) Increased teaching and learning of EU languages (O) Increased institutionalisation of the networks formed beyond the life of the project (S) Increased learning/innovations from thematic networks incorporated into practice (R) Improvement in the training and specialisation needs demanded by the labour market Policies (National (or Regional)/European policy level) Increased awareness of national governments regarding the importance of internationalisation of higher education policy

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES • To enhance the quality and reinforce the European

dimension of higher education • To encourage transnational cooperation between

higher education institutions • To promote mobility for students and higher education

teaching staff • To improve transparency and academic recognition of

studies and qualification throughout the European union

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES • To provide mobility opportunities for students and

teaching staff in higher education institutions throughout Europe

• To support multilateral co-operation projects between higher education institutions in Europe (European Inter-university cooperation)

• To support co-operation between higher education institutions, private sector and civil society (Thematic networks).

RESULTS: To generate the following results among the participants/organisations involved in the activities funded through Erasmus: • Increased implementation and development of the European Credit Transfer System across higher education

Institutions involved in the action • Improved skills and knowledge of students on transnational placements (E) • Improved skills and knowledge of teaching staff on transnational placements(E) • Increased and sustained cooperation amongst higher education institutions/ other organisations involved in the

activities across Europe(F) • Greater European "outlook" including awareness of other cultures and EU institutions, including those students and

teachers who do not directly participate in exchanges(D) • Improved communication/ co-operation between the universities and the "labour market" (F) • Greater sharing of information and good practice across higher education institutions across Europe (G)

INPUTS The EU budget for 2000-2006 amounts to around 950 m € (of which approximately 750 Mio € for students grants).Additional funds are provided in each country by public authorities, by the universities themselves and by other organisations.

OUTPUTS • Transnational placements for students and

teachers (A) • Jointly developed study programmes(C) • Intensive short-term courses(C) • Intensive language preparation courses(C) • Pan-European thematic networks of higher

education institutions and non-academic actors (e.g. NGOs, enterprises.) (B)

• ECTS and Diploma Supplement labels(C)

GLOBAL OBJECTIVES To fulfil the following objectives, insofar as they relate to higher education:

• Strengthen the European dimension in education and to facilitate wide transnational access to educational resources while promoting equal opportunities

• To promote knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught

• To promote co-operation and mobility in education

• To encourage innovation in educational practice and materials and to explore matters of common policy interest

A4

Intervention logic of the Grundtvig Action 2000-06

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES • G1 European Co-operation Projects and Grundtvig Training

Courses: developing and disseminating modules / didactic materials / methodologies / validation tools for teachers and learners, action research, disseminating results, awareness-raising

• G2 Learning Partnerships: Exchange of experience/practice/methods

• G3 Individual Training Grants for Adult Education Staff • G4 Networks and Thematic Seminars: Platforms for

exchange of information, shaping policy and research; small networks to continue co-operation, disseminate results and promote new projects

GLOBAL OBJECTIVES To fulfil the following objectives as far as they relate to adult education and other educational pathways: • Strengthen the European dimension in education and to

facilitate wide transnational access to educational resources while promoting equal opportunities


• Promote co-operation and mobility in education • Encourage innovation in educational practice and materials


IMPACTS Policy • Attention given to adult education sector in EU policy documents and by

European-level associations (Q) • Higher profile at the European level given to particular issues pertinent to adult

education (Q) • European "community of interest" developed/strengthened for the adult education

sector (S) • Matters of common policy interest discussed at European level (Q) Practice • National policies/programmes adopting new educational pathways, tools and

approaches, especially for target groups (R) • Wider provision by the adult education sector of learning in various key sectors,

e.g. multicultural Europe, intercultural dialogue • Wider spread of languages taught in adult education (O) • New/better national policies/programmes for through adult education; • More innovation in the adult education sector; better / wider spread of tools for

validating knowledge, skills and competencies (P) People • Mass of adult tutors and provider organisations with European experience,

involvement and "outlook"

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

• Demand for, and participation, in lifelong learning activities • Competences for those lacking basic education and

qualifications • Innovative educational approaches and good practice • Information and support services for learners and providers • Tools and methods for assessment, validation or certification

of knowledge, skills and competencies • Develop training for educational staff • Visits and exchanges for providers and trainers • Addressing adult learners with special educational needs

INPUTS

€130m over 2000-06

• G1: €60m = 46% • G2: €52m = 40% • G3: €8m = 6% • G4: €10 = 8% National funding of NAs

RESULTS - among participants/organisations involved in Grundtvig activities • Wider access to new products / materials / approaches to teaching, learning

and recognising learners” competencies (J) • New/innovative educational pathways including for language learning and

target groups (H) • Better information, guidance and support services for learners and providers (I) • Adult tutors more experienced, better qualified (E) • Good practice imported • Participating institutions and individuals more "European" in outlook (D) • Wider and continued transnational co-operation between providers (F)

OUTPUTS

• G1: Co-operation projects and training courses (B) • G2: Learning partnerships(B) • G2: Preparatory visits (A) • G3: Tutors trained abroad (A) • G4: European-level platforms (B)

A5

Intervention logic of the Lingua Action 2000-06

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES • L1: To promote language learning • L2: To develop tools and materials for language

teaching and learning

GLOBAL OBJECTIVES To fulfil the following objectives as far as they relate to the teaching and learning of languages: • Strengthen the European dimension in education

and to facilitate wide transnational access to educational resources while promoting equal opportunities


• Promote co-operation and mobility in education • Encourage innovation in educational practice and

materials and to explore matters of common policy interest

IMPACTS Practice • Increased teaching and learning of EU languages, especially LWULT languages (O) • Increase in access to, diversity and quality of language training opportunities available (O) • Improvements in teaching, approaches to learning and management in relation to specific

target groups and languages (P) Policy • Practitioners and policy makers are better-informed of learning/innovations across Europe

(Q) • Integration into national (regional/local) education and training policy and practice of

methods, tools and frameworks developed under Lingua (R)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

• To encourage and support linguistic diversity throughout the Union

• To contribute to an improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning

• To promote access to lifelong language learning opportunities appropriate to each individual's needs

INPUTS

Estimated €5.5m per annum, split evenly between the two sub-actions.

RESULTS - among participants/organisations involved in Lingua activities • Increased “European outlook” and awareness among target groups of importance of

language-learning and availability of language-learning opportunities (D) • Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools and frameworks for non-

traditional learner groups (J) • Innovative changes in practice and improvements in the quality of teaching and learning

amongst target groups and target languages (inc. use of ICT) (H) • Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners” competences (K) • Increased (transnational) cooperation and sharing of good practice among language

teaching professionals and those responsible for language teaching policies (F, G) • Individual institutions have greater “European outlook” including awareness of other

cultures and EU institutions (D) • Improved information, guidance and support services for learners and providers (I)

OUTPUTS • L1: Projects to promote language learning, and their associated products (e.g. information

campaigns, events, publications) • L2: Projects to develop new tools and to disseminate existing tools, and their associated

products (e.g. educational media and materials, methods and tools designed to recognise and evaluate language skills, curricula)

Reference List: Global Objectives taken from Decision No. 253/2000/EC of the European Parliament and the Council of 24 January 2004; Specific Objectives taken from the Socrates Programme Guidelines for Applicants, June 2004 Edition; Operational Objectives taken from the Socrates Programme Guidelines for Applicants, June 2004 Edition; Outputs taken from the Socrates Programme Guidelines for Applicants, June 2004 Edition

A6

Intervention logic of the MINERVA Action of the SOCRATES programme 2000-06

Source: ECOTEC, on the basis of Decision No 2318/2003/EC

RESULTS • Improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models on the

organisation of learning/teaching and the learning process leading to innovative changes in practice and improvements in the quality of teaching and learning (H)

• Wider access to methods and tools necessary for the development of innovative learning environments (J)

• Improved information services and systems on the availability and use of educational methods and resources involving the use of ODL and ICT (I)

• Increased dialogue on ODL / ICT between participating organisations & individuals (producers, users and managers of education and training systems) (F)

INPUTS €62m for period 2000-06 (including technical assistance / administration costs) • Annual budget

varies from a low of €7.2m in 2002 to a high of €10.7m in 2000

OUTPUTS • 269 transnational cooperation projects (B) • Jointly supported website (www.elearningeuropa.info/) • Project websites (C) • Studies (C) • Networks (B) • New educational methods and resources using ODL / ICT (C)

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES • To promote understanding among teachers, learners,

decision-makers and the public at large of the implications of ODL and ICT for education, as well as the critical and responsible use of ICT for educational purposes;

• To ensure that pedagogical considerations are given proper weight in the development of ICT and multimedia-based educational products and services;

• To promote access to improved methods and educational resources as well as to results and best practices in this field.

IMPACTS • Improvements in teaching, teaching training and approaches to learning and

management (P) • Convergence of policy and practice between EU Member States in relation to ICT

and ODL (Q) • Integration into national education and training policy and practice of methods,

tools and frameworks developed under Minerva (R)

OPERATIONAL OBJECTIVES • Understanding innovation: supporting the exchange of

ideas and improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models on the organisation of learning/teaching and/or on the learning process experience.

• Designing, developing and testing new methods and educational resources

• Providing access and supporting dissemination • Activities to support the exchange of ideas and experience

relating to ODL and the use of ICT in education

GLOBAL OBJECTIVES • To strengthen the European dimension in education and to

facilitate wide transnational access to educational resources while promoting equal opportunities.

• To promote knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught.

• To promote co-operation and mobility in education. • To encourage innovation in educational practice and

materials and to explore matters of common policy interest.

A7

Annex Two: Annual Priorities in Calls for Proposals, by Action

A8

ANNUAL PRIORITIES IN CALLS FOR PROPOSALS, BY ACTION Erasmus Calls for proposals

Erasmus: overview of the operational objectives and Calls for Proposals priorities

Curriculum development projects (CD)

Intensive programmes (IP)

Thematic networks (TN)

Call priorities 2001 - Activities focusing on the use of information and communication technologies (ICT), in line with the eLearning initiative

- To mark the European Year of Languages, special attention was paid to:

• Intensive language preparation courses for students and teachers going to host countries where the language of instruction is a LWULT98 language

• Projects for the joint development of specialised language modules relating to the content of a given discipline

- Projects that will ensure a European dimension in issues on the political agenda in the field of higher education as well as to those that contribute to employment, to sustainable development, to enlargement and to the reinforcement of democracy in Europe

- And/or will focus on the use of ICT, in line with the eLearning initiative

- And/or will respond to the increasing role of the universities in the learning society

Call priorities 2002

Projects that:

- preferably address jointly the study areas of urban/regional planning and environmental sciences

- integrate ethics into one of the following subject areas: business, engineering, medical sciences, natural sciences, communication and information

Projects that:

- respond to the future skills needs in the area of communication and information sciences - aim at a multidisciplinary approach to entrepreneurship - respond to new needs and challenges emerging at European level and present a

- Applications aiming at study areas which are not addressed so far by projects in this Action as well as applications that relate to two or more study areas in a cross- and multidisciplinary approach. - Applications which address, implement or integrate discipline or cross- and multidisciplinary priority

98 Less widely used and less taught

A9




sciences

- respond to the future skills needs in the area of communication and information sciences

- seek to respond to shortages, at European level, of highly qualified ICT specialists

- present links and synergies with other Erasmus activities, especially the thematic network Action, and/or other Socrates activities.

strong multidisciplinary approach - constitute test cases for future CD projects and are implemented in close cooperation with experts and socioeconomic partners - present links and synergies with other Erasmus activities, especially the thematic network Action and/or other Socrates activities.

issues and new developments in education.

- Applications for the dissemination of results that add value to the study area concerned and aim at cooperation with other Actions, activities or initiatives of the programme, particularly in the light of the general context indicated above.

Projects that:

- will ensure a European dimension in issues on the political agenda in the fields of higher education and research, as well as to those that contribute to lifelong learning and employment, to sustainable development, to enlargement and to reinforcement of democracy in Europe

- contribute to the realisation of the European higher education area (‘Bologna process’), aiming at greater compatibility and comparability of the systems of higher education and enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of higher education institutions

- respond to the increasing role of the universities in the knowledge society

- focus on the use of information and communication technologies, in line with the e-Learning initiative.


Projects that:

- integrate ethics into one of the following subject areas: business, engineering, medical sciences,

Projects that: - respond to the future skills needs in the area of communication and information sciences

- Applications aiming at study areas which are not addressed so far by projects in this Action (see the Europa website)

A10




natural sciences, communication and information sciences

- promote intercultural dialogue between Europe and its neighbouring regions

- develop a European dimension in programmes on genomics and biotechnologies for health

Projects that focus on the development of complete first and second cycle programmes, in line with the Bologna process, which:

- include student and teacher mobility among the partner institutions as an integral part of the study programme and - award students with a degree recognised in the countries participating in the project Projects that will present links and synergies with other Erasmus activities, especially the thematic network Action, or projects supported by the framework programmes for research and technological

- aim at a multidisciplinary approach to entrepreneurship

- integrate ethics into one of the following subject areas: business, engineering, medical sciences, natural sciences, communication and information sciences, - promote intercultural dialogue and understanding between Europe and its neighbouring regions - deal with issues linked to genomics and biotechnologies for health - respond to new needs and challenges emerging at European level and present a strong multidisciplinary approach Projects that: - constitute test cases for future CD projects and are implemented in close cooperation with experts and socioeconomic partners - will present links and synergies with other

- Applications that relate to two or more study areas in a cross- and multi-disciplinary approach, - Applications aiming at analysing ‘transversal’ themes linked to the changing role of universities in a knowledge-driven society, such as ‘universities and local/regional partnerships’; ‘university-industry cooperation’, ‘education-research partnerships’, ‘universities and communication and transfer of knowledge’, etc. - Applications for the dissemination of results of thematic network projects, - Applications that aim at facilitating transparency, innovation and quality assurance of higher education through the identification of essential competencies of European graduates in one or more subject areas - Applications that will present links and synergies with other Socrates activities, especially curriculum

A11




development.

Erasmus activities, especially the thematic network Action, or projects supported by the framework programmes for research and technological development.

development and intensive programmes, Comenius and Grundtvig networks and/or projects supported by the Leonardo da Vinci programme, the framework programmes for research and technological development.

Projects that:

- contribute to the realisation of the European Higher Education Area (‘Bologna process’), aiming at greater compatibility and comparability of the systems of higher education and the attractiveness and competitiveness of the European higher education institutions

- ensure a European dimension in issues on the political agenda in the fields of higher education and research, as well as to those that contribute to lifelong learning and employment, to sustainable development, to enlargement, to combating racism and xenophobia and to reinforcing democracy in Europe

- respond to the increasing role of the universities in the knowledge society

- focus on the use of information and communication technologies, in line with the e-Learning initiative

- aim at fostering a substantial increase in student and staff mobility, combining public and private sources of funding

- promote internal and external quality assurance in higher education

- present links and synergies between Erasmus activities and projects supported by the Framework programmes for Research and Technological development, in particular, where relevant, those financed under the Marie Curie Actions.


Projects that:

- Aim at developing or revising ‘joint’ programmes of study covering a complete degree cycle. Special

Projects that: - respond to new needs and challenges emerging at European level and present a strong multidisciplinary

- Projects defining and updating generic and subject-specific competencies using the method of the Pilot Project ‘Tuning Educational Structures

A12




attention will be given to joint programmes at second cycle (master) level - Projects that aim at mutual support in the development or revision of ‘stand alone’ programmes of study. In these projects, which do not focus on integrated delivery, partner institutions cooperate to develop programmes which fit the Bologna format and address educational and societal needs Projects that: - respond to the future skills needed in the area of communication and information sciences - promote intercultural dialogue and understanding between Europe and its neighbouring regions

approach - constitute an integral part of joint programmes of study, delivered by partner institutions in a genuinely integrated manner - in the subject area of teacher training focus on developing (a) new professional skills and learning environments; (b) new approaches/techniques to the acquisition and/or management of knowledge; (c) new skills how to update knowledge - respond to the future skills needed in the area of communication and information sciences - promote intercultural dialogue and understanding between Europe and its neighbouring regions.

in Europe’ (14), - Projects reinforcing the link between education and society, bringing together public sector, scientific and professional players, and contributing to the European innovation capacity - Projects aiming at study areas which are not addressed so far by projects in this Action (see the Europa website) - Projects that relate to two or more study areas in a cross and multi-disciplinary approach - Projects aiming at analysing ‘transversal’ themes linked to the changing role of Universities in a knowledge-driven society, such as ‘Universities and local/regional partnerships’; ‘University — industry cooperation’, ‘Education — Research Partnerships’, ‘Universities and communication and transfer of knowledge’, etc

A13




- Projects for the dissemination of results of Thematic Network projects

- Projects that will present links and synergies with other Socrates activities, especially Curriculum Development and Intensive Programmes, Comenius and Grundtvig networks and/or projects supported by the Leonardo da Vinci programme.

Projects that: ••contribute to the realisation of the European Higher Education Area ("Bologna process"), aiming at greater compatibility and comparability of the systems of higher education and enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of European higher education institutions ••foster a substantial increase in student and staff mobility - develop integrated study programmes at bachelor, master and doctoral level, including the use of distance learning; ••promote the consistent use of ECTS, also for lifelong learning purposes, and the wider use of the Diploma Supplement ••present links and synergies between Erasmus activities and projects supported by the Erasmus Mundus and Leonardo da Vinci programme and the Framework programme for Research and Technological Development.

Call Priorities 2005

Projects that:

- aim at developing or revising "joint" programmes of study covering a complete

Projects that : -•respond to new needs and challenges emerging at European

Projects which: - map and update the state of the art in their field and explore ways to

A14




degree cycle. Special attention will be given to joint programmes at second cycle (master) level - aim at mutual support in the development or revision of “single” programmes of study. In these projects, which do not focus on integrated delivery, partner institutions co-operate to develop programmes which fit the Bologna format and address educational and societal needs.

level and present a strong multidisciplinary approach; - constitute an integral part of joint programmes of study, delivered by partner institutions in a genuinely integrated manner; -•describe precisely the mechanism of academic recognition and the corresponding ECTS credit points of the IP.

foster more European cooperation - define and update generic and subject-specific competences using the method of the Pilot Project "Tuning Educational Structures in Europe" - promote synergies between teaching and research by encouraging universities to integrate research results in their teaching and link Socrates-Erasmus TNs with the networks funded by the Research DG - aim at study areas which are not addressed so far by projects in this Action (see the Europa website).

Call priorities 2006 Projects that:

- contribute to the realisation of the European Higher Education Area ("Bologna process"), aiming at greater compatibility and comparability of the systems of higher education and enhancing the attractiveness and competitiveness of European higher education institutions - foster a substantial increase in student and staff mobility - develop integrated study programmes at bachelor, master and doctoral level, including the use of distance learning; - promote the consistent use of the new Europass, the single Community framework for the transparency of qualifications and competences

- present links and synergies between Erasmus activities and projects supported by the Jean Monnet Action, the Erasmus Mundus and Leonardo da

A15




Vinci programmes and the Framework programme for Research and Technological Development.

Projects aiming at:

- developing or revising "joint" programmes of study covering a complete degree cycle. Special attention will be given to joint programmes at second cycle (master) level - development or revision of ‘single’ programmes of study. In these projects, which do not focus on integrated delivery, partner institutions co-operate to develop programmes which fit the Bologna format and address educational and societal needs - the development of curricula which also include a mechanism for the future exchange of students and/or teaching staff between the partner institutions

- developing a common approach towards curricular quality assurance and which establish a system of trans-national quality assurance across the curriculum.

Projects aiming to:

- respond to new needs and challenges emerging at European level and present a strong multidisciplinary approach; - constitute an integral part of joint programmes of study, delivered by partner institutions in a genuinely integrated manner; -•describe precisely the mechanism of academic recognition and the corresponding ECTS credit points of the IP.

Projects which: - map and update the state of the art in their field and explore ways to foster more European cooperation - define and update generic and subject-specific competences using the method of the Pilot Project "Tuning Educational Structures in Europe" - promote synergies between teaching and research by encouraging universities to integrate research results in their teaching and link Socrates-Erasmus TNs with the networks funded by the Research DG - aim at study areas which are not addressed so far by projects in this Action : Economics, Literature, Philosophy and Mathematics

- map and check “rare knowledge” in any given discipline or transversal subject setting up a list of disappearing methods and notions

- contribute to the development of

A16




networks of the scientific and humanistic networks participating in the appropriate workshops and conferences

- make provision for the participation of a small group of students in the annual meetings.

Source: Calls for proposals (2000-2006)

The three operational objectives were further specified by the annual priorities set by the Calls for Proposals. Additional notes of relevance were: • The Calls for Proposals from 2004 to 2006 explained that for Erasmus 2

(student and teaching staff mobility), National Authorities may decide on certain priorities. Information on these priorities was provided by the National Agencies themselves.

• In 2005 and 2006, institutions were requested to ensure high quality in organising student and staff mobility.

• In 2006, institutions were invited to further stimulate mobility in order to reach the objective of 3 million Erasmus students by the year 2011.

• In 2006, it was emphasised that all CD projects should include a clear plan for the dissemination and exploitation (valorisation) of products and results.

• In 2006, under Thematic Networks, it was added that co-operation between Erasmus networks and Comenius and/or Grundtvig networks within the same thematic area or covering a number of closely related thematic areas would also be supported.

A17

Grundtvig Calls for proposals Grundtvig: overview of the Calls for Proposals priorities Operational objectives

European cooperation projects and Grundtvig training courses

Learning partnerships

Individual training grants

Networks and thematic seminars


Strategies for adult education and lifelong learning:

- promotion of access and individual demand

- development of information and support services

- methods to optimise the accreditation and recognition of competencies acquired outside the mainstream education system

Sectoral topics and teaching methods:

- providing adults with basic competencies and qualifications

- information and communication technology in the field of adult education

- intercultural education and the integration of minorities

- teaching and learning of foreign languages

- teaching and learning for active citizenship

Persons who can demonstrate their mobility activity has the potential:

- to support them in their role as multipliers within their respective institutions and contribute to achieving their institution’s policy objectives

- promote the creation of new learning partnerships under Grundtvig 2 in the future.

Strategies for adult education and lifelong learning:

- promotion of access and individual demand

- development of information and support services

- methods to optimise the accreditation and recognition of competencies acquired outside the mainstream education system

Sectoral topics and teaching methods:

- providing adults with basic competencies and qualifications

- information and communication technology in the field of adult education

- intercultural education and the integration of minorities

- teaching and learning of foreign languages

- teaching and

A18

Operational objectives





- teaching and learning for European citizenship

- educational opportunities for adult learners with disabilities or chronic illness

learning for active citizenship

- teaching and learning for European citizenship

- educational opportunities for adult learners with disabilities or chronic illness

Under all four sub-Actions, proposals were particularly encouraged which addressed certain specific target groups. These were: - adult learners who are disadvantaged for social or economic reasons - young people who have left school without basic qualifications - older citizens (with a particular emphasis on promoting intergenerational dialogue) - disabled persons - cultural and ethnic minorities, refugees, asylum seekers, gypsies and travellers and people with migrant professions - people in outlying rural or deprived urban areas.


- Key skills and competences for adult learners - Pedagogical approaches - Local and regional strategies for adult learning - Funding and management - Guidance and counselling

A certain priority may be given to partnership proposals which form part of local or regional strategies of the type indicated in the Grundtvig 1 section of the call for proposals. Particular importance was attached to involving adult learners in the development

Persons who demonstrated that their mobility activity had the potential to support them in their role as multipliers within their respective institutions and to help them contribute to achieving their institution's policy objectives. Certain priority may be given to persons wishing

- Quality assurance - The role of cultural organisations - Methods of financing - Developing learning opportunities for the third sector - Adult learning opportunities for the disabled - Adult learning

A19






and implementation of the learning partnership's activities.

to undergo training in the context of local or regional strategies of the type indicated in the Grundtvig 1 section of the call for proposals.

Applicants to courses listed in the catalogue of training courses on offer).

opportunities for older citizens - Adult learning in rural areas.


- Addressing key themes, target groups and types of activity identified in the European Commission's communication ‘Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality’ of 21 November 2001 - Development of transnational courses for the further training of adult education staff - Disseminating innovation and good practice across Europe - Improving the

Partnerships with strong involvement of adult learners, which show clear potential to become a vehicle for exchange and dissemination of good practice and experience.

- Addressing key themes, target groups and types of activity identified in the European Commission's communication ‘Making a European area of lifelong learning a reality’ of 21 November 2001 - Development of transnational courses for the further training of adult education staff - Disseminating innovation and good practice across Europe - Analysis of

A20






image and attractiveness of lifelong learning and stimulating demand, particularly among hard-to-reach groups - Updating basic skills - Adult learning for active citizenship - Valuing knowledge and competence obtained through non-formal and informal learning - Family, parental and inter-generational learning – learning opportunities for senior citizens - Consumer education and health-related issues - The adult education teacher - The adult learning institution - Resources for adult learning - Indicators, tools

learners’ needs, stimulation of demand - parental and family education - Valuing non-formal and informal learning - Guidance and counselling - Methods of financing lifelong learning - Developing learning opportunities for people who will be active in society outside the framework of remunerated employment

- Adult learning opportunities for the disabled - Adult learning opportunities for older citizens - Adult learning in rural areas.

A21






and databases


For general projects: Improving the content and delivery of adult education

Improving adult education at a system/policy level

Improving the accessibility of learning opportunities for adults

Improving the management of adult learning


Persons wishing to take part in the new activities contained in the 2004 Call for Proposals, namely the Grundtvig Training Courses under Grundtvig 1 and Grundtvig Thematic Seminars under Grundtvig 4.

Two distinct types of grants were awarded: 1) Grundtvig Network grants. Priorities for these networks were: - methods of financing adult education -valuing non-formal and informal learning - guidance and counselling - adult learning opportunities for the disabled - adult learning in rural areas - parental and family education - adult learning opportunities through sport - mathematics and science education for adults - health education for

A22






adults 2) Grundtvig thematic seminars.


Priorities:

- Improving the initial and continuing training of adult education staff and the quality of management of adult education establishments

- Parental and family learning, learning later in life

- Teaching and learning of foreign languages, regional and minority languages, and the languages of migrants and ethnic minorities in adult education

- Adult education for marginalised or disadvantaged citizens, notably prisoners and ex-offenders, refugees and asylum-seekers

- Health education.


Persons wishing to take part in the new activities contained in the 2005 Call for Proposals, namely the Grundtvig Training Courses under Grundtvig 1 and Grundtvig Thematic Seminars under Grundtvig 4.

Two distinct types of grants were awarded: 1) Grundtvig Network grants. Priorities for these networks were: - methods of financing adult education -valuing non-formal and informal learning - adult learning opportunities for the disabled - adult learning opportunities through sport - mathematics and science education for adults 2) Grundtvig thematic seminars

A23







Only European Cooperation Project proposals submitted under the following themes were considered:

- Teaching and learning of foreign languages, regional and minority languages, and the languages of migrants and ethnic minorities in adult education

- Learning in later life; Inter-generational learning

- Parental and family learning

- Strategies to promote effective pathways into formal education, including access pathways to higher education for persons without formal entrance qualifications

- Promoting adult citizens’ awareness of Europe

-Professionalisation of adult education

- Relationship between general and vocational education; workplace-based


NAs were strongly encouraged to give particular priority to applications from organisations which had not yet participated in Grundtvig.

Persons wishing to take part in Grundtvig Training Courses under Grundtvig 1.1 and Grundtvig Thematic Seminars under Grundtvig 4.1.

Two distinct types of grants were awarded: 1) Grundtvig Network grants. New networks were supported in the following areas:

- Language learning in adult education

- Basic skills

- Adult learning opportunities for the disabled

- Adult learning opportunities through sport

- Art and culture

- Education in prisons; education for social reinsertion of offenders

- Education in hospitals

- Gender issues in adult education.

2) Grundtvig Thematic Seminars

A24






general learning

- Adult education for marginalised or disadvantaged citizens, notably prisoners and ex-offenders, refugees and asylum-seekers

- Health education, including sport

- Mathematics and sciences

Priority was given to Grundtvig Training Courses in the thematic areas indicated above.

Source: Calls for Proposals (2000-2006)

The four operational objectives were further specified by the annual priorities set by the Calls for Proposals. In addition to the priorities given in the table above, the following notes of relevance were also made: • The 2001 Call for Proposals gave particular encouragement to activities in

the new areas of the Grundtvig Action (Grundtvig 2 – learning partnerships, Grundtvig 3 – mobility for the training of adult education staff and Grundtvig 4 – networks).

• To mark the European Year of Languages, in 2001 adult education institutions were particularly encouraged to host a Comenius language assistant and special attention was given to Grundtvig 3 applicants involved in (or training to be involved in) language teaching.

• In 2002, specific target groups were highlighted which all Grundtvig projects were encouraged to address. Particular importance was attached to reaching those sections of the adult population which are generally reluctant to avail themselves of adult learning opportunities.

A25

• Transversal objectives of Community policy were also highlighted in 2002 as relevant to all Grundtvig Actions. These included notably equality between women and men, the integration of disabled people, combating racism and xenophobia and preventing social exclusion.

• In 2002, Grundtvig 2 learning partnerships were encouraged to disseminate the innovative outcomes of European cooperation projects previously funded under Socrates, although this was not a specific criterion for selection.

• In 2002, priority was given to network proposals accepted for the second round of selection in the year 2000 but not supported due to the limited budgetary resources available.

• From 2004 to 2006, with relation to the centralised Actions (Grundtvig 1 and 4) it was stated that priority would be given to Projects and networks which clearly demonstrated potential to generate innovation and/or to disseminate innovation and good practice between different parts of Europe, whether or not this good practice has been developed by Socrates/ Grundtvig projects.

• In relation to the Grundtvig Thematic Seminars introduced in 2004, the Calls for Proposals stated that for selection, the Commission would take into account the extent to which the Thematic Seminar appeared likely to:

• give rise to a proposal for a Grundtvig 4 Network of good quality within a clear timeframe

• contribute significantly to the valorisation/dissemination of project results and methodologies in the thematic area concerned.

• In 2003, 2004 and 2005, with reference to Grundtvig 4 networks, it was stressed that in order to be selected, networks should be geographically broad-based and inclusive; composed of strong and representative organisations/institutions; provide a link or be active in forging cooperation between Grundtvig projects in the thematic area concerned; play a pivotal role in the process of dissemination; be active in developing further training courses and activities for adult education staff. In 2004 and 2005, particular attention was drawn to the need for the networks to play a proactive role in strengthening synergy and collaboration between Grundtvig projects working in the same field or theme, and the dissemination of their results. Strong priority was given to proposals relating to networks which included clear reference to the strategy and specific activities they intended to develop for ‘thematic clustering’ of projects.

A26

• In 2004, it was announced that two specific types of project would be supported under Grundtvig 1: the development of ‘Grundtvig Training Courses’ for adult education staff and General projects.

Lingua Calls for proposals Table Lingua: overview of the operational objectives and Calls for Proposals priorities


To promote language learning

To develop tools and materials for language teaching and learning

Call priorities 2001 No specific additional priorities. In line with the eLearning initiative, projects were advised set their objectives in the context of a 'lifelong learning' approach and make the most appropriate use of the technologies available.

- Preparing citizens for trans-European mobility

- Encouraging the autonomous learning of foreign languages.

Call priorities 2002 No specific additional priorities. Projects seeking to build on the foundations laid by relevant projects funded under the European Year of Languages were especially welcomed.

- Covering one or several shortages identified in the 'European Language Learning Materials Survey (ELLMS)'.

Call priorities 2003 - Raising awareness of foreign languages among groups with little or no experience of language learning

- Opening up existing language resource centres to use by people with little or no experience of language learning

- Making use of existing networks (e.g. town-twinning or adult education organisations, supporters’ clubs etc)

- Making use of the findings of the ELLMS about shortages in the language learning products market.

Call priorities 2004 - Raising awareness of foreign languages among groups with little or no experience of language learning

- Opening up existing language resource centres to use by people with little or no experience of language learning

- Making use of existing networks (e.g. town-twinning or adult education organisations, supporters’ clubs etc)

- Promoting languages at places frequented by the general public

- Encouraging the use of ICT in language learning materials

- Developing CLIL (Content and Language Integrated Learning)

- Promoting early language learning)

- Promoting inter-comprehension between languages

A27


To promote language learning

To develop tools and materials for language teaching and learning

(exhibitions, sporting events, festivals, tourist attractions, airports, shopping centres etc)

Call priorities 2005 - Improving opportunities and access to resources for people with little or no experience of language learning

- Promoting languages at places frequented by the general public

- Disseminating information about successful practices in the above fields to other institutions and key decision-takers across Europe

- Developing materials for teaching language awareness and foreign languages, notably the LWULT99 official Community languages, to primary and pre-primary learners

- Developing and disseminating new, specific methodologies for teaching subjects through languages, notably the LWULT official Community languages

- Promoting multilingual comprehension

- Encouraging the use of ICT in learning language materials

Call priorities 2006 - Networking of Lingua projects that have developed complementary tools and methodologies

- Dissemination of information about successful practices to other institutions and key decision-takers across Europe

- The promotion of multilingual comprehension between languages of the same linguistic family

- The promotion of languages at places frequented by the general public

- Developing materials for teaching LWULT languages, to primary and pre-primary learners

- Development and valorisation of new, specific methodologies for teaching subjects through LWULT languages

- Promoting linguistic comprehension between languages of the same linguistic family

Source: Calls for proposals (2001 – 2006) The two operational objectives were further specified by the annual priorities set by the Calls for Proposals. In addition to the six general Socrates Calls, an additional Call for expressions of interest was published in 2000 for the new Lingua Action 1. Organisations interested in taking part were invited to submit information to the Commission. Interested parties were then held on a list which was used as a basis for providing information about the Action or about other organisations working in the relevant fields. Commission staff explained that for Lingua, the annual priorities were set in line with policy developments, recently published research and in the later

99 Less Widely Used and Less Taught

A28

years, in response to the trends and gaps identified in the applications received and projects funded through the Socrates funding to date. Two major influences on the choice of priorities were The European Year of Languages (2001) and the publication of the "European Language Learning Materials Survey (ELLMS)" report. The objectives of the European Year of Languages were: • to raise awareness of the richness of linguistic diversity within the

European Union • to publicise the advantages of skills in a range of languages • to encourage the lifelong learning of languages and related skills • to collect and disseminate information about the teaching and learning of

languages. The ELLMS was produced over the year 2000 and identified requirements in the field of the development of materials for language teaching and learning. It was intended to highlight areas where Community Action could be effective in contributing to meet the needs identified within the European Union. In addition to the priorities given in the table above, several guidance notes for applicants were given. From 2003 to 2005 for example, applications for Lingua 1 were encouraged by eligible organisations capable of motivating a mass audience to learn foreign languages (examples given included university or other language centres, TV, radio and media companies, etc.). In the 2004 Call for Proposals, applicants to Lingua 2 were advised to refer to the Lingua online catalogue and the Lingua 2 Compendia for a description of former projects, in order to avoid presenting similar proposals. In 2005 and 2006, applicants were advised to consult the “Lingua Community” webpage for a description of current and former projects, in order to avoid presenting proposals that duplicated the work of earlier projects. Applicants for Lingua 2 were also again advised to consult the Lingua 2 catalogue and in 2006, to consult the “Lingua Products” webpage. The 2005 and 2006 Calls for Proposals referred to the ‘Action Plan on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity’ and encouraged Lingua 2 projects in line with the Plan’s objectives.

A29

Minerva Calls for proposals Table Minerva: overview of the operational objectives and Calls for Proposals priorities Operational objectives

Supporting the exchange of ideas and improved understanding of the impact of ICT and ODL

Designing, developing and testing new methods and educational resources

Providing access and supporting dissemination

Support the exchange of ideas and experience relating to ODL and the use of ICT in education


- Enhancing the capacity of education systems to come to terms with the innovations taking place

- Training the teachers, educational managers and learners to use the new information and communication technologies (ICT) in an effective, critical and responsible manner

- Developing viable information and support services for teachers and learners using the new technologies

- Developing strategic initiatives drawing together schools, conventional higher education institutions, distance teaching establishments, organisations cooperating with educational institutions and the developers, producers and distributors of educational multimedia products


- Understanding the changes taking place - Experimenting and analysing the impact of new learning environments - Involving innovative use of technology: for learning basic competencies, intercultural education, science education, artistic education, learning to communicate or developing critical thinking by learners (ethics) - Developing creative initiatives in the field - Identifying best practices in the use of ICT and analysing the conditions of generalisation of such practices.


Priority was given to projects that addressed the didactical use of ICT in the following areas: - media education - communication education - cross-curricular approaches Support was also given to transversal dissemination projects to collect and synthesise the outcomes of:

A30






- Minerva and Comenius projects supported by Socrates or projects supported by European research and technology programmes or national initiatives, and aimed at school education and initial teacher education - Minerva and Grundtvig projects supported by Socrates or projects supported by European research and technology programmes or national initiatives, and aimed at adult education - projects supported by Socrates and Leonardo da Vinci or projects supported by European research and technology programmes or national initiatives, and aimed at language learning.


Priority was given to projects that address the didactical use of ICT in the following areas: - Innovation regarding the organisation of new learning environments - new teaching and learning methods - educational approaches and services which take into account cultural and linguistic diversity


Special attention was be given to the projects focusing on the use of ICT in the educational process, in the following contexts: ••The creation and the organisation of public services offering guidance in innovation to support educational personnel at all levels, as well as public services in support to teachers, students and pupils ••Pupils who have specific needs, notably the ones who are at risk of being ‘early school leavers’ ••Approaches aiming at improving attractiveness of learning and the quality of pedagogical relations through new media ••Pupil-centred approaches, more precisely in the framework of guidance, tutoring and ‘learning communities’ ••Education and training prospective and the development of in-depth reflections on the role of ICT in learning processes.

A31







Classroom-based learning, distance learning, or the combination

Action research and observation methodologies, comparative analyses, targeted studies

Analysis of the results of the European cooperation in the field of ICT for education

The methods, tools and resources should be of generic nature (easily transferable to other domains).

Providing access to existing resources through developing of information services and systems on educational methods and resources involving the use of ICT and ODL

Encouraging establishment of links between producers, users and managers of education and training systems (for example, networking centres, teacher training institutions, etc.)

Source: Calls for proposals 2001-2006

The three operational objectives were further specified by the annual priorities set by the Calls for Proposals outlined above.

A32

Comenius Calls for Proposals Table Comenius: overview of the operational objectives and Calls for Proposals priorities Operational objectives

To support school partnerships

To support the training of teachers and other school education staff: European cooperation projects

To support the training of teachers and other school education staff: Individual Training Grants

To support the development of networks


Proposals for the new school development projects were particularly welcome

Projects which make a significant contribution to innovation in the training of school education staff, with particular emphasis on new aspects of the role of the teacher

Persons who can demonstrate that their mobility activity has the potential to:

- support them in their role as multipliers within their respective institutions and contribute to achieving their institution’s policy objectives

- promote the creation of new school partnerships under Comenius 1 in the future

- Networks designed to promote the European dimension in education

- Networks in specific subject areas or focusing on inter-disciplinary topics

- Networks focusing on methods and aspects of school improvement


As above

As above

As above As above


Proposals for the language projects and school development projects were particularly welcome.

As above

As above - Networks designed to promote European citizenship

- Networks focusing on interdisciplinary topics

- Networks focusing on aspects of school improvement


Projects which make a significant contribution to innovation in the training of school education staff, with

As above As above

A33


To support school partnerships

To support the training of teachers and other school education staff: European cooperation projects

To support the training of teachers and other school education staff: Individual Training Grants

To support the development of networks

particular emphasis on the role of the teacher in the context of lifelong learning in the knowledge society


- Addressing all sorts of violence in school and contributing to schools as safe and secure places for all students, teachers and staff members

- Implementing the Action Plan on Promoting Learning and Linguistic Diversity

- Addressing all sorts of violence in school and contributing to schools as safe and secure places for all students, teachers and staff members

- Implementing the Action Plan on Promoting Learning and Linguistic Diversity

Call Priorities 2006

Projects aiming to implement the Action Plan on Promoting Language Learning and Linguistic Diversity, in particular schools wishing to introduce a Content and Language Integrated Learning (CLIL) approach

- Implementation of the Action Plan on Learning Languages and Linguistic Diversity

- The contribution of teacher education and training to the Lisbon strategy

- Teachers’ language learning as a means to promote teacher mobility

- Involvement of parents

- Needs of disabled persons

- Health education

- Physical education

- Intercultural education

- Educational use of ICT

- Cultural heritage

- School and the world of work

- Environmental education

- Fight against violence at school

- Fight against racism and xenophobia

Source: Calls for proposals (2001 – 2006)

A34

The three operational objectives were further specified by the annual priorities set by the Calls for Proposals. Additional notes in the Calls for Proposals are outlined below: • In the 2001 Call, schools were particularly encouraged to mark the European year of

Languages by hosting a Comenius language assistant. • In 2001, specific reference was made to working with the children of migrant workers,

gypsies and travellers, occupational travellers, pupils at risk of social exclusion and pupils with special educational needs. Priorities were set for projects working with these specific target groups, which included for example developing cooperation between a network of different players both inside and outside the school environment.

• Under Comenius 2.1, priority was given from 2001 to 2004 to projects making a significant contribution to innovation in the training of school education staff. Each year, indicative lists of topics which projects might address were also given, which varied from year to year.

• In 2002 and 2003, promoters under Comenius 3 were encouraged to propose networks in areas related to priorities which were not covered by existing networks.

• In 2005 and 2006, co-operation was encouraged between Comenius networks and Erasmus and/or Grundtvig networks.

Commission staff explained that the annual priorities were much less important for decentralised Comenius Actions than for the centralised Actions. The annual priorities were themes for projects or networks – under the decentralised Actions the preference was to allow grant beneficiaries to choose their own theme. This was felt to be one of the successes of the decentralised Actions - the freedom for the individual beneficiaries to choose their own themes. However, it is interesting to note that the schools involved fel t that the thematic priority areas identified in the Socrates guidelines were 'extremely relevant'1 – which suggests the schools in fact were happy to work within the priority themes set. The interim evaluation of Comenius 2 notes that although the objectives of the sub-Action appear to be "quite relevant in relation to the political and institutional context"2, the Calls for Proposals enabled the integration of developments in Community-level cooperation. However, the report judges that this process was not timely enough – for example, the provisions in the Copenhagen Declaration were not taken into account in the 2003 call for proposals. It recommended that greater use could be made of the links and complementarity with Socrates Action 6, in this respect.

1 Impact of School Partnerships (Socrates II/Comenius 1, 2000-2006), Mid-Term Evaluation 2 Interim Evaluation of the Comenius 2 action under the Socrates II programme

A35

Annex Three: Socrates programme data tables

A36

Socrates

Introduction

A series of tables has been constructed from information supplied by the Commission. Set out below, these represent the minimum dataset that we needed to conduct a successful evaluation. The majority of fields in the tables represent primary data, but we have also included a number of calculated fields (these rows are identified by shading), which we needed for our final analysis.

A37

Erasmus

Budget and Financial Commitments for the Erasmus Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Total budget for grants 144,988,698 148,638,118. 153,327,490 157,099,484 188,448,650 218,761,463 247,613,666

1,258,877,569

Total amount of grants committed 144,584,763 148,593,868 153,327,485 156,332,478 191,330,889 219,448,597 245,753,823

1,259,371,903

Total actual amount of grant spent 137,616,123 141,797,685 147,044,063

[a] 563,966.47** 1,115,577.51**

[a] 428,689,,026.97*

Total amount of all project expenditure (EU grant + applicant & partner contributions)

36,350,071*** 34,366,156***

38,621,953***

[a] [a] [a] [a] 109,333,180*

Percentage of Committed grants actually spent 96.44% 97.21% 98.34%

[a] [a] [a] [a]

* Total for years displayed only Source: European Commission, Synopsis S2 2000-2006 detailed for PE; Socrates Budgets revised 19/10/01, 20/11/03 and 10/10/03; ** budget for Bologna promoters only, ***centralised Actions only

[a] Not available

Points to note from this data include the relatively large increase in the budget allocation between the period 2000-2003 (which shows modest increases each year) and 2004-2006, where a step change was followed by larger increases year-on year.

A38

Number of grants awarded in the Erasmus Action Sub-Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

EUC N/Applic N/Applic N/Applic 1,945 246 183 149 2,523

CDP 8171 1282 1173 754 48 35 41 N/Applic

IP 238 222 232 201 177 203 174 1,447

Student Mobility 111,092 115,432 123,957 135,586 144,037 154,421 N/A N/A

Teaching Staff Mobility 14,356 15,872 16,934 18,496 20,877 23,449 N/A N/A

Organisation of Student & University Teaching Staff Mobility

1,741 1,797 1,830 N/A 1,950 2,071 N/A N/A

ECTS 814 750 696 N/Applic5 N/Applic N/Applic N/Applic N/Applic

EILC (number of students)

N/Applic6 1,622 2,012 2,378 3,192 3,894 N/A N/A

Thematic Networks 34 29 36 38 38 197 14 N/Applic

1 In 2000 the CD activities were still part of each university's "institutional contract" – hence the high number compared with subsequent years. A further 5 "long-term Erasmus Teaching Fellowships" were also awarded in 2000. 2 These included 82 grants for the development of study, 30 for European modules and 16 for dissemination activities. The much lower number of grants compared with 2000 resulted from the change to managing CD as centralised action projects with a single coordinator from 2001 on. 3 These included 77 grants for the development of study, 30 for European modules and 14 for dissemination activities. 4 The higher numbers in 2003 and to some extent 2004 compared with 2005 and 2006 result from the fact that in 2003 there were still second- and third-year renewals and in 2004 third-year renewals to be supported as a result of selection decisions taken in relation to 2002 (multi-annual projects). 5 From 2003 on, grants to introduce ECTS were provided on a decentralised basis via National Agencies. 6 There was no full-scale scheme for EILC in 2000. 7 Lower number than previous years due to the fact that from 2005 on, the commitment for the entire life-cycle of the Networks was committed from the budget in the first year of support, whereas in previous years support had been provided annually.

A39

Sub-Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Total N/Applic N/Applic N/Applic N/Applic N/Applic N/Applic N/Applic N/Applic

Source: European Commission, Selection Rounds of Thematic Net works (SOCCOM-2006-005-h-en-Erasmus-1+annexes, SOCCOM-2005-023i Eras3-en, SOCCOM-2004-024d_Eras3_EN, SOCCOM-2002-044Subcom conclusion-en, SOCCOM-2002-034cErasmus3_en, SOCCOM-2001-43seltcp-e), Selection Notes Erasmus 1 (SOCCOM-2004-024c_Eras1_Selection note CD and IP 2004), Selection Policy (SOCCOM-2003-021SCHE-03-05-en), Selection Round 2005 of Erasmus 1 (SOCCOM-2005-023h Eras1-CD-IP-en), NA 06 06 OM_ECTS annex_rev1, NA 06 04 mobility annex. [a] Not available

A40

Grundtvig

Budget and Financial Commitments for the Grundtvig Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Total budget for grants [a] 6,829,328 10,318,799 11,482,281 14,844,057 17,488,656 19,222,049 [a]

Total amount of grants committed

[a] 4,979,735 8,304,508 10,538,992 12,656,823 16,857,632 [a] [a]

Total actual amount of grant spent

[a] 4,925,074 8,256,209 10,398,403 11,342,180 [a] [a] [a]


Percentage of Committed grants actually spent

[a] 98.9 99.4 98.7 89.6 [a] [a] [a]

Source: European Commission, Socrates data - Grundtvig decentralised - 2nd batch, Socrates data - Grundtvig decentralised - 2nd batch; Socrates Budgets revised 19/10/01, 20/11/03 and 10/10/03; [a] Not available * Grundtvig decentralised Actions only

The table shows that, overall, the budget has increased significantly over the period 2000 to 2006 (the budget in 2006 was nearly three times what it was in 2000). It is noted that the commitment ratio was significantly lower in 2004 than in previous years and this merits further investigation as part of the analysis still to be carried out. Note that for Grundtvig 2, the activities carried out by participants included their own contribution, but they were not required by the Commission to provide any financial data concerning this and would have had difficulties in doing so.

A41

Number of grants awarded in the Grundtvig Action Sub-Action 2000* 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Grundtvig 1 76 60 49 42 72 71 47 417

Grundtvig 2 0 478 924 1,182 1,402 1,795 1,980 7,761

Grundtvig3 [a]0 321 537 [a] 1,100 1,231 1,063

Grundtvig 4 0 7 10 5 2 10 3 37

Grundtvig 2 Preparatory Visits [a]0 248 434 [a] [a] [a] ]not yet available

[a]

Total [a]76 1,114 1,954 [a] [a] [a] [a]

Source: European Commission, Grundtvig Selection notes; European Commission, Grundtvig web pages, Grundtvig Statistics 2000-2005. [a] Not available

* Grundtvig 1 only, all other Actions stated in 2001

The number and share of grants shows significant variation over the period. Overal l, G2 grants represented the main use of funds. G1 grants dipped in the period 2002-2003, the explanation for which might relate to whether or not a pre-selection phase was employed.

A42

Observation and Innovation

Budget and Financial Commitments for the Observation and Innovation Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Total budget for grants 6,796,877 6,289,818 6,291,081 7,153,827 8,339,927 8,854,500 10,225,000 53,951,030


6,796,877 7,582,283 5,936,549 8,047,245 [a] [a] [a] [a]


[a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]


[a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]


[a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

Source: European Commission, Socrates Budgets revised 19/10/01, 20/11/03 and 10/10/03; [a] Not available

The budget allocation shows steady growth, year-on-year, with a comparatively larger increase between 2005 and 2006.

A43

Number of grants awarded in the Observation and Innovation Action Sub-Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

6.1 Arion 1750 1725 1765 1780 2043 2185 2159 13407

6.1 Eurydice [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

6.1 NARIC [a] 295,642 131,173 71,619 223,867 214,532 121,875 1,058,708

Total [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

Source: [a] Not available

A44

Lingua

Budget and Financial Commitments for the Lingua Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Total budget for grants [a] [a] [a] [a] 5,731,325 5,790,000 6,300,000 35,890,267


4,482,570 4,640,486 4,419,716 5,271,570 [a] [a] [a] [a]


[a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]


[a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]


[a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

Source: European Commission, Synopsis Socrates 2 2000-2006; Socrates Budgets revised 19/10/01, 20/11/03 and 10/10/03; [a] Not available

The budget remained fairly similar, with only modest increases during the period 2000-2006. This was followed by a relatively large increase for 2004.

A45

Number of grants awarded in the Lingua Action Sub-Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Lingua 1 [a] 10 5 12 10 13 16 [a]

Lingua 2 [a] 14 12 11 14 13 14 [a]

Lingua Preparatory Visits [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

Total [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

Source: European Commission, Lingua 1 & 2 Stats Soc II [a] Not available

With the exception of 2002, when only five grants were awarded, the number of grants has remained relatively consistent, albeit with a slight increase in 2006.

A46

Comenius

Budget and Financial Commitments for the Comenius Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Total budget for grants

59,652,304 67,673,065 71,787,578 71,817,796 84,315,477 93,103,114 102,742,660

[a]


67,516,000 68,154,655 68,154,655 69,600,000 83,994,011 86,537,780 94,348,423

[a]


[a]

58,915,145 70,200,613 71,246,883 83,994,011 86,537,780 58,915,145

[a]


[a]


[a]

Source: European Commission, Socrates Budgets revised 19/10/01, 20/11/03 and 10/10/03;

A47

Number of grants awarded in the Comenius Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

No. [a] 10,360 9,864 10,234 11,287 12,156 12,430 [a] C1

% [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

No. 70 99 40 43 44 46 52 [a] C2.1

% [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

No. 5,765 7,201 7,590 7,786 9,082 9,260 9,941 [a] C2.2

% [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

No. [a] 11 5 7 8 6 4 [a] C3

% [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

No. [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] Preparatory visit

% [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

No. [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] Total

% [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a] [a]

Source: Socrates data - Comenius decentralised - 2nd batch

A48

Minerva

Budget and Financial Commitments for the Minerva Programme 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Total budget for grants 11,536,349 9,575,861 8,255,531 8,232,959 9,487,411 9,898,626 7,100,000 64,086,737


10,727.183 7,582,283 7,224,596 8,769.073 9,163,826 6,097,509 7,480,661 60,471,310


unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown unknown





Source: European Commission – Selection Notes Minerva; Socrates Budgets revised 19/10/01, 20/11/03 and 10/10/03;

The total budget for grants shows a declining trend for the period 2000-2003, before increasing relatively significantly for the years 2004 and 2005. There is then a significant decrease again for 2006. For 2000 and 2006, the amount of grant committed appears to exceed the total budget. This may reflect legacy funding in the case of 2000, or demand having required that some budget from subsequent years was brought forward (2001 shows a shortfall). In 2005 there is a significant, apparent shortfall in funds committed versus the budget allocated.

A49

Number of grants awarded in the Minerva Action Sub-Action 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

Minerva Projects 73 43 36 30 34 27 26 269

Minerva Preparatory Visits [a] 14 12 11 14 13 14 [a]

Total [a] 57 48 41 48 40 40 [a]

Source: European Commission, Minerva Selection Notes [a] Not available

A50

Annex Four: Socrates survey responses (Comenius projects)

A51

Your organisation type Frequency Valid Percent

Valid School 1360 73.3

University or other higher education institution 115 6.2

Teacher training institution/centre 54 2.9

Adult education institution or organisation 25 1.3

Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) 25 1.3

Non-profit organisation 39 2.1

Public authority – local 40 2.2

Public authority – regional 37 2.0

Public authority - national 34 1.8

Private company 20 1.1

Research institute 6 .3

Other educational institution 83 4.5

ICT/multimedia organisation 1 .1

Other 17 .9

Total 1856 100.0

A52

Country of your organisation Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Austria 10 .5

Belgium 11 .6

Bulgaria 12 .6

Cyprus 3 .2

Czech Republic 19 1.0

Denmark 20 1.1

Estonia 20 1.1

Finland 112 6.0

France 40 2.2

Germany 529 28.5

Greece 12 .6

Hungary 60 3.2

Iceland 16 .9

Ireland 54 2.9

Italy 130 7.0

Latvia 3 .2

Liechtenstein 1 .1

Lithuania 4 .2

Luxembourg 17 .9

Malta 4 .2

the Netherlands 76 4.1

Norway 9 .5

Poland 14 .8

Portugal 11 .6

Romania 51 2.7

Slovakia 5 .3

Slovenia 7 .4

Spain 440 23.7

Sweden 50 2.7

Turkey 71 3.8

United Kingdom 43 2.3

Other 1 .1

Total 1855 100.0

A53

How did you find out about Comenius? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Directorate General for Education and Culture website

191 10.3

Other European programmes National Agency website

230 12.4

Education Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) website

8 .4

From colleague 597 32.2

From other organisation / partner 389 21.0

From publicity event 88 4.7

From Directorate General Education and Culture newsletter

38 2.0

From other publication 62 3.3

Other 253 13.6

Total 1856 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (1/9 - Previous Comenius project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 866 46.4

No 1002 53.6

Total 1868 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (2/9 - Erasmus, Grundtvig, Lingua, Minerva) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 167 8.9

No 1701 91.1

Total 1868 100.0

A54

Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (3/9 - Previous Leonardo project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 148 7.9

No 1720 92.1

Total 1868 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (4/9 - Previous eLearning project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 33 1.8

No 1835 98.2

Total 1868 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (5/9 - Previous Culture 2000 project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 6 .3

No 1862 99.7

Total 1868 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (6/9 - Previous Youth project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 44 2.4

No 1824 97.6

Total 1868 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (7/9 - Previous European Social Fund project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 60 3.2

No 1808 96.8

Total 1868 100.0

A55

Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (8/9 - Involvement in other European project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 240 12.8

No 1628 87.2

Total 1868 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (9/9 - No) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 735 39.3

No 1133 60.7

Total 1868 100.0 Did you receive a preparatory grant in order to set up your partnership, project or network? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 703 37.9

No 1016 54.7

Do not know 138 7.4

Total 1857 100.0 Was your organisation the lead partner for the project? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 628 34.0

No 1155 62.5

Do not know 64 3.5

Total 1847 100.0

A56

Which country was your lead partner based in? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Austria 43 2.5

Belgium 72 4.2

Bulgaria 14 .8

Cyprus 12 .7


Denmark 21 1.2

Estonia 10 .6

Finland 40 2.3

France 141 8.2

Germany 328 19.2

Greece 28 1.6

Hungary 16 .9

Iceland 3 .2

Ireland 37 2.2

Italy 170 9.9

Latvia 7 .4

Liechtenstein 3 .2

Lithuania 6 .4

Luxembourg 8 .5

Malta 8 .5


Norway 19 1.1

Poland 68 4.0

Portugal 38 2.2

Romania 59 3.5

Slovakia 9 .5

Slovenia 11 .6

Spain 129 7.5

Sweden 39 2.3

Switzerland 1 .1

Turkey 18 1.1


Other 4 .2

Total 1710 100.0

A57

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (1/14 - School) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1529 81.9

No 339 18.1

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (2/14 - University or other higher education institution) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 273 14.6

No 1595 85.4

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (3/14 - Teacher training institution/centre) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 246 13.2

No 1622 86.8

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (4/14 - Adult education institution or organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 84 4.5

No 1784 95.5

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (5/14 - Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc)) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 104 5.6

No 1764 94.4

Total 1868 100.0

A58

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (6/14 - Non-profit organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 114 6.1

No 1754 93.9

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (7/14 - Public authority â€“ local) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 174 9.3

No 1694 90.7

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (8/14 - Public authority â€“ regional) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 107 5.7

No 1761 94.3

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (9/14 - Public authority - national) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 42 2.2

No 1826 97.8

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (10/14 - Private company) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 68 3.6

No 1800 96.4

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (11/14 - Research institute) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 50 2.7

No 1818 97.3

Total 1868 100.0

A59

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (12/14 - Other educational institution) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 117 6.3

No 1751 93.7

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (13/14 - ICT/multimedia organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 32 1.7

No 1836 98.3

Total 1868 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (14/14 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 63 3.4

No 1805 96.6

Total 1868 100.0 Had you previously worked with your European partners on projects? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes, all of them 121 6.5

Yes, some of them 526 28.4

No, none of them 1180 63.7

Do not know 26 1.4

Total 1853 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (1/7 - Through involvement in a previous project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 453 24.3

No 1415 75.7

Total 1868 100.0

A60

How did you first get in contact with your partners? (2/7 - Existing network) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 309 16.5

No 1559 83.5

Total 1868 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (3/7 - Contact seminar) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 335 17.9

No 1533 82.1

Total 1868 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (4/7 - Preparatory visit) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 470 25.2

No 1398 74.8

Total 1868 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (5/7 - Partners database) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 378 20.2

No 1490 79.8

Total 1868 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (6/7 - Pro-active recruitment based on reputation and/or status) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 87 4.7

No 1781 95.3

Total 1868 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (7/7 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 404 21.6

No 1464 78.4

Total 1868 100.0

A61

In what year did your project start? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid 2000 55 3.0

2001 70 3.8

2002 102 5.6

2003 185 10.1

2004 384 21.0

2005 432 23.6

2006 538 29.4

Do not know 62 3.4

Total 1828 100.0 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between the project partners? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Very satisfied 1030 55.9

Fairly satisfied 732 39.7

Fairly dissatisfied 47 2.5

Very dissatisfied 14 .8

Do not know 21 1.1

Total 1844 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (1/8 - Strengthening the European dimension in education) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1455 77.9

No 413 22.1

Total 1868 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (2/8 - Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 306 16.4

No 1562 83.6

Total 1868 100.0

A62

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (3/8 - Promoting equal opportunities) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 349 18.7

No 1519 81.3

Total 1868 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (4/8 - Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 653 35.0

No 1215 65.0

Total 1868 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (5/8 - Promoting co-operation and mobility in education) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 935 50.1

No 933 49.9

Total 1868 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (6/8 - Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 821 44.0

No 1047 56.0

Total 1868 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (7/8 - Exploring matters of common policy interest) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 209 11.2

No 1659 88.8

Total 1868 100.0

A63

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (8/8 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 14 .7

No 1854 99.3

Total 1868 100.0 Which of the Comenius objectives did your study visit contribute to? (1/5 - To enhance the quality of school education) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 706 37.8

No 1162 62.2

Total 1868 100.0 Which of the Comenius objectives did your study visit contribute to? (2/5 - To reinforce the European dimension of school education) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1049 56.2

No 819 43.8

Total 1868 100.0 Which of the Comenius objectives did your study visit contribute to? (3/5 - To promote the learning of languages) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 715 38.3

No 1153 61.7

Total 1868 100.0 Which of the Comenius objectives did your study visit contribute to? (4/5 - To promote intercultural awareness) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1082 57.9

No 786 42.1

Total 1868 100.0

A64

Which of the Comenius objectives did your study visit contribute to? (5/5 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 4 .2

No 1864 99.8

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (1/21 - Exchange of experience and good practice) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1591 85.2

No 277 14.8

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (2/21 - Partnership or network) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 807 43.2

No 1061 56.8

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (3/21 - Linguistic preparation for project participants) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 420 22.5

No 1448 77.5

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (4/21 - New curriculum) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 122 6.5

No 1746 93.5

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (5/21 - Training Course) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 208 11.1

No 1660 88.9

Total 1868 100.0

A65

What are the key outputs of your project? (6/21 - Teaching/training methodology and strategy) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 731 39.1

No 1137 60.9

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (7/21 - Website(s)) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 771 41.3

No 1097 58.7

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (8/21 - New teaching/training material) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 809 43.3

No 1059 56.7

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (9/21 - Evaluation report(s)) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 451 24.1

No 1417 75.9

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (10/21 - Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 335 17.9

No 1533 82.1

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (11/21 - Provision of periods of mobility / virtual mobility) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 364 19.5

No 1504 80.5

Total 1868 100.0

A66

What are the key outputs of your project? (12/21 - Framework for the organisation of mobility activities) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 247 13.2

No 1621 86.8

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (13/21 - Transnational meetings (e.g. of network)) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 696 37.3

No 1172 62.7

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (14/21 - Seminars. workshops, conferences, exhibitions / fairs) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 532 28.5

No 1336 71.5

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (15/21 - Information/promotional campaign) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 182 9.7

No 1686 90.3

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (16/21 - Media materials) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 519 27.8

No 1349 72.2

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (17/21 - Other awareness-raising tool) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 185 9.9

No 1683 90.1

Total 1868 100.0

A67

What are the key outputs of your project? (18/21 - Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 163 8.7

No 1705 91.3

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (19/21 - Valorisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 153 8.2

No 1715 91.8

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (20/21 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 138 7.4

No 1730 92.6

Total 1868 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (21/21 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 8 .4

No 1860 99.6

Total 1868 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (1/5 - Yes, within your organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1453 77.8

No 415 22.2

Total 1868 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (2/5 - Yes, within partner organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 854 45.7

No 1014 54.3

Total 1868 100.0

A68

Are your project outputs still in use? (3/5 - Yes, within other (non-partner) organisations) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 230 12.3

No 1638 87.7

Total 1868 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (4/5 - No, not in use) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 84 4.5

No 1784 95.5

Total 1868 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (5/5 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 93 5.0

No 1775 95.0

Total 1868 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (1/9 - Not relevant to potential users) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 17 .9

No 1851 99.1

Total 1868 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (2/9 - Outputs are not transferable) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 19 1.0

No 1849 99.0

Total 1868 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (3/9 - Insufficient demand/need for outputs) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 12 .6

No 1856 99.4

Total 1868 100.0

A69

If not, give the reasons? (4/9 - Lack of funding) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 5 .3

No 1863 99.7

Total 1868 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (5/9 - Administrative difficulties) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 8 .4

No 1860 99.6

Total 1868 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (6/9 - Outputs were not fully completed) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 13 .7

No 1855 99.3

Total 1868 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (7/9 - Partnership no longer exists) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 33 1.8

No 1835 98.2

Total 1868 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (8/9 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 19 1.0

No 1849 99.0

Total 1868 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (9/9 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 17 .9

No 1851 99.1

Total 1868 100.0

A70

Who were your projects participants? (1/10 - Primary and/or pre-primary pupils) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 621 33.2

No 1247 66.8

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (2/10 - Secondary school students) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 948 50.7

No 920 49.3

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (3/10 - Student teachers) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 179 9.6

No 1689 90.4

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (4/10 - School teachers) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1439 77.0

No 429 23.0

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (5/10 - Tutors, mentors or other educators working with pupils at risk of exclusion, children of migrant workers, Gypsies, Travellers and Occupational Travellers) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 174 9.3

No 1694 90.7

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (6/10 - Non-teaching education staff) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 211 11.3

No 1657 88.7

Total 1868 100.0

A71

Who were your projects participants? (7/10 - Teacher trainers) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 286 15.3

No 1582 84.7

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (8/10 - Other educational professionals) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 260 13.9

No 1608 86.1

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (9/10 - Decision makers and education specialists) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 212 11.3

No 1656 88.7

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (10/10 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 106 5.7

No 1762 94.3

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (1/28 - Teachers (school)) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1644 88.0

No 224 12.0

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (2/28 - Teachers/trainers (higher education)) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 272 14.6

No 1596 85.4

Total 1868 100.0

A72

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (3/28 - Teachers/trainers/tutors (adult education)) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 129 6.9

No 1739 93.1

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (4/28 - Trainers of teachers/trainers/tutors) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 250 13.4

No 1618 86.6

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (5/28 - Other practitioners) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 151 8.1

No 1717 91.9

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (6/28 - Learners) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1236 66.2

No 632 33.8

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (7/28 - Apprentices / Workers) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 63 3.4

No 1805 96.6

Total 1868 100.0

A73

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (8/28 - The unemployed) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 9 .5

No 1859 99.5

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (9/28 - Persons with special needs / disadvantaged groups) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 162 8.7

No 1706 91.3

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (10/28 - Citizens in general / general public) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 501 26.8

No 1367 73.2

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (11/28 - Administrative staff in schools, including head teachers) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 368 19.7

No 1500 80.3

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (12/28 - Administrative staff in higher education establishments) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 28 1.5

No 1840 98.5

Total 1868 100.0

A74

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (13/28 - Other administrative staff) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 42 2.2

No 1826 97.8

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (14/28 - Policy / decision-makers at national level) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 99 5.3

No 1769 94.7

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (15/28 - Policy / decision-makers at regional level) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 158 8.5

No 1710 91.5

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (16/28 - Policy / decision-makers at local level) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 245 13.1

No 1623 86.9

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (17/28 - Policy / decision-makers at European level) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 73 3.9

No 1795 96.1

Total 1868 100.0

A75

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (18/28 - Inspectors / Advisors) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 149 8.0

No 1719 92.0

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (19/28 - Government and administration / Education authorities) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 167 8.9

No 1701 91.1

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (20/28 - Training providers) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 80 4.3

No 1788 95.7

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (21/28 - Chambers of commerce / Professional bodies) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 25 1.3

No 1843 98.7

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (22/28 - Curriculum development specialists) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 60 3.2

No 1808 96.8

Total 1868 100.0

A76

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (23/28 - e-Learning Industry) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 27 1.4

No 1841 98.6

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (24/28 - Publishers / Broadcasters / Multimedia content providers) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 96 5.1

No 1772 94.9

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (25/28 - Social partners (trade unions etc)) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 38 2.0

No 1830 98.0

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (26/28 - The research community) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 59 3.2

No 1809 96.8

Total 1868 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (27/28 - Standards bodies and working groups) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 25 1.3

No 1843 98.7

Total 1868 100.0

A77

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (28/28 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 117 6.3

No 1751 93.7

Total 1868 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (1/7 - By promoting equal opportunities between men and women) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 555 29.7

No 1313 70.3

Total 1868 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (2/7 - By addressing the needs of disabled people) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 263 14.1

No 1605 85.9

Total 1868 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (3/7 - By helping to combat racism and xenophobia) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 570 30.5

No 1298 69.5

Total 1868 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (4/7 - By helping to address socio-economic disadvantage) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 436 23.3

No 1432 76.7

Total 1868 100.0

A78

Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (5/7 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 121 6.5

No 1747 93.5

Total 1868 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (6/7 - Not specifically) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 834 44.6

No 1034 55.4

Total 1868 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (7/7 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 37 2.0

No 1831 98.0

Total 1868 100.0 Did your project/network have a€¦ (1/4 - a monitoring strategy?) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 717 38.4

No 1151 61.6

Total 1868 100.0 Did your project/network have(2/4 - a dedicated monitoring officer or someone responsible for project/network monitoring?) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 467 25.0

No 1401 75.0

Total 1868 100.0 Did your project/network have€¦ (3/4 - a strategy to disseminate your projects outputs, results and learning?) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1069 57.2

No 799 42.8

Total 1868 100.0

A79

Did your project/network have (4/4 - a dedicated dissemination officer or someone responsible for project/networks dissemination?) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 405 21.7

No 1463 78.3

Total 1868 100.0 To what extent have your dissemination activities reached your target groups? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid reached all our target groups 607 33.0

reached most of our target groups 807 43.9

reached some of our target groups 282 15.4

reached none of our target groups 5 .3

Not applicable 73 4.0

Do not know 63 3.4

Total 1837 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (1/7 - Informal discussions within the partnership) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1450 77.6

No 418 22.4

Total 1868 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (2/7 - Self-evaluation methods) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1274 68.2

No 594 31.8

Total 1868 100.0

A80

How did you evaluate your activity? (3/7 - Peer group evaluation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 390 20.9

No 1478 79.1

Total 1868 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (4/7 - External evaluation by a professional evaluator) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 197 10.5

No 1671 89.5

Total 1868 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (5/7 - No evaluation activity undertaken) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 41 2.2

No 1827 97.8

Total 1868 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (6/7 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 104 5.6

No 1764 94.4

Total 1868 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (7/7 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 21 1.1

No 1847 98.9

Total 1868 100.0

A81

Will the project activities continue after the end of the funding? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes, all of the activities will continue 237 12.8

Yes, some of the activities will continue 1050 56.9

No 219 11.9

Do not know 340 18.4

Total 1846 100.0 Will the partnership continue? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes, all partners will continue to work together 389 21.2

Yes, most partners will continue to work together 333 18.1

Yes, some partners will continue to work together 566 30.8

No 185 10.1


Total 1839 100.0 To what extent did the project/network meet your initial objectives? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid met all of our initial objectives 458 24.9

met most of our initial objectives 991 53.9

met some of our initial objectives 184 10.0

met none of our initial objectives 3 .2

our project is not finished/too early to say 203 11.0

Total 1839 100.0

A82

How would you rate the overall application process? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Very poor 14 .8

Poor 118 6.3

Adequate 596 31.9

Good 791 42.4

Very good 312 16.7

Do not know 35 1.9

Total 1866 100.0 How would you rate the support you received from the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 85 4.6

Adequate 398 21.5

Good 606 32.7

Very good 508 27.4


Total 1853 100.0 How would you rate the Commissions activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Comenius? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Very poor 23 1.2

Poor 124 6.7

Adequate 484 26.2

Good 564 30.6

Very good 167 9.1


Total 1845 100.0

A83

How would you rate the National Agencies activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Comenius? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 113 6.1

Adequate 423 22.9

Good 622 33.7

Very good 286 15.5


Total 1846 100.0 How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 86 4.7

Adequate 492 26.7

Good 486 26.4

Very good 188 10.2


Total 1842 100.0 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased and sustained cooperation amongst institutions/organisations? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Strongly disagree 19 1.0

Disagree 32 1.7

Neither agree or disagree 109 5.9

Agree 919 49.4

Strongly agree 733 39.4

Do not know 49 2.6

Total 1861 100.0

A84

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased capacity for mobility of participants? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 42 2.3


Agree 787 42.5


Do not know 55 3.0

Total 1853 100.0 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved the employability/adaptability of participants? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 92 5.0


Agree 764 41.4



Total 1845 100.0 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved the employability and adaptability of participants facing disadvantage? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 131 7.2


Agree 452 24.7



Total 1829 100.0

A85

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased the European outlook of individuals and institutions? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Strongly disagree 13 .7

Disagree 9 .5


Agree 807 43.6


Do not know 32 1.7

Total 1850 100.0 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved quality of teaching/curricula? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 48 2.6


Agree 992 53.7


Do not know 53 2.9

Total 1848 100.0 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased the teaching and learning of EU languages? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 180 9.8


Agree 750 40.6


Do not know 122 6.6

Total 1846 100.0

A86

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved teaching/teacher training practice, approaches to learning and management? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 84 4.6


Agree 927 50.3


Do not know 132 7.2

Total 1844 100.0 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has led to the integration of methods/tools/ frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 125 6.8


Agree 765 41.5



Total 1845 100.0 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has led to greater transparency and recognition between member states of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 141 7.6


Agree 789 42.7



Total 1846 100.0

A87

Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project on the curriculum has been? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Major across all curriculum areas 133 7.2

Major in some curriculum areas 901 48.8

Minor across all curriculum areas 123 6.7

Minor in some curriculum areas 359 19.4

No impact on curriculum 164 8.9


Do not know 77 4.2

Total 1847 100.0 Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project on management has been? Frequency Valid Percent







Do not know 145 7.8

Total 1850 100.0

A88

How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at the European level on teaching and learning in your Organisation? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Very low 19 1.0

Low 73 3.9

Moderate 567 30.6

High 793 42.8

Very high 358 19.3

Do not know 43 2.3

Total 1853 100.0 How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at the European level on teaching and learning in your Country? Frequency Valid Percent


Low 188 10.2

Moderate 580 31.5

High 539 29.2

Very high 156 8.5


Total 1844 100.0 Would your project have taken place without funding from Comenius? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 35 1.9

Yes but without transnational partners 46 2.5

Yes but over a longer timescale 16 .9

Yes but with a more limited impact without Erasmus branding and support

101 5.4

No 1575 84.8

Other 12 .6

Do not know 73 3.9

Total 1858 100.0

A89

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (1/19 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1506 80.6

No 362 19.4

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (2/19 - Increased knowledge, skills and competences of staff participating in Comenius project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1201 64.3

No 667 35.7

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (3/19 - Access to a wider range of products, methods, tools, frameworks etc) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 487 26.1

No 1381 73.9

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (4/19 - Increased cooperation and sharing of good practice among teaching and teacher-training professionals and those responsible for teaching and teacher-training policies across Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 926 49.6

No 942 50.4

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (5/19 - Improved organisational profile) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 176 9.4

No 1692 90.6

Total 1868 100.0

A90

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (6/19 - Better contacts with other European institutions) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 703 37.6

No 1165 62.4

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (7/19 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 427 22.9

No 1441 77.1

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (8/19 - Innovative changes in practice in school education and teacher training) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 323 17.3

No 1545 82.7

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (9/19 - Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 554 29.7

No 1314 70.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (10/19 - Improved foreign language teaching) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 726 38.9

No 1142 61.1

Total 1868 100.0

A91

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (11/19 - Improved quality of initial and in-service teacher training) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 121 6.5

No 1747 93.5

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (12/19 - Increase in supply of teacher training/career development opportunities) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 70 3.7

No 1798 96.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (13/19 - Better trained teachers/trainers in the organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 174 9.3

No 1694 90.7

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (14/19 - Better trained managers in the organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 18 1.0

No 1850 99.0

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (15/19 - Improved attractiveness as a working/learning organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 298 16.0

No 1570 84.0

Total 1868 100.0

A92

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (16/19 - Establishment of a network with institutions from other European countries) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 354 19.0

No 1514 81.0

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (17/19 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 45 2.4

No 1823 97.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (18/19 - None) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 4 .2

No 1864 99.8

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (19/19 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 7 .4

No 1861 99.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (1/14 - Greater European outlook â€“ awareness of other cultures and EU institutions) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1014 54.3

No 854 45.7

Total 1868 100.0

A93

What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (2/14 - Opportunity to spend time in another European country) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 600 32.1

No 1268 67.9

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (3/14 - Building contacts with contemporaries in other European countries) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 682 36.5

No 1186 63.5

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (4/14 - Increased foreign language skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 773 41.4

No 1095 58.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (5/14 - Increased ICT skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 446 23.9

No 1422 76.1

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (6/14 - Increased team working and social skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 549 29.4

No 1319 70.6

Total 1868 100.0

A94

What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (7/14 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 230 12.3

No 1638 87.7

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (8/14 - Improved motivation in their school work) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 483 25.9

No 1385 74.1

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (9/14 - Involvement in development of joint products with project partners) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 330 17.7

No 1538 82.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (10/14 - Increased involvement of pupils at risk of social exclusion and pupils with special educational needs) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 126 6.7

No 1742 93.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (11/14 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 180 9.6

No 1688 90.4

Total 1868 100.0

A95

What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (12/14 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 12 .6

No 1856 99.4

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (13/14 - None) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 7 .4

No 1861 99.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? (14/14 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 28 1.5

No 1840 98.5

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (1/22 - Greater European outlook â€“ awareness of other cultures and EU institutions) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 927 49.6

No 941 50.4

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (2/22 - Opportunity to spend time in another European country) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 687 36.8

No 1181 63.2

Total 1868 100.0

A96

What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (3/22 - Building contacts with colleagues in other European countries) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 923 49.4

No 945 50.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (4/22 - Increased foreign language skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 615 32.9

No 1253 67.1

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (5/22 - Increased foreign language teaching skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 164 8.8

No 1704 91.2

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (6/22 - Increased ICT skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 344 18.4

No 1524 81.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (7/22 - Increased project management and organisation skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 319 17.1

No 1549 82.9

Total 1868 100.0

A97

What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (8/22 - Improved teaching/training skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 133 7.1

No 1735 92.9

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (9/22 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 153 8.2

No 1715 91.8

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (10/22 - Involvement in development of joint products with project partners) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 315 16.9

No 1553 83.1

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (11/22 - Improved motivation in their work) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 333 17.8

No 1535 82.2

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (12/22 - Improved attractiveness of working in a learning organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 74 4.0

No 1794 96.0

Total 1868 100.0

A98

What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (13/22 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 139 7.4

No 1729 92.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (14/22 - Increase in cooperation with colleagues at partner organisations) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 195 10.4

No 1673 89.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (15/22 - Increased contacts within organisations in the local community) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 23 1.2

No 1845 98.8

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (16/22 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 71 3.8

No 1797 96.2

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (17/22 - Awareness of innovative changes in teaching practice) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 87 4.7

No 1781 95.3

Total 1868 100.0

A99

What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (18/22 - Increased access to methods, tools, frameworks etc) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 37 2.0

No 1831 98.0

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (19/22 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 9 .5

No 1859 99.5

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (20/22 - None) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 3 .2

No 1865 99.8

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (21/22 - Not applicable) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 3 .2

No 1865 99.8

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? (22/22 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 23 1.2

No 1845 98.8

Total 1868 100.0

A100

What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (1/22 - Greater European outlook â€“ awareness of other cultures and EU institutions) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 415 22.2

No 1453 77.8

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (2/22 - Increased foreign language skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 256 13.7

No 1612 86.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (3/22 - Increased foreign language teaching skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 139 7.4

No 1729 92.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (4/22 - Increased ICT skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 161 8.6

No 1707 91.4

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (5/22 - Increased project management and organisation skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 123 6.6

No 1745 93.4

Total 1868 100.0

A101

What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (6/22 - Improved teaching/training skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 163 8.7

No 1705 91.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (7/22 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 125 6.7

No 1743 93.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (8/22 - Improved motivation in their work) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 224 12.0

No 1644 88.0

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (9/22 - Improved attractiveness of working in a learning organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 61 3.3

No 1807 96.7

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (10/22 - Increased cooperation with colleagues from European partner organisations) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 257 13.8

No 1611 86.2

Total 1868 100.0

A102

What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (11/22 - Involvement in development of joint products with project partners) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 143 7.7

No 1725 92.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (12/22 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future)

Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 112 6.0

No 1756 94.0

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (13/22 - Awareness of innovative changes in teaching and teacher training practice) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 96 5.1

No 1772 94.9

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (14/22 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 117 6.3

No 1751 93.7

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (15/22 - Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 52 2.8

No 1816 97.2

Total 1868 100.0

A103

What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (16/22 - Awareness of good practice in other European countries) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 95 5.1

No 1773 94.9

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (17/22 - Increased use of ICT in school education and teacher training) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 46 2.5

No 1822 97.5

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (18/22 - Access to a platform for cooperation with colleagues across Europe) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 67 3.6

No 1801 96.4

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (19/22 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 9 .5

No 1859 99.5

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (20/22 - None) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1 .1

No 1867 99.9

Total 1868 100.0

A104

What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (21/22 - Not applicable) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 9 .5

No 1859 99.5

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (22/22 - Don't know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 22 1.2

No 1846 98.8

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (1/15 - Increased skills, knowledge and competences) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 351 18.8

No 1517 81.2

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (2/15 - Increased foreign language teaching skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 200 10.7

No 1668 89.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (3/15 - Improved motivation in their work) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 242 13.0

No 1626 87.0

Total 1868 100.0

A105

What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (4/15 - Improved attractiveness of working in a learning organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 131 7.0

No 1737 93.0

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (5/15 - Innovative changes in practice in school education and teacher training) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 190 10.2

No 1678 89.8

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (6/15 - Increase in supply of training/career development opportunities) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 53 2.8

No 1815 97.2

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (7/15 - Improved quality of initial and in-service teacher training) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 130 7.0

No 1738 93.0

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (8/15 - Improved quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 246 13.2

No 1622 86.8

Total 1868 100.0

A106

What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (9/15 - Increased access to mobility activities for student teachers) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 44 2.4

No 1824 97.6

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (10/15 - Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 124 6.6

No 1744 93.4

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (11/15 - Increased cooperation across Europe of actors in school education) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 150 8.0

No 1718 92.0

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (12/15 - Awareness of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning across Europe) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 163 8.7

No 1705 91.3

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (13/15 - Awareness of good practice across Europe) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 176 9.4

No 1692 90.6

Total 1868 100.0

A107

What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (14/15 - Access to a platform for cooperation with peers across Europe) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 85 4.6

No 1783 95.4

Total 1868 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (15/15 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 31 1.7

No 1837 98.3

Total 1868 100.0 To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within your organisation? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Not at all 43 2.4

To a small extent 758 41.4

To a great extent 934 51.1

Do not know 94 5.1

Total 1829 100.0 To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within partner organisations? Frequency Valid Percent





Total 1806 100.0

A108

To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within other (non-partner) organisations? Frequency Valid Percent





Total 1756 100.0 To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at local level? Frequency Valid Percent





Total 1820 100.0 To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at regional level? Frequency Valid Percent





Total 1794 100.0 To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at national level? Frequency Valid Percent





Total 1790 100.0

A109

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at European level? Frequency Valid Percent





Total 1772 100.0 We are intending to undertake telephone interviews and a small number of case studies. Would you be interested in participating in this part of the evaluation? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid No 699 37.4

Yes 816 43.7

Would like more information 353 18.9

Total 1868 100.0 Thematic Sector Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Other 368 19.7

School 1360 72.8



Total 1868 100.0 Case Study Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Not a case study 697 37.3

Finland 112 6.0

Germany 529 28.3

Netherlands 76 4.1

Poland 14 .7

Spain 440 23.6

Total 1868 100.0

A110

Annex Five: Socrates survey responses (Comenius mobility)

A111

Your organisation type Frequency Valid Percent

Valid School 414 62.2




Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) 6 .9


Public authority - local 18 2.7

Public authority - regional 35 5.3





ICT/multimedia organisation 2 .3

Other 12 1.8

Total 666 100.0

A112

What was your occupation when you received the Comenius training grant? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Student language teacher 64 9.4

Student teacher (non-languages) 9 1.3

Teacher (languages) 380 56.0

Teacher (non-languages) 158 23.3

Head teacher 15 2.2

Education Manager 7 1.0

School inspector 4 .6

Counsellor/mentor 5 .7

Careers advisor 4 .6

Staff working with pupils at risk of social exclusion 4 .6

Staff involved in intercultural education 5 .7

Staff working with children of migrant workers, Gypsies and Travellers and Occupational Travellers

1 .1

Staff working with pupils with special education needs 10 1.5

Other school education staff 13 1.9

Total 679 100.0 Do you have a disability? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 11 1.6

No 668 98.4

Total 679 100.0 What was your age when you received the Comenius grant? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid 20-29 160 23.5

30-39 199 29.2

40-49 206 30.2

50+ 116 17.0

Total 681 100.0

A113

Are you? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Male 153 22.6

Female 524 77.4

Total 677 100.0 Country of your employer / organisation? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Belgium 5 .7

Bulgaria 1 .1

Cyprus 1 .1

Czech Republic 3 .4

Denmark 2 .3

Estonia 3 .4

Finland 62 9.1

France 10 1.5

Germany 209 30.7

Greece 1 .1

Hungary 66 9.7

Iceland 5 .7

Ireland 10 1.5

Italy 6 .9

Malta 2 .3


Poland 1 .1

Portugal 5 .7

Romania 46 6.8

Slovenia 2 .3

Spain 194 28.5

Sweden 1 .1

Turkey 10 1.5


Total 681 100.0

A114

How did you find out about Comenius? Frequency Valid Percent


61 9.1


112 16.6


4 .6





44 6.5


Other 73 10.8

Total 673 100.0 Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (1/9 - Previous Comenius project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 299 43.5

No 389 56.5

Total 688 100.0 Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (2/9 - Erasmus, Grundtvig, Lingua, Minerva) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 87 12.6

No 601 87.4

Total 688 100.0

A115

Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (3/9 - Previous Leonardo project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 60 8.7

No 628 91.3

Total 688 100.0 Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (4/9 - Previous eLearning project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 18 2.6

No 670 97.4

Total 688 100.0 Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (5/9 - Previous Culture 2000 project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 7 1.0

No 681 99.0

Total 688 100.0 Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (6/9 - Previous Youth project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 16 2.3

No 672 97.7

Total 688 100.0 Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (7/9 - Previous European Social Fund project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 15 2.2

No 673 97.8

Total 688 100.0

A116

Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (8/9 - Involvement in other European project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 66 9.6

No 622 90.4

Total 688 100.0 Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (9/9 - No) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 282 41.0

No 406 59.0

Total 688 100.0 Was this the first Comenius training grant you had received? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 562 82.4

No 120 17.6

Total 682 100.0 Which country did you visit to do your training abroad? Frequency Valid Percent


Belgium 11 1.6

Bulgaria 1 .1

Cyprus 12 1.8

Czech Republic 3 .4

Denmark 4 .6

Estonia 1 .1

Finland 8 1.2

France 75 11.1

Germany 79 11.7

Greece 10 1.5

Hungary 5 .7

Iceland 11 1.6

Ireland 97 14.4

Italy 45 6.7

A117


Latvia 1 .1

Lithuania 1 .1

Malta 16 2.4


Norway 2 .3

Poland 4 .6

Portugal 8 1.2

Romania 2 .3

Slovenia 3 .4

Spain 29 4.3

Sweden 14 2.1

Turkey 1 .1


Other 5 .7

Total 674 100.0 Had your institution previously co-operated with your host institution? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 84 12.3

No 510 74.8

Do not know 88 12.9

Total 682 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (1/7 - Through involvement in a previous project) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 32 4.7

No 656 95.3

Total 688 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (2/7 - Existing network) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 142 20.6

No 546 79.4

Total 688 100.0

A118

How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (3/7 - Contact seminar) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 26 3.8

No 662 96.2

Total 688 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (4/7 - Preparatory visit) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 11 1.6

No 677 98.4

Total 688 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (5/7 - Partners database) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 106 15.4

No 582 84.6

Total 688 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (6/7 - Pro-active recruitment based on reputation and/or status) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 52 7.6

No 636 92.4

Total 688 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (7/7 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 334 48.5

No 354 51.5

Total 688 100.0

A119

In what year did your training abroad / period of mobility take place? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid 2000 6 .9

2001 8 1.3

2002 23 3.6

2003 40 6.3

2004 53 8.3

2005 93 14.5

2006 384 60.0

Do not know 33 5.2

Total 640 100.0 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between your employer institution and the host institution? Frequency Valid Percent




Very dissatisfied 16 2.4


Total 665 100.0 What was the purpose of your grant/placement? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Initial teacher training 52 7.7

Language assistantship 92 13.6

In-service training course 466 68.7

Other 68 10.0

Total 678 100.0 How much of the cost of your training did the grant from Comenius cover? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Less than 50% 28 4.1

50% - 75% 181 26.7

76% - 100% 470 69.2

Total 679 100.0

A120

How did you cover the cost of your training? (1/5 - Comenius funding only) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 446 64.8

No 242 35.2

Total 688 100.0 How did you cover the cost of your training? (2/5 - National funding) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 33 4.8

No 655 95.2

Total 688 100.0 How did you cover the cost of your training? (3/5 - Funding from my employer) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 43 6.3

No 645 93.8

Total 688 100.0 How did you cover the cost of your training? (4/5 - Personal funding) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 439 63.8

No 249 36.2

Total 688 100.0 How did you cover the cost of your training? (5/5 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 18 2.6

No 670 97.4

Total 688 100.0

A121

What type of organisation was your host organisation? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Pre-primary school 2 .3

Primary school 38 5.6

Secondary school 64 9.4

Teacher training institution 158 23.3

Adult education institution 142 20.9

Public authority 37 5.5

Non-governmental organisation 47 6.9


Other 50 7.4

Do not know 43 6.3

Total 678 100.0 What activities did you undertake within your host organisation? (1/6 - Supervised study) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 84 12.2

No 604 87.8

Total 688 100.0 What activities did you undertake within your host organisation? (2/6 - Practical initial teacher training) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 75 10.9

No 613 89.1

Total 688 100.0 What activities did you undertake within your host organisation? (3/6 - Language teaching (language assistantship)) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 239 34.7

No 449 65.3

Total 688 100.0

A122

What activities did you undertake within your host organisation? (4/6 - In-service training course) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 430 62.5

No 258 37.5

Total 688 100.0 What activities did you undertake within your host organisation? (5/6 - In-service placement in commerce or industry) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 3 .4

No 685 99.6

Total 688 100.0 What activities did you undertake within your host organisation? (6/6 - In-service placement in a public or non-governmental organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 14 2.0

No 674 98.0

Total 688 100.0 Was your attendance on the training course accredited? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 491 73.5

No 61 9.1


Total 668 100.0 How did you find out about your training course? (1/5 - Comenius Course database) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 318 46.2

No 370 53.8

Total 688 100.0

A123

How did you find out about your training course? (2/5 - Comenius National Agency) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 166 24.1

No 522 75.9

Total 688 100.0 How did you find out about your training course? (3/5 - Employer / home institution) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 78 11.3

No 610 88.7

Total 688 100.0 How did you find out about your training course? (4/5 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 214 31.1

No 474 68.9

Total 688 100.0 How did you find out about your training course? (5/5 - Do not know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 18 2.6

No 670 97.4

Total 688 100.0 Which of the Comenius objectives did your training activity contribute to? (1/5 - To enhance the quality of school education) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 334 48.5

No 354 51.5

Total 688 100.0

A124

Which of the Comenius objectives did your training activity contribute to? (2/5 - To reinforce the European dimension of school education) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 269 39.1

No 419 60.9

Total 688 100.0 Which of the Comenius objectives did your training activity contribute to? (3/5 - To promote the learning of languages) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 401 58.3

No 287 41.7

Total 688 100.0 Which of the Comenius objectives did your training activity contribute to? (4/5 - To promote intercultural awareness) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 263 38.2

No 425 61.8

Total 688 100.0 Which of the Comenius objectives did your training activity contribute to? (5/5 - Do not know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1 .1

No 687 99.9

Total 688 100.0 To what extent did the training meet your objectives? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Met all of my objectives. 195 28.6

Met most of our objectives. 358 52.5

Met some of our objectives. 110 16.1

Met none of our objectives. 8 1.2

Training is not finished / too early to say. 11 1.6

Total 682 100.0

A125

What are your key gains from your training activity? (1/12 - Greater European outlook â€“ awareness of other EU cultures and EU institutions) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 325 47.2

No 363 52.8

Total 688 100.0 What are your key gains from your training activity? (2/12 - Opportunity to spend time in another European country) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 299 43.5

No 389 56.5

Total 688 100.0 What are your key gains from your training activity? (3/12 - Increased understanding of the European Dimension to teaching and learning) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 308 44.8

No 380 55.2

Total 688 100.0 What are your key gains from your training activity? (4/12 - Increased understanding of other education systems) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 321 46.7

No 367 53.3

Total 688 100.0 What are your key gains from your training activity? (5/12 - Increased language skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 421 61.2

No 267 38.8

Total 688 100.0

A126

What are your key gains from your training activity? (6/12 - Improved teaching skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 321 46.7

No 367 53.3

Total 688 100.0 What are your key gains from your training activity? (7/12 - Understanding of new teaching techniques or methodologies) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 335 48.7

No 353 51.3

Total 688 100.0 What are your key gains from your training activity? (8/12 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 147 21.4

No 541 78.6

Total 688 100.0 What are your key gains from your training activity? (9/12 - Building contacts with contemporaries/colleagues in other countries) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 316 45.9

No 372 54.1

Total 688 100.0 What are your key gains from your training activity? (10/12 - Increased cooperation with European colleagues) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 157 22.8

No 531 77.2

Total 688 100.0

A127

What are your key gains from your training activity? (11/12 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 131 19.0

No 557 81.0

Total 688 100.0 What are your key gains from your training activity? (12/12 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 21 3.1

No 667 96.9

Total 688 100.0 Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment? (1/8 - Yes â€“ improved teaching of language already taught) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 422 61.3

No 266 38.7

Total 688 100.0 Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment? (2/8 - Yes â€“ teaching new language) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 70 10.2

No 618 89.8

Total 688 100.0 Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment? (3/8 - Yes â€“ using languages to teach other subjects) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 107 15.6

No 581 84.4

Total 688 100.0

A128

Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment? (4/8 - Yes â€“ in other teaching activities) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 260 37.8

No 428 62.2

Total 688 100.0 Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment? (5/8 - Yes â€“ in other education activities) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 186 27.0

No 502 73.0

Total 688 100.0 Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment? (6/8 - Yes - other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 62 9.0

No 626 91.0

Total 688 100.0 Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment? (7/8 - No â€“ unable to use gains from training activity in current employment) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 11 1.6

No 677 98.4

Total 688 100.0 Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment? (8/8 - Do not know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 6 .9

No 682 99.1

Total 688 100.0

A129

If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (1/7 - Skills/knowledge gained are not relevant to current position) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1 .1

No 687 99.9

Total 688 100.0 If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (2/7 - No demand for language learning within current organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 2 .3

No 686 99.7

Total 688 100.0 If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (3/7 - No demand for other type of learning within current organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1 .1

No 687 99.9

Total 688 100.0 If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (4/7 - Not possible to implement changes in teaching practice without change in local/regional/national policy) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 1 .1

No 687 99.9

Total 688 100.0 If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (5/7 - Administrative difficulties) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 2 .3

No 686 99.7

Total 688 100.0

A130

If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (6/7 - New teaching practices learned do not adhere to traditional views of education/training within your country) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 2 .3

No 686 99.7

Total 688 100.0 If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (7/7 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 2 .3

No 686 99.7

Total 688 100.0 How would you rate the overall application process? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 32 4.7

Adequate 206 30.1

Good 289 42.3

Very good 145 21.2

Do not know 5 .7

Total 684 100.0 How would you rate the support you received from the National Agency? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 21 3.1

Adequate 157 23.0

Good 271 39.7

Very good 208 30.5

Do not know 18 2.6

Total 682 100.0

A131

How would you rate the National Agencies activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Comenius? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 49 7.2

Adequate 158 23.3

Good 237 35.0

Very good 117 17.3


Total 678 100.0 How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the National Agency (NA)? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 33 4.9

Adequate 186 27.4

Good 256 37.6

Very good 98 14.4


Total 680 100.0 How would you rate the effect/added value of your participation in the Comenius training on your current employer organisation? Frequency Valid Percent


Low 49 7.2

Moderate 211 31.2

High 322 47.6

Very high 78 11.5

Total 676 100.0

A132

Would you have taken part in this kind of training activity without funding from Comenius? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes - same training but within own country 15 2.2

Yes - similar course but not as appropriate to needs 8 1.2

Yes - if other funding could have been accessed 168 24.6

Yes - using own private funds 36 5.3

No - not possible to pursue this kind of training on a national level

48 7.0

No - not possible to fund this kind of training activity without Comenius grant

396 57.9

Other 5 .7

Do not know 8 1.2

Total 684 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (1/14 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 350 50.9

No 338 49.1

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (2/14 - Increase in language learning opportunities provided within your organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 197 28.6

No 491 71.4

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (3/14 - Increase in other learning opportunities provided within your organisation)


Valid Yes 149 21.7

No 539 78.3

Total 688 100.0

A133

What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (4/14 - Increased involvement of pupils at risk of social exclusion or with special educational needs) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 55 8.0

No 633 92.0

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (5/14 - Innovative changes in teaching practice) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 362 52.6

No 326 47.4

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (6/14 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 475 69.0

No 213 31.0

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (7/14 - Better contacts with other European organisations) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 204 29.7

No 484 70.3

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (8/14 - Access to a wider range of products, methods, tools, frameworks etc.) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 213 31.0

No 475 69.0

Total 688 100.0

A134

What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (9/14 - Improved organisational profile) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 43 6.3

No 645 93.8

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (10/14 - Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 332 48.3

No 356 51.7

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (11/14 - Awareness of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning across Europe) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 189 27.5

No 499 72.5

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (12/14 - Awareness of innovative changes in practice) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 91 13.2

No 597 86.8

Total 688 100.0 What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (13/14 - Awareness of good practice across Europe) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 143 20.8

No 545 79.2

Total 688 100.0

A135

What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (14/14 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 60 8.7

No 628 91.3

Total 688 100.0 What were the direct benefits to the students at your host institution? (1/8 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 99 14.4

No 589 85.6

Total 688 100.0 What were the direct benefits to the students at your host institution? (2/8 - Increased language skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 106 15.4

No 582 84.6

Total 688 100.0 What were the direct benefits to the students at your host institution? (3/8 - Increased motivation to learn languages) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 110 16.0

No 578 84.0

Total 688 100.0 What were the direct benefits to the students at your host institution? (4/8 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 45 6.5

No 643 93.5

Total 688 100.0

A136

What were the direct benefits to the students at your host institution? (5/8 - Increased support for students with specific needs) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 21 3.1

No 667 96.9

Total 688 100.0 What were the direct benefits to the students at your host institution? (6/8 - Innovative changes in teaching practice) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 51 7.4

No 637 92.6

Total 688 100.0 What were the direct benefits to the students at your host institution? (7/8 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 59 8.6

No 629 91.4

Total 688 100.0 What were the direct benefits to the students at your host institution? (8/8 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 21 3.1

No 667 96.9

Total 688 100.0 What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (1/11 - Greater European outlook â€“ awareness of other cultures and EU institutions) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 218 31.7

No 470 68.3

Total 688 100.0

A137

What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (2/11 - Increased language skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 237 34.4

No 451 65.6

Total 688 100.0 What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (3/11 - Increased ICT skills) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 59 8.6

No 629 91.4

Total 688 100.0 What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (4/11 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 129 18.8

No 559 81.3

Total 688 100.0 What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (5/11 - Increase in language learning opportunities provided within your organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 67 9.7

No 621 90.3

Total 688 100.0 What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (6/11 - Increase in other learning opportunities provided within your organisation) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 51 7.4

No 637 92.6

Total 688 100.0

A138

What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (7/11 - Increased involvement of pupils at risk of social exclusion or with special educational needs) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 30 4.4

No 658 95.6

Total 688 100.0 What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (8/11 - Innovative changes in teaching practice) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 165 24.0

No 523 76.0

Total 688 100.0 What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (9/11 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 259 37.6

No 429 62.4

Total 688 100.0 What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (10/11 - Other) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 37 5.4

No 651 94.6

Total 688 100.0 What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? (11/11 - Do not know) Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 26 3.8

No 662 96.2

Total 688 100.0

A139

Has your employer organisation joined a Comenius Network as a result of your Comenius training? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 63 10.2

No 291 47.0

Employer already in a Comenius Network 92 14.9


Total 619 100.0 We are intending to undertake telephone interviews and a small number of case studies. Would you be interested in participating in this part of the evaluation? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid No 253 36.8

Yes 298 43.3


Total 688 100.0 Thematic Sector Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Other 212 30.8

School 414 60.2



Total 688 100.0 Case Study Frequency Valid Percent


Finland 62 9.0

Germany 209 30.4

Netherlands 22 3.2

Poland 1 .1

Spain 194 28.2

Total 688 100.0

A140

Annex Six: Socrates survey responses (Erasmus)

A141

Your organisation type


Valid School 4 .6





Non-profit organisation 5 .7

Public authority – national 3 .4


Other educational institution 6 .8

Other 4 .6

Total 711 100.0 Country of your organisation



Belgium 31 4.4

Bulgaria 29 4.1

Cyprus 4 .6


Denmark 9 1.3

Estonia 3 .4

Finland 25 3.5

France 44 6.2

Germany 28 3.9

Greece 23 3.2

Hungary 14 2.0

Iceland 1 .1

Ireland 15 2.1

Italy 132 18.6

Latvia 10 1.4

Liechtenstein 1 .1

Lithuania 6 .8

Malta 1 .1

A142



Norway 12 1.7

Poland 23 3.2

Portugal 17 2.4

Romania 46 6.5

Slovakia 19 2.7

Slovenia 6 .8

Spain 41 5.8

Sweden 21 3.0

Switzerland 1 .1

Turkey 53 7.5


Total 711 100.0 Which sub-Action was your project/activity funded under?


Valid Erasmus 1 European inter-university cooperation 96 13.7

Erasmus 2 Mobility of students and university teachers and organisation of mobility

438 62.5

Erasmus 3 Thematic networks 167 23.8

Total 701 100.0

A143

For which activity did you receive funding? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Joint development of study programmes 60 8.5

Joint development of European modules 15 2.1

Intensive programmes 40 5.7

Student mobility 241 34.1

Teaching staff mobility 94 13.3

Organisation of mobility of students and teaching staff 78 11.0

ECTS for Lifelong Learning Grant 11 1.6

Grants for Site Visit of ECTS/DS Counsellors 2 .3

ECTS and Diploma Supplement Labels 6 .8

Erasmus Intensive Language courses 4 .6

Thematic networks 156 22.1

Total 707 100.0

How did you find out about Erasmus? Frequency Valid Percent


78 11.0

Other European programme National Agency website 75 10.6


18 2.5





13 1.8


Other 152 21.5

Total 708 100.0

A144

Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (1/9 - Previous Erasmus project)

Frequency Percent Valid Yes 480 67.1 No 235 32.9 Total 715 100.0

Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (2/9 - Comenius, Grundtvig, Lingua, Minerva)


Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (3/9 - Previous Leonardo project)


Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (4/9 - Previous eLearning project)


Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (5/9 - Previous Culture 2000 project)


A145

Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (6/9 - Previous Youth project)


Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (7/9 - Previous European Social Fund project)


Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (8/9 - Involvement in other European project)


Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (9/9 - No)


Did you receive a preparatory grant in order to set up your partnership, project or network?


Valid Yes 96 13.6

No 478 67.5


Total 708 100.0

A146

Was your organisation the lead partner for the project/activity? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 324 46.2

No 285 40.7

Do not know 92 13.1

Total 701 100.0 Which country was your lead partner based in? Frequency Valid Percent


Belgium 40 7.2

Bulgaria 9 1.6

Cyprus 1 .2


Denmark 8 1.4

Estonia 2 .4

Finland 19 3.4

France 56 10.1

Germany 44 7.9

Greece 11 2.0

Hungary 7 1.3

Ireland 4 .7

Italy 127 22.9

Latvia 7 1.3

Liechtenstein 1 .2

Lithuania 10 1.8

Malta 3 .5


Norway 11 2.0

Poland 17 3.1

Portugal 21 3.8

Romania 10 1.8

Slovakia 6 1.1

Spain 24 4.3

Sweden 13 2.3

Turkey 7 1.3

A147



Other 5 .9

Total 555 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (1/14 - School)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (2/14 - University or other higher education institution)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (3/14 - Teacher training institution/centre)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (4/14 - Adult education institution or organisation)


A148

What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (5/14 - Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc))


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (6/14 - Non-profit organisation)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (7/14 - Public authority - local)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (8/14 - Public authority - regional)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (9/14 - Public authority - national)


A149

What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (10/14 - Private company)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (11/14 - Research institute)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (12/14 - Other educational institution)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (13/14 - ICT/multimedia organisation)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? (14/14 - Other)


A150

Had you previously worked with your European partners on projects/activities?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes, all of them 85 12.1 Yes, some of them 413 58.7 No, none of them 178 25.3 Do not know 28 4.0 Total 704 100.0

How did you first get in contact with your partners? (1/7 - Through involvement in a previous project)


How did you first get in contact with your partners? (2/7 - Existing network)


How did you first get in contact with your partners? (3/7 - Contact seminar)


How did you first get in contact with your partners? (4/7 - Preparatory visit)


A151

How did you first get in contact with your partners? (5/7 - Partners database)


How did you first get in contact with your partners? (6/7 - Pro-active recruitment based on reputation and/or status)


How did you first get in contact with your partners? (7/7 - Other)


In what year did your project/activity start?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid 2000 184 27.5 2001 32 4.8 2002 53 7.9 2003 66 9.9 2004 82 12.2 2005 87 13.0 2006 107 16.0 Do not know 59 8.8 Total 670 100.0

A152

How satisfied are you about the cooperation between the partners?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Very satisfied 328 46.7 Fairly satisfied 340 48.4 Fairly dissatisfied 19 2.7 Very dissatisfied 9 1.3 Do not know 7 1.0 Total 703 100.0

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (1/8 - Strengthening the European dimension in education)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (2/8 - Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (3/8 - Promoting equal opportunities)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (4/8 - Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught)


A153

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (5/8 - Promoting co-operation and mobility in education)


Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (7/8 - Exploring matters of common policy interest)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (8/8 - Don t know)


Which of the Erasmus Action objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (1/5 - Enhancing the quality and reinforce the European dimension of higher education)


A154

Which of the Erasmus Action objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (2/5 - Encouraging transnational cooperation between higher education institutions)


Which of the Erasmus Action objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (3/5 - Promoting mobility for students and higher education teaching staff)


Which of the Erasmus Action objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (4/5 - Improving transparency and academic recognition of studies and qualification throughout the European union)


Which of the Erasmus Action objectives did your project/activity contribute to? (5/5 - Don t know)

Frequency Percent Valid Yes 6 .8 No 709 99.2 Total 715 100.0

What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (1/16 - Agricultural Sciences)


A155

What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (2/16 - Architecture, urban and regional planning)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (3/16 - Art and design)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (4/16 - Business studies and management sciences)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (5/16 - Education teacher training)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (6/16 - Engineering, technology)


A156

What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (7/16 - Geography, geology)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (8/16 - Humanities)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (9/16 - Languages and philosophical sciences)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (10/16 - Law)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (11/16 - Mathematics, informatics)


A157

What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (12/16 - Medical sciences)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (13/16 - Natural sciences)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (14/16 - Social sciences)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (15/16 - Communication and information sciences)


What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? (16/16 - Other areas of study)


A158

What are the key outputs of your project? (1/21 - Exchange of experience and good practice)


What are the key outputs of your project? (2/21 - Partnership or network)


What are the key outputs of your project? (3/21 - Linguistic preparation for project participants)


What are the key outputs of your project? (4/21 - New curriculum)


What are the key outputs of your project? (5/21 - Training Course)


A159

What are the key outputs of your project? (6/21 - Teaching/training methodology and strategy)


What are the key outputs of your project? (7/21 - Website(s))


What are the key outputs of your project? (8/21 - New teaching/training material)


What are the key outputs of your project? (9/21 - Evaluation report(s))


What are the key outputs of your project? (10/21 - Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication)


A160

What are the key outputs of your project? (11/21 - Provision of periods of mobility / virtual mobility)


What are the key outputs of your project? (12/21 - Framework for the organisation of mobility activities)


What are the key outputs of your project? (13/21 - Transnational meetings (e.g. of network))


What are the key outputs of your project? (14/21 - Seminars. workshops, conferences, exhibitions / fairs)


A161

What are the key outputs of your project? (15/21 - Information/promotional campaign)


What are the key outputs of your project? (16/21 - Media materials)


What are the key outputs of your project? (17/21 - Other awareness-raising tool)


What are the key outputs of your project? (18/21 - Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences)


What are the key outputs of your project? (19/21 - Valorisation)


A162

What are the key outputs of your project? (20/21 - Other)


What are the key outputs of your project? (21/21 - Don t know)


Are your project/activity outputs still in use? (1/5 - Yes, within your organisation)


Are your project/activity outputs still in use? (2/5 - Yes, within partner organisation)


Are your project/activity outputs still in use? (3/5 - Yes, within other (non-partner) organisations)


A163

Are your project/activity outputs still in use? (4/5 - No, not in use)


Are your project/activity outputs still in use? (5/5 - Don t know)


If not, give the reasons? (1/9 - Not relevant to potential users)


If not, give the reasons? (2/9 - Outputs are not transferable)


If not, give the reasons? (3/9 - Insufficient demand/need for outputs)


A164

If not, give the reasons? (4/9 - Lack of funding)


If not, give the reasons? (5/9 - Administrative difficulties)


If not, give the reasons? (6/9 - Outputs were not fully completed)


If not, give the reasons? (7/9 - Partnership no longer exists)


If not, give the reasons? (8/9 - Other)


A165

If not, give the reasons? (9/9 - Don t know)


Who were your project/activity's participants? (1/7 - Students at undergraduate level)


Who were your project/activity's participants? (2/7 - Students at postgraduate level (e.g. Masters degree)


Who were your project/activity's participants? (3/7 - Students at doctoral/PhD level)


Who were your project/activity's participants? (4/7 - Adult learners)


A166

Who were your project/activity's participants? (5/7 - University / other higher education teaching staff)


Who were your project/activity's participants? (6/7 - Non-teaching education staff)


Who were your project/activity's participants? (7/7 - Other)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (1/28 - Teachers (school))


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (2/28 - Teachers/trainers (higher education))


A167

Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (3/28 - Teachers/trainers/tutors (adult education))


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (4/28 - Trainers of teachers/trainers/tutors)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (5/28 - Other practitioners)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (6/28 - Learners)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (7/28 - Apprentices / Workers)


A168

Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (8/28 - The unemployed)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (9/28 - Persons with special needs / disadvantaged groups)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (10/28 - Citizens in general / general public)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (11/28 - Administrative staff in schools, including head teachers)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (12/28 - Administrative staff in higher education establishments)


A169

Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (13/28 - Other administrative staff)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (14/28 - Policy / decision-makers at national level)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (15/28 - Policy / decision-makers at regional level)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (16/28 - Policy / decision-makers at local level)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (17/28 - Policy / decision-makers at European level)


A170

Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (18/28 - Inspectors / Advisors)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (19/28 - Government and administration / Education authorities)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (20/28 - Training providers)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (21/28 - Chambers of commerce / Professional bodies)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (22/28 - Curriculum development specialists)


A171

Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (23/28 - e-Learning Industry)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (24/28 - Publishers / Broadcasters / Multimedia content providers)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (25/28 - Social partners (trade unions etc))


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (26/28 - The research community)


Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (27/28 - Standards bodies and working groups)


A172

Who were your project/activity's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (28/28 - Other)


Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (1/7 - By promoting equal opportunities between men and women)


Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (2/7 - By addressing the needs of disabled people)


Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (3/7 - By helping to combat racism and xenophobia)


Did your project/activity specifically address equal opportunities? (4/7 - By helping to address socio-economic disadvantage)


A173

Did your project/activity specifically address equal opportunities? (5/7 - Other)


Did your project/activity specifically address equal opportunities? (6/7 - Not specifically)


Did your project/activity specifically address equal opportunities? (7/7 - Don t know)


Did your project/activity have (1/4 - a monitoring strategy?)


Did your project/activity have (2/4 - a dedicated monitoring officer or someone responsible for project/network monitoring?)


A174

Did your project/activity have (3/4 - a strategy to disseminate your project/activity s outputs, results and learning?)


Did your project/activity have (4/4 - a dedicated dissemination officer or someone responsible for project/networks dissemination?)


To what extent have your dissemination activities reached your target groups?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid reached all our

target groups 143 21.4

reached most of our target groups

259 38.7

reached some of our target groups

138 20.6

reached none of our target groups

8 1.2

Not applicable 68 10.2 Do not know 53 7.9 Total 669 100.0

How did you evaluate your activity? (1/7 - Informal discussions within the partnership)


A175

How did you evaluate your activity? (2/7 - Self-evaluation methods)


How did you evaluate your activity? (3/7 - Peer group evaluation)


How did you evaluate your activity? (4/7 - External evaluation by a professional evaluator)


How did you evaluate your activity? (5/7 - No evaluation activity undertaken)


How did you evaluate your activity? (6/7 - Other)


A176

How did you evaluate your activity? (7/7 - Don t know)


Will the project/activity activities continue after the end of the funding?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes, all of the activities

will continue 179 25.9


No 76 11.0 Do not know 115 16.7 Total 690 100.0


Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes, all partners will

continue to work together 155 22.4

Yes, most partners will continue to work together

292 42.2

Yes, some partners will continue to work together

139 20.1


A177

To what extent did the project/network meet your initial objectives?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid met all of our initial

objectives 143 20.7

met most of our initial objectives

379 54.8

met some of our initial objectives

117 16.9

met none of our initial objectives

4 .6

Our project/activity is not finished/too early to say

49 7.1

Total 692 100.0 How would you rate the overall application process?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Very poor 6 .8 Poor 36 5.1 Adequate 209 29.6 Good 247 34.9 Very good 146 20.7 Do not know 63 8.9 Total 707 100.0

A178

How would you rate the support you received from the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Very poor 15 2.1 Poor 45 6.4 Adequate 157 22.2 Good 190 26.9 Very good 147 20.8 Do not know 152 21.5 Total 706 100.0

How would you rate the Commission s activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Erasmus?


How would you rate the National Agency s activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Erasmus?


A179

How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)?


How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has increased and sustained cooperation amongst institutions/organisations?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Strongly disagree 7 1.0 Disagree 7 1.0 Neither agree or

disagree 27 3.8

Agree 325 45.8 Strongly agree 335 47.2 Do not know 8 1.1 Total 709 100.0

How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has increased capacity for mobility of participants?


disagree 41 5.8


A180

How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has improved the employability/adaptability of participants?


disagree 97 13.9


How far do you agree or disagree that this project/activity has improved the employability and adaptability of participants facing disadvantage?


disagree 158 22.7


How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has increased the European outlook of individuals and institutions?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Strongly disagree 6 .9 Disagree 6 .9 Neither agree or

disagree 28 4.0


A181

How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has improved quality of teaching/curricula?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Strongly disagree 3 .4 Disagree 23 3.3 Neither agree or

disagree 101 14.4


How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has increased the teaching and learning of EU languages?


disagree 126 18.0


How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has improved teaching/teacher training practice, approaches to learning and management?


disagree 110 15.8


A182

How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has led to the integration of methods/tools/ frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice?


disagree 145 20.8


How far do you agree or disagree that this project/activity has led to greater transparency and recognition between member states of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc.?


disagree 77 11.0


How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has increased comparability of higher education degrees?


disagree 119 17.0


A183

How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has increased convergence of study programmes?


disagree 164 23.4


How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has improved in the training and specialisation needs demanded by the labour market?


disagree 165 23.6


How far do you agree or disagree that the project/activity has increase awareness of national governments regarding the importance of internationalisation of higher education policy?


disagree 137 19.6


A184

Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project/activity on the curriculum has been?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Major across all

curriculum areas 63 9.0

Major in some curriculum areas

299 42.7

Minor across all curriculum areas

68 9.7

Minor in some curriculum areas

139 19.9

No impact on curriculum 59 8.4 Not applicable 35 5.0 Do not know 37 5.3 Total 700 100.0

Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project/activity on management has been?




233 33.3


79 11.3


No impact on curriculum 97 13.9 Not applicable 59 8.4 Do not know 60 8.6 Total 699 100.0

How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at the European level on teaching and learning in your Organisation?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Very low 14 2.0 Low 47 6.7 Moderate 198 28.3 High 293 41.9 Very high 123 17.6 Do not know 25 3.6 Total 700 100.0

A185

How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at the European level on teaching and learning in your Country?


Would your project/activity have taken place without funding from Erasmus?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes 28 4.0 Yes but without

transnational partners 9 1.3

Yes but over a longer timescale 14 2.0

Yes but with a more limited impact without Erasmus branding and support

93 13.3

No 501 71.5 Other 4 .6 Do not know 52 7.4 Total 701 100.0

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (1/20 - Greater European outlook including awareness of other cultures and European institutions)


A186

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (2/20 - Access to a wider range of products, methods, tools, frameworks etc)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (3/20 - Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and strategies)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (4/20 - Increased cultural dialogue between organisations)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (5/20 - Better training teachers/trainers in the organisation)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (6/20 - Better trained managers in the organisation)


A187

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (7/20 - Improved quality of work/research)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (8/20 - Development of new concepts and contents for study programmes)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (9/20 - Increased use and development of common tools/methods for recognition of qualifications/ competences)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (10/20 - Establish a network with institutions from other European countries)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (11/20 - Increased cooperation amongst higher education institutions/other organisations involved in the activities)


A188

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (12/20 - Improved communication/co-operation between the organisation and the & labour market& employers)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (13/20 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (14/20 - Improved institutional profile)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (15/20 - Improved attractiveness as a learning organisation)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (16/20 - Learn ways of bringing in extra funding to the organisation)


A189

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (17/20 - Improved working relations within your organisation (e.g. among departments..))


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (18/20 - Other)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (19/20 - None)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? (20/20 - Don t know)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (1/23 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions)


A190

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (2/23 - Increased foreign language skills)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (3/23 - Increased ICT skills)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (4/23 - Increased project/activity management and organisation skills)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (5/23 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (6/23 - Personal development)


A191

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (7/23 - Improved motivation in their work)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (8/23 - Improved employability and career prospects)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (9/23 - Increased cooperation with colleagues from European partner organisations)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (10/23 - Involvement in development of joint products with project/activity partners)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (11/23 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future)


A192

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (12/23 - Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (13/23 - Development of their knowledge of the study area)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (14/23 - Development of work in networks)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (15/23 - Better knowledge of EU procedures)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (16/23 - Improved capacity for mobility)


A193

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (17/23 - International perspective in teaching and research)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (18/23 - Desire to transfer benefits to staff who were not directly involved in the project)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (19/23 - Improved attractiveness of working in a learning organisation)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (20/23 - Better involvement in the life of the organisation/institution)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (21/23 - Other)


A194

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (22/23 - None)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? (23/23 - Don t know)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (1/11 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (2/11 - Access to new learning methods and materials)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (3/11 - Improved IT skills)


A195

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (4/11 - Improved foreign language skills)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (5/11 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (6/11 - Maturity and personal development)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (7/11 - Improved capacity for mobility)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (8/11 - Preparation for future employment and work)


A196

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (9/11 - Improved employability and career prospects)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (10/11 - Better involvement in the life of the organisation)


What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply (11/11 - Other)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (1/13 - Increased skills, knowledge and competences)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (2/13 - Improved motivation in their work)


A197

What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (3/13 - Innovative changes in practice in higher education and teacher training)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (4/13 - Increase in supply of training/career development opportunities)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (5/13 - Improved quality of initial and in-service teacher training)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (6/13 - Improved quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies)


A198

What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (7/13 - Increased access to mobility activities for student teachers)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (8/13 - Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (9/13 - Increased cooperation across Europe of actors in higher education)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (10/13 - Awareness of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning across


A199

What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (11/13 - Awareness of good practice across Europe)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (12/13 - Access to a platform for cooperation with peers across Europe)


What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply (13/13 - Other)


To what extent have the results or learning from your project/activity / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within your organisation?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Not at all 40 5.9 To a small extent 272 39.9 To a great extent 289 42.4 Do not know 80 11.7 Total 681 100.0

A200

To what extent have the results or learning from your project/activity / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within partner organisations?


To what extent have the results or learning from your project/activity / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within other (non-partner) organisations?


To what extent have the results or learning from your project/activity been adopted in policy-making at local level?


A201

To what extent have the results or learning from your project/activity been adopted in policy-making at regional level?


To what extent have the results or learning from your project/activity been adopted in policy-making at national level?


To what extent have the results or learning from your project/activity been adopted in policy-making at European level?


We are intending to undertake telephone interviews and a small number of case studies. Would you be interested in participating in this part of the evaluation?

Frequency Percent Valid No 265 37.1 Yes 331 46.3 Would like more

information 119 16.6

Total 715 100.0

A202

Thematic Sector

Frequency Percent Valid Other 43 6.0 School 4 .6 University or other higher

education institution 655 91.6


13 1.8

Total 715 100.0 Case Study

Frequency Percent Valid Not a case study 583 81.5 Finland 25 3.5 Germany 28 3.9 Netherlands 15 2.1 Poland 23 3.2 Spain 41 5.7 Total 715 100.0

A203

Annex Seven: Socrates survey responses (Grundtvig projects)

A204

Grundtvig Main Frequency Tables Your organisation type

Frequency Valid Percent Valid School 46 7.4 University or other higher


Teacher training institution/centre

8 1.3



Non-profit organisation 157 25.1 Public authority - local 36 5.8 Public authority - regional 19 3.0 Public authority - national 8 1.3 Private company 32 5.1 Research institute 7 1.1 Other educational

institution 21 3.4

ICT/multimedia organisation

4 .6

Other 23 3.7 Total 625 100.0

A205

Country of your organisation

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Austria 10 1.6 Belgium 10 1.6 Bulgaria 7 1.1 Cyprus 3 .5 Czech Republic 8 1.3 Denmark 8 1.3 Estonia 1 .2 Finland 34 5.4 France 21 3.4 Germany 140 22.4 Greece 10 1.6 Hungary 31 5.0 Iceland 3 .5 Ireland 17 2.7 Italy 28 4.5 Latvia 16 2.6 Lithuania 8 1.3 Luxembourg 1 .2 Malta 3 .5 the Netherlands 23 3.7 Norway 3 .5 Poland 11 1.8 Portugal 5 .8 Romania 32 5.1 Slovakia 2 .3 Slovenia 5 .8 Spain 122 19.6 Sweden 17 2.7 Turkey 36 5.8 United Kingdom 9 1.4 Total 624 100.0

A206

How did you find out about Grundtvig?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Directorate General for

Education and Culture website

62 9.9


98 15.7


4 .6

From colleague 99 15.9 From other organisation /

partner 211 33.8

From publicity event 38 6.1 From Directorate General

Education and Culture newsletter

5 .8

From other publication 9 1.4 Other 98 15.7 Total 624 100.0

Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (1/9 - Previous Grundtvig project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (2/9 - Comenius, Erasmus, Lingua, Minerva)


A207

Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (3/9 - Previous Leonardo project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (4/9 - Previous eLearning project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (5/9 - Previous Culture 2000 project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (6/9 - Previous Youth project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (7/9 - Previous European Social Fund project)


A208

Annex Eight: Grundtvig responses

A209

Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (8/9 - Involvement in other European project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (9/9 - No)


Did you receive a preparatory grant in order to set up your partnership, project/activity or network?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes 172 27.7 No 427 68.8 Do not know 22 3.5 Total 621 100.0

Was your organisation the lead partner for the project?


A210

Which country was your lead partner based in?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Austria 30 5.2 Belgium 20 3.5 Bulgaria 5 .9 Cyprus 5 .9 Czech Republic 8 1.4 Denmark 28 4.8 Estonia 5 .9 Finland 16 2.8 France 23 4.0 Germany 124 21.5 Greece 6 1.0 Hungary 3 .5 Iceland 2 .3 Ireland 11 1.9 Italy 58 10.0 Latvia 3 .5 Lithuania 15 2.6 Luxembourg 2 .3 Malta 9 1.6 the Netherlands 16 2.8 Norway 5 .9 Poland 11 1.9 Portugal 14 2.4 Romania 27 4.7 Slovakia 4 .7 Slovenia 1 .2 Spain 48 8.3 Sweden 13 2.2 Switzerland 1 .2 Turkey 7 1.2 United Kingdom 57 9.9 Other 1 .2 Total 578 100.0

A211

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (1/14 - School)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (2/14 - University or other higher education institution)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (3/14 - Teacher training institution/centre)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (4/14 - Adult education institution or organisation)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (5/14 - Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc))


A212

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (6/14 - Non-profit organisation)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (7/14 - Public authority â€“ local)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (8/14 - Public authority â€“ regional)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (9/14 - Public authority - national)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (10/14 - Private company)


A213

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (11/14 - Research institute)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (12/14 - Other educational institution)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (13/14 - ICT/multimedia organisation)


What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (14/14 - Other)


Had you previously worked with your European partners on projects?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes, all of them 30 4.8 Yes, some of them 241 38.7 No, none of them 350 56.2 Do not know 2 .3 Total 623 100.0

A214

How did you first get in contact with your partners? (1/7 - Through involvement in a previous project)


How did you first get in contact with your partners? (2/7 - Existing network)


How did you first get in contact with your partners? (3/7 - Contact seminar)




How did you first get in contact with your partners? (5/7 - Partners database)


A215

How did you first get in contact with your partners? (6/7 - Pro-active recruitment based on reputation and/or status)


How did you first get in contact with your partners? (7/7 - Other)


In what year did your project start?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid 2000 8 1.3 2001 19 3.1 2002 36 5.8 2003 53 8.6 2004 119 19.3 2005 194 31.4 2006 171 27.7 Do not know 17 2.8 Total 617 100.0

How satisfied are you about the cooperation between the project partners?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Very satisfied 320 51.5 Fairly satisfied 263 42.4 Fairly dissatisfied 27 4.3 Very dissatisfied 9 1.4 Do not know 2 .3 Total 621 100.0

A216

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (1/8 - Strengthening the European dimension in education)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (2/8 - Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (3/8 - Promoting equal opportunities)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (4/8 - Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (5/8 - Promoting co-operation and mobility in education)


A217

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (6/8 - Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (7/8 - Exploring matters of common policy interest)


Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (8/8 - Don't know)


Which of the Grundtvig Action objectives did your project contribute to? (1/5 - Promote European co-operation in lifelong learning, notably between bodies providing adult education or remedial education)


Which of the Grundtvig Action objectives did your project contribute to? (2/5 - Improve the training of persons involved in the teaching of adults, as broadly defined within the Grundtvig Action)


A218

Which of the Grundtvig Action objectives did your project contribute to? (3/5 - Promote the development of tangible products and other results which will be of wider potential across several European countries)


Which of the Grundtvig Action objectives did your project contribute to? (4/5 - Further the debate on lifelong learning and contribute to the dissemination of good practice.)


Which of the Grundtvig Action objectives did your project contribute to? (5/5 - Don't know)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (1/18 - Innovation and improvement in teaching & learning processes in adult education or the training of adult education staff)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (2/18 - Strategies for promoting learning among the adult population)


A219

Which of these areas was your project involved in? (3/18 - Developing strategies for adult learning as a contribution to regional/local development)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (4/18 - Evaluation & dissemination of results of previous projects)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (5/18 - ICT tools; distance learning; media)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (6/18 - Comparative studies on adult education)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (7/18 - Prison education)


A220

Which of these areas was your project involved in? (8/18 - Adult education for persons without school certificates / apprenticeship certificates)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (9/18 - Assessment, recognition, accreditation of prior learning)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (10/18 - Quality assurance, indicators and/or benchmarking in adult education)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (11/18 - Further training of adult educators)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (12/18 - Opening new environments for learning , for example shopping centres, leisure facilities, etc.)


A221

Which of these areas was your project involved in? (13/18 - Guidance, counselling and information on adults learning)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (14/18 - Strengthening the European dimension of institutions or publications)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (15/18 - Education in hospitals or social care institutions)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (16/18 - Training and counselling of project co-ordinators)


Which of these areas was your project involved in? (17/18 - Learning in libraries, museums, art galleries, etc.)


A222

Which of these areas was your project involved in? (18/18 - Other)


What are the key outputs of your project? (1/21 - Exchange of experience and good practice)


What are the key outputs of your project? (2/21 - Partnership or network)


What are the key outputs of your project? (3/21 - Linguistic preparation for project participants)


What are the key outputs of your project? (4/21 - New curriculum)


A223



What are the key outputs of your project? (6/21 - Teaching/training methodology and strategy)


What are the key outputs of your project? (7/21 - Website(s))


What are the key outputs of your project? (8/21 - New teaching/training material)


What are the key outputs of your project? (9/21 - Evaluation report(s))


A224



What are the key outputs of your project? (11/21 - Provision of periods of mobility / virtual mobility)


What are the key outputs of your project? (12/21 - Framework for the organisation of mobility activities)


What are the key outputs of your project? (13/21 - Transnational meetings (e.g. of network))


What are the key outputs of your project? (14/21 - Seminars. workshops, conferences, exhibitions / fairs)


A225



What are the key outputs of your project? (16/21 - Media materials)


What are the key outputs of your project? (17/21 - Other awareness-raising tool)


What are the key outputs of your project? (18/21 - Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences)


What are the key outputs of your project? (19/21 - Valorisation)


A226



What are the key outputs of your project? (21/21 - Don't know)


Are your project outputs still in use? (1/5 - Yes, within your organisation)


Are your project outputs still in use? (2/5 - Yes, within partner organisation)


Are your project outputs still in use? (3/5 - Yes, within other (non-partner) organisations)


A227

Are your project outputs still in use? (4/5 - No, not in use)


Are your project outputs still in use? (5/5 - Don't know)


If not, give the reasons? (1/9 - Not relevant to potential users)

Frequency Percent Valid No 627 100.0

If not, give the reasons? (2/9 - Outputs are not transferable)


If not, give the reasons? (3/9 - Insufficient demand/need for outputs)


If not, give the reasons? (4/9 - Lack of funding)

Frequency Percent Valid Yes 1 .2 No 626 99.8

A228

Total 627 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (5/9 - Administrative difficulties)




If not, give the reasons? (7/9 - Partnership no longer exists)


If not, give the reasons? (8/9 - Other)


If not, give the reasons? (9/9 - Don't know)


Who were your projects participants? (1/4 - Adult learners)

A229


Who were your projects participants? (2/4 - Non-teaching education staff)


Who were your projects participants? (3/4 - Teachers, trainers, mentors and other educators)


Who were your projects participants? (4/4 - Other)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (1/28 - Teachers (school))


A230

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (2/28 - Teachers/trainers (higher education))


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (3/28 - Teachers/trainers/tutors (adult education))


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (4/28 - Trainers of teachers/trainers/tutors)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (5/28 - Other practitioners)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (6/28 - Learners)


A231

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (7/28 - Apprentices / Workers)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (8/28 - The unemployed)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (9/28 - Persons with special needs / disadvantaged groups)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (10/28 - Citizens in general / general public)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (11/28 - Administrative staff in schools, including head teachers)


A232

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (12/28 - Administrative staff in higher education establishments)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (13/28 - Other administrative staff)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (14/28 - Policy / decision-makers at national level)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (15/28 - Policy / decision-makers at regional level)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (16/28 - Policy / decision-makers at local level)


A233

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (17/28 - Policy / decision-makers at European level)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (18/28 - Inspectors / Advisors)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (19/28 - Government and administration / Education authorities)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (20/28 - Training providers)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (21/28 - Chambers of commerce / Professional bodies)


A234

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (22/28 - Curriculum development specialists)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (23/28 - e-Learning Industry)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (24/28 - Publishers / Broadcasters / Multimedia content providers)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (25/28 - Social partners (trade unions etc))


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (26/28 - The research community)


A235

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (27/28 - Standards bodies and working groups)


Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (28/28 - Other)


Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (1/7 - By promoting equal opportunities between men and women)


Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (2/7 - By addressing the needs of disabled people)




A236

Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (4/7 - By helping to address socio-economic disadvantage)


Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (5/7 - Other)


Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (6/7 - Not specifically)


Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (7/7 - Don't know)


Did your project/network have€¦ (1/4 - a monitoring strategy?)


A237

Did your project/network have€¦ (2/4 - a dedicated monitoring officer or someone responsible for project/network monitoring?)


Did your project/network have€¦ (3/4 - a strategy to disseminate your projects outputs, results and learning?)


Did your project/network have€¦ (4/4 - a dedicated dissemination officer or someone responsible for project/networks dissemination?)


To what extent have your dissemination activities reached your target groups?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid reached all our

target groups. 127 20.7

reached most of our target groups.

290 47.2

reached some of our target groups.

138 22.5

reached none of our target groups.

2 .3


A238

How did you evaluate your activity? (1/7 - Informal discussions within the partnership)


How did you evaluate your activity? (2/7 - Self-evaluation methods)


How did you evaluate your activity? (3/7 - Peer group evaluation)


How did you evaluate your activity? (4/7 - External evaluation by a professional evaluator)




A239

How did you evaluate your activity? (6/7 - Other)


How did you evaluate your activity? (7/7 - Don't know)


Will the project activities continue after the end of the funding?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes, all of the activities

will continue 87 14.1

Yes, some of the activities will continue

424 68.5



Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes, all partners will

continue work together 95 15.3

Yes, most partners will continue work together 173 27.9

Yes, some partners will continue work together

213 34.3


A240


Frequency Valid Percent Valid met all of our initial

objectives. 150 24.2

met most of our initial objectives.

313 50.6

met some of our initial objectives.

74 12.0

met none of our initial objectives.

1 .2

Our project is not finished / to early to say.

81 13.1

Total 619 100.0 How would you rate the overall application process?


How would you rate the support you received from the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)?


A241

How would you rate the Commissions activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Grundtvig?


How would you rate the National Agencies activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Grundtvig?


How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)?


A242

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased and sustained cooperation amongst institutions/organisations?


disagree 32 5.1

Agree 274 43.8 Strongly agree 303 48.5 Do not know 4 .6 Total 625 100.0

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased capacity for mobility of participants?


disagree 71 11.4


How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved the employability/adaptability of participants?


disagree 167 27.2


A243

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved the employability and adaptability of participants facing disadvantage?


disagree 161 26.2


How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased the European outlook of individuals and institutions?


disagree 33 5.3


How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved quality of teaching/curricula?


disagree 97 15.7


A244

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased the teaching and learning of EU languages?


disagree 164 26.7


How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved teaching/teacher training practice, approaches to learning and management?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Strongly disagree 8 1.3 Disagree 22 3.6

Neither agree or disagree

90 14.6


How far do you agree or disagree that the project has led to the integration of methods/tools/ frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice?


disagree 151 24.6


A245

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has led to greater transparency and recognition between member states of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc?


disagree 149 24.3


How far do you agree or disagree that the project has widened access to adult learning?


disagree 104 16.9


How far do you agree or disagree that the project has developed new routes into education?


disagree 119 19.2


A246

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved information, guidance and support for learners?


disagree 92 15.0


How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved tools for validating knowledge, skills and competencies?


disagree 169 27.6


How far do you agree or disagree that the project has stimulated the exchange of good practice?


disagree 13 2.1

Agree 237 38.2 Strongly agree 358 57.7 Do not know 4 .6 Total 620 100.0

A247

Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project on curriculum has been?




254 41.1


35 5.7

Minor in some curriculum areas

86 13.9

Impact on the curriculum

48 7.8


Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project on management has been?




263 42.4



Impact on the curriculum 73 11.8


How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at European level on teaching and learning in your Organisation?


A248

How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at European level on teaching and learning in your Country?


Would your project have taken place without funding from Grundtvig?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes 7 1.1 Yes but without

transnational partners 20 3.2

Yes but over a longer timescale

7 1.1

Yes but with a more limited impact without Grundtvig branding and support

50 8.0

No 519 83.4 Other 3 .5 Do not know 16 2.6 Total 622 100.0

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (1/10 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions)


A249

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (2/10 - Increased knowledge, skills and competences of staff participating in the project)


What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (3/10 - Access to a wider range of products, methods, tools, frameworks etc)


What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (4/10 - Increased cooperation and sharing of good practice on teaching and learning)


What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (5/10 - Improved organisational profile)


What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (6/10 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future)


A250

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (7/10 - Generated innovative changes in practice in adult education and teacher training)


What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (8/10 - Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies including for language learning and target groups)


What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (9/10 - Access to a platform for cooperation with colleagues across Europe)


What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (10/10 - Other)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (1/16 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions)


A251

What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (2/16 - Increased foreign language skills)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (3/16 - Increased ICT skills)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (4/16 - Increased project management and organisation skills)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (5/16 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (6/16 - Improved motivation in their work)


A252

What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (7/16 - Involvement in development of joint products with project partners)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (8/16 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (9/16 - Awareness of innovative changes in teaching and teacher training practice)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (10/16 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (11/16 - Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc)


A253

What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (12/16 - Better/wider spread of tools for validating knowledge, skills and competencies)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (13/16 - Improved capacity for mobility)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (14/16 - Awareness of good practice in other European countries)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (15/16 - Access to a platform for cooperation with colleagues across Europe)


What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? (16/16 - Other)


A254

What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (1/13 - Increased skills, knowledge and competences)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (2/13 - Improved motivation in their work)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (3/13 - Innovative changes in practice in adult education and teacher training)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (4/13 - Increase in supply of training/career development opportunities)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (5/13 - Improved quality of initial and in-service teacher training)


A255

What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (6/13 - Improved quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (7/13 - Increased access to mobility activities for student teachers)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (8/13 - Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (9/13 - Increased cooperation across Europe of actors in adult education)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (10/13 - Awareness of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning across Europe)


A256

What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (11/13 - Awareness of good practice across Europe)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (12/13 - Access to a platform for cooperation with peers across Europe)


What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? (13/13 - Other)


To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within your organisation?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Not at all 21 3.4 To small extent 231 37.6 To great extent 334 54.3 Do not know 29 4.7 Total 615 100.0

A257

To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within partner organisations?


To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within other (non-partner) organisations?


To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at local level?


To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at regional level?


A258

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at national level?


To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at European level?




information 104 16.6

Total 627 100.0 Thematic Sector

Frequency Percent Valid Other 333 53.1 School 46 7.3 University or other higher



186 29.7

Total 627 100.0

A259

Case Study

Frequency Percent Valid Not a case study 297 47.4 Finland 34 5.4 Germany 140 22.3 Netherlands 23 3.7 Poland 11 1.8 Spain 122 19.5 Total 627 100.0

A260

Annex Nine: Socrates survey responses (Grundtvig mobility)

A261

Grundtvig 3 Frequency Tables Your organisation type

Frequency Valid Percent Valid School 9 7.6 University or other higher



1 .8


Non-profit organisation 17 14.4 Public authority - local 4 3.4 Public authority - regional 6 5.1 Public authority - national 5 4.2 Private company 2 1.7 Research institute 5 4.2 Other educational

institution 3 2.5

Other 5 4.2 Total 118 100.0

What was your occupation when you received the Grundtvig training grant?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Teacher / trainer

(languages) 52 44.1

Teacher / trainer (non-languages) 19 16.1

Head/managerial staff of an adult education institution / organisation

17 14.4

Inspector 1 .8 Counsellor/mentor 1 .8 Careers advisor 1 .8 Staff working with people at

risk of social exclusion 4 3.4

Staff involved in intercultural education

2 1.7

Staff working with pupils with special education needs

3 2.5

Other school education staff

3 2.5

Other 15 12.7 Total 118 100.0

A262

Do you have a disability?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes 1 .9 No 116 99.1 Total 117 100.0

What was your age when you received the Grundtvig grant?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid 20-29 17 14.5 30-39 45 38.5 40-49 32 27.4 50+ 23 19.7 Total 117 100.0

Are you?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Male 35 29.9 Female 82 70.1 Total 117 100.0

A263

Country of your employer / organisation?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Belgium 1 .8 Estonia 2 1.7 Finland 2 1.7 France 1 .8 Germany 37 31.4 Hungary 10 8.5 Iceland 2 1.7 Ireland 3 2.5 Italy 4 3.4 Latvia 7 5.9 Lithuania 1 .8 Luxembourg 1 .8 the Netherlands 3 2.5 Portugal 1 .8 Romania 11 9.3 Spain 19 16.1 Sweden 1 .8 Turkey 12 10.2 Total 118 100.0

How did you find out about Grundtvig?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Directorate General for

Education and Culture website

5 4.3


31 26.7

From colleague 41 35.3 From other organisation

/ partner 20 17.2

From publicity event 4 3.4 From Directorate

General Education and Culture newsletter

8 6.9

From other publication 3 2.6 Other 4 3.4 Total 116 100.0

A264

Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (1/9 - Previous Grundtvig project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (2/9 - Comenius, Erasmus, Lingua, Minerva)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (3/9 - Previous Leonardo project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (4/9 - Previous eLearning project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (5/9 - Previous Culture 2000 project)


A265

Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (6/9 - Previous Youth project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (7/9 - Previous European Social Fund project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (8/9 - Involvement in other European project)


Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (9/9 - No)


Was this the first Grundtvig 3 training grant you had received?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes 105 89.7 No 12 10.3 Total 117 100.0

A266

Which country did you visit to do your training abroad?

Frequency Percent Valid Austria 1 .8 Belgium 3 2.5 Cyprus 9 7.6 Denmark 3 2.5 Finland 1 .8 France 7 5.9 Germany 14 11.8 Greece 1 .8 Hungary 4 3.4 Iceland 3 2.5 Ireland 5 4.2 Italy 16 13.4 Malta 4 3.4 the Netherlands 3 2.5 Poland 2 1.7 Portugal 4 3.4 Romania 1 .8 Spain 10 8.4 Sweden 1 .8 Turkey 1 .8 United Kingdom 25 21.0 Other 1 .8 Total 119 100.0

Had your institution previously co-operated with your host institution?


A267

How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (1/7 - Through involvement in a previous project)


How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (2/7 - Existing network)


How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (3/7 - Contact seminar)


How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (4/7 - Preparatory visit)


How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (5/7 - Partners database)


A268

How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (6/7 - Pro-active recruitment based on reputation and/or status)


How did you first get in contact with your host institution? (7/7 - Other)


In what year did your training abroad / period of mobility take place?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid 2000 1 .9 2003 7 6.1 2004 19 16.5 2005 22 19.1 2006 60 52.2 Do not know 6 5.2 Total 115 100.0

How satisfied are you about the cooperation between your employer institution and the host institution?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Very satisfied 60 51.7 Fairly satisfied 28 24.1 Fairly dissatisfied 7 6.0 Very dissatisfied 5 4.3 Do not know 16 13.8 Total 116 100.0

A269

What was the purpose of your grant/placement?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Structured training

courses 53 44.9

Practical study periods / job shadowing / study periods in foreign institutions / organisations

11 9.3

European conferences or fairs, seminars, workshops

42 35.6

Other 12 10.2 Total 118 100.0

How much of the cost of your training did the grant from Grundtvig cover?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Less than 50% 4 3.4 50% - 75% 41 34.7 76% - 100% 73 61.9 Total 118 100.0

How did you cover the cost of your training? (1/5 - Grundtvig funding only)


How did you cover the cost of your training? (2/5 - National funding)


A270

How did you cover the cost of your training? (3/5 - Funding from my employer)


How did you cover the cost of your training? (4/5 - Personal funding)


How did you cover the cost of your training? (5/5 - Other)


What type of organisation was your host organisation?

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent School 2 1.7 1.7 1.7 University or other higher education institution

8 6.7 6.8 8.5


19 16.0 16.2 24.8


34 28.6 29.1 53.8

Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) 4 3.4 3.4 57.3

Non-profit organisation 9 7.6 7.7 65.0 Public authority - local 2 1.7 1.7 66.7 Public authority - regional 2 1.7 1.7 68.4 Public authority - national 4 3.4 3.4 71.8 Private company 11 9.2 9.4 81.2 Research institute 1 .8 .9 82.1 Other educational institution

15 12.6 12.8 94.9

Other 3 2.5 2.6 97.4 Do not know 3 2.5 2.6 100.0

Valid

Total 117 98.3 100.0

A271

To what did your training activity relate? (1/5 - Content and delivery of adult education)


To what did your training activity relate? (2/5 - Accessibility of learning opportunities for adults)


To what did your training activity relate? (3/5 - Management of adult learning)


To what did your training activity relate? (4/5 - System / policy level of adult education)


A272

To what did your training activity relate? (5/5 - Other)


Was your attendance on the training course accredited?


How did you find out about your training course? (1/5 - Grundtvig Course database)


How did you find out about your training course? (2/5 - Grundtvig National Agency)


How did you find out about your training course? (3/5 - Employer / home institution)


A273

How did you find out about your training course? (4/5 - Other)


How did you find out about your training course? (5/5 - Do not know)


Was your training course developed by the host institution with funding from Grundtvig 1?


Which of the Grundtvig objectives did your training activity contribute to? (1/5 - Promote European co-operation in lifelong learning, notably between bodies providing adult education or remedial education)


Which of the Grundtvig objectives did your training activity contribute to? (2/5 - Improve the training of persons involved in the teaching of adults, as broadly defined within the Grundtvig Action)


A274

Which of the Grundtvig objectives did your training activity contribute to? (3/5 - Promote the development of tangible products and other results which will be of wider potential across several European countries)


Which of the Grundtvig objectives did your training activity contribute to? (4/5 - Further the debate on lifelong learning and contribute to the dissemination of good practice.)


Which of the Grundtvig objectives did your training activity contribute to? (5/5 - Do not know)


To what extent did the training meet your objectives?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Met all of my objectives. 35 29.7 Met most of our

objectives. 58 49.2

Met some of our objectives.

22 18.6

Met none of our objectives.

2 1.7

Training is not finished / too early to say.

1 .8

Total 118 100.0

A275

What are your key gains from your training activity? (1/12 - Greater European outlook â€“ awareness of other EU cultures and EU institutions)


What are your key gains from your training activity? (2/12 - Opportunity to spend time in another European country)


What are your key gains from your training activity? (3/12 - Increased understanding of the European Dimension to teaching and learning)


What are your key gains from your training activity? (4/12 - Increased understanding of other education systems)


What are your key gains from your training activity? (5/12 - Increased language skills)


A276

What are your key gains from your training activity? (6/12 - Improved teaching skills)


What are your key gains from your training activity? (7/12 - Understanding of new teaching techniques or methodologies)


What are your key gains from your training activity? (8/12 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences)


What are your key gains from your training activity? (9/12 - Building contacts with contemporaries/colleagues in other countries)


What are your key gains from your training activity? (10/12 - Increased cooperation with European colleagues)


A277

What are your key gains from your training activity? (11/12 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future)


What are your key gains from your training activity? (12/12 - Other)


Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes - improved teaching of

language already taught 44 37.3

Yes - teaching new language

2 1.7

Yes - using languages to teach other subjects

3 2.5

Yes - in other teaching activities

18 15.3

Yes - in other education activities

34 28.8

Yes - other 13 11.0 No - unable to use gains

from training activity in current employment

3 2.5

Do not know 1 .8 Total 118 100.0

A278

If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (1/7 - Skills/knowledge gained are not relevant to current position)


If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (2/7 - No demand for language learning within current organisation)


If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (3/7 - No demand for other type of learning within current organisation)


If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (4/7 - Not possible to implement changes in teaching practice without change in local/regional/national policy)


If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (5/7 - Administrative difficulties)


If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (6/7 - New teaching practices learned do not adhere to traditional views of education/training within your country)


A279

If you answered no to the previous question, please indicate why? (7/7 - Other)


How would you rate the overall application process?

Frequency Percent Valid Poor 3 2.5 Adequate 20 16.8 Good 50 42.0 Very good 46 38.7 Total 119 100.0

How would you rate the support you received from the National Agency?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Poor 4 3.4 Adequate 14 11.9 Good 29 24.6 Very good 71 60.2 Total 118 100.0

How would you rate the National Agencies activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Grundtvig?


A280

How would you rate usefulness of the monitoring and evaluation activities of the National Agency (NA) to your training activity?


How would you rate the added value of your participation in the Grundtvig training on your current employer organisation?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Very low 5 4.2 Low 5 4.2 Moderate 29 24.6 High 49 41.5 Very high 30 25.4 Total 118 100.0

Would you have taken part in this kind of training activity without funding from Grundtvig?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes - same training but

within own country 5 4.3

Yes - similar course but not as appropriate to needs 1 .9

Yes - if other funding could have been accessed 33 28.2

Yes - using own private funds

4 3.4

No - not possible to pursue this kind of training on a national level

18 15.4

No - not possible to fund this kind of training activity without Grundtvig grant

54 46.2

Do not know 2 1.7 Total 117 100.0

A281

What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (1/14 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (2/14 - Increase in language learning opportunities provided within your organisation)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (3/14 - Increase in other learning opportunities provided within your organisation)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (4/14 - Increased involvement of learners at risk of social exclusion or with special educational needs)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (5/14 - Innovative changes in teaching practice)


A282

What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (6/14 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (7/14 - Better contacts with other European organisations)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (8/14 - Access to a wider range of products, methods, tools, frameworks etc.)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (9/14 - Improved organisational profile)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (10/14 - Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies)


A283

What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (11/14 - Awareness of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning across Europe)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (12/14 - Awareness of innovative changes in practice)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (13/14 - Awareness of good practice across Europe)


What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? (14/14 - Other)


What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (1/11 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions)


A284

What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (2/11 - Increased language skills)


What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (3/11 - Increased ICT skills)


What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (4/11 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences)


What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (5/11 - Increase in language learning opportunities provided within your organisation)


What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (6/11 - Increase in other learning opportunities provided within your organisation)


A285

What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (7/11 - Increased involvement of learners at risk of social exclusion or with special educational needs)


What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (8/11 - Innovative changes in teaching practice)


What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (9/11 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning)


What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (10/11 - Other)


What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? (11/11 - Do not know)


A286

Has your employer organisation joined a Grundtvig 1 Project or Grundtvig 4 Network as a result of your Grundtvig 3 training activity?

Frequency Valid Percent Valid Yes 11 9.3 No 56 47.5 Employer already in a

Grundtvig 1 project or Grundtvig 4 Network

3 2.5

Do not know 48 40.7 Total 118 100.0



information 22 18.5

Total 119 100.0 Thematic Sector

Frequency Percent Valid Other 49 41.2 School 9 7.6 University or other higher



50 42.0

Total 119 100.0 Case Study

Frequency Percent Valid Not a case study 58 48.7 Finland 2 1.7 Germany 37 31.1 Netherlands 3 2.5 Spain 19 16.0 Total 119 100.0

A287

Annex Ten: Socrates survey responses (Lingua)

A288

LINGUA Frequency Tables Your organisation type Frequency Percent

Valid School 8 6.8






Public authority - regional 1 .9





Other 3 2.6

Total 117 100.0

A289

Country of your organisation Frequency Percent

Valid Austria 3 2.6

Belgium 5 4.3

Bulgaria 6 5.1

Cyprus 1 .9


Estonia 2 1.7

Finland 2 1.7

France 3 2.6

Germany 14 12.0

Greece 6 5.1

Hungary 5 4.3

Ireland 2 1.7

Italy 7 6.0

Latvia 2 1.7

Lithuania 8 6.8

Luxembourg 1 .9


Poland 6 5.1

Portugal 2 1.7

Romania 5 4.3

Slovakia 3 2.6

Slovenia 1 .9

Spain 9 7.7

Sweden 2 1.7

Turkey 2 1.7


Total 117 100.0 Which sub-Action was your project funded under? Frequency Percent

Valid Lingua 1 Promotion of Language Learning 62 53.0

Lingua 2 Development of Tools and Materials 55 47.0

Total 117 100.0

A290

How did you find out about Lingua? Frequency Valid Percent


21 18.3


13 11.3


1 .9





2 1.7

From other publication 1 .9

Other 13 11.3

Total 115 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (1/9 - Previous Lingua project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 47 40.2

No 70 59.8

Total 117 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (2/9 - Comenius, Grundtvig, Erasmus, Minerva) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 46 39.3

No 71 60.7

Total 117 100.0

A291

Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (3/9 - Previous Leonardo project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 31 26.5

No 86 73.5

Total 117 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (4/9 - Previous eLearning project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 8.5

No 107 91.5

Total 117 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (5/9 - Previous Culture 2000 project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (6/9 - Previous Youth project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 4 3.4

No 113 96.6

Total 117 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (7/9 - Previous European Social Fund project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.3

No 112 95.7

Total 117 100.0

A292

Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (8/9 - Involvement in other European project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 40 34.2

No 77 65.8

Total 117 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (9/9 - No) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 26 22.2

No 91 77.8

Total 117 100.0

Did you receive a preparatory grant in order to set up your partnership, project or network? Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 17 14.5

No 92 78.6

Do not know 8 6.8

Total 117 100.0 Was your organisation the lead partner for the project? Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 41 35.0

No 73 62.4

Do not know 3 2.6

Total 117 100.0

A293

Which country was your lead partner based in? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Austria 1 .9

Belgium 5 4.5

Bulgaria 7 6.4

Czech Republic 1 .9

Estonia 3 2.7

Finland 4 3.6

France 5 4.5

Germany 20 18.2

Greece 4 3.6

Hungary 1 .9

Ireland 5 4.5

Italy 5 4.5

Lithuania 13 11.8


Poland 3 2.7

Portugal 4 3.6

Romania 3 2.7

Slovakia 1 .9

Slovenia 2 1.8

Spain 5 4.5

Sweden 4 3.6

Turkey 1 .9


Total 110 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (1/14 - School) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 40 34.2

No 77 65.8

Total 117 100.0

A294

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (2/14 - University or other higher education institution) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 94 80.3

No 23 19.7

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (3/14 - Teacher training institution/centre) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 20 17.1

No 97 82.9

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (4/14 - Adult education institution or organisation) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 46 39.3

No 71 60.7

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (5/14 - Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc)) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 15 12.8

No 102 87.2

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (6/14 - Non-profit organisation) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 37 31.6

No 80 68.4

Total 117 100.0

A295

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (7/14 - Public authority â€“ local) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.1

No 111 94.9

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (8/14 - Public authority â€“ regional) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 8 6.8

No 109 93.2

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (9/14 - Public authority - national) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 7 6.0

No 110 94.0

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (10/14 - Private company) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 49 41.9

No 68 58.1

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (11/14 - Research institute) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 9 7.7

No 108 92.3

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (12/14 - Other educational institution) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 19 16.2

No 98 83.8

Total 117 100.0

A296

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (13/14 - ICT/multimedia organisation) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 19 16.2

No 98 83.8

Total 117 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (14/14 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 15.4

No 99 84.6




No, none of them 59 50.9

Do not know 1 .9

Total 116 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (1/7 - Through involvement in a previous project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 39 33.3

No 78 66.7

Total 117 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (2/7 - Existing network) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 32 27.4

No 85 72.6

Total 117 100.0

A297

How did you first get in contact with your partners? (3/7 - Contact seminar) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 27 23.1

No 90 76.9

Total 117 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (4/7 - Preparatory visit) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 15.4

No 99 84.6

Total 117 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (5/7 - Partners database) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 13 11.1

No 104 88.9

Total 117 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (6/7 - Pro-active recruitment based on reputation and/or status) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 26 22.2

No 91 77.8

Total 117 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (7/7 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 30 25.6

No 87 74.4

Total 117 100.0

A298

In what year did your project start? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid 2000 4 3.5

2001 8 7.0

2002 7 6.1

2003 14 12.3

2004 31 27.2

2005 24 21.1

2006 22 19.3

Do not know 4 3.5

Total 114 100.0 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between the project partners? Frequency Valid Percent





Do not know 1 .9

Total 115 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (1/8 - Strengthening the European dimension in education) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 44 37.6

No 73 62.4

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (2/8 - Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 43 36.8

No 74 63.2

Total 117 100.0

A299

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (3/8 - Promoting equal opportunities) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 17 14.5

No 100 85.5

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (4/8 - Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 97 82.9

No 20 17.1

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (5/8 - Promoting co-operation and mobility in education) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 20 17.1

No 97 82.9

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (6/8 - Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 70 59.8

No 47 40.2

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (7/8 - Exploring matters of common policy interest) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.3

No 112 95.7

Total 117 100.0

A300

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (8/8 - Do not know) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Lingua 1 objectives did your project contribute to? (1/7 - Raising citizens€™ awareness of the multilingual character of the EU) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 40 34.2

No 77 65.8

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Lingua 1 objectives did your project contribute to? (2/7 - Raising citizens awareness of the advantages of lifelong language learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 25 21.4

No 92 78.6

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Lingua 1 objectives did your project contribute to? (3/7 - Encouraging citizens to take up language learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 52 44.4

No 65 55.6

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Lingua 1 objectives did your project contribute to? (4/7 - Improving access to language learning resources) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 26 22.2

No 91 77.8

Total 117 100.0

A301

Which of the Lingua 1 objectives did your project contribute to? (5/7 - Increasing support available to those learning languages) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 13.7

No 101 86.3

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Lingua 1 objectives did your project contribute to? (6/7 - Promoting the dissemination of information about innovative techniques and good practices in foreign language teaching in Europe) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 35 29.9

No 82 70.1

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Lingua 1 objectives did your project contribute to? (7/7 - Do not know) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0 Which of the Lingua 2 objectives did/does your project contribute to? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Educational media and materials for foreign language teaching

42 56.8

Educational media and materials for raising awareness of languages

9 12.2

Methods and tools to recognise and evaluate language skills

15 20.3

Curricula 5 6.8

Do not know 3 4.1

Total 74 100.0

A302

Which language(s) did your project target? (1/24 - Bulgarian) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 26 22.2

No 91 77.8

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (2/24 - Czech) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 27 23.1

No 90 76.9

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (3/24 - Danish) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 12 10.3

No 105 89.7

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (4/24 - Dutch) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 37 31.6

No 80 68.4

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (5/24 - English) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 75 64.1

No 42 35.9

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (6/24 - Estonian) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 24 20.5

No 93 79.5

Total 117 100.0

A303

Which language(s) did your project target? (7/24 - Finnish) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 19 16.2

No 98 83.8

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (8/24 - French) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 50 42.7

No 67 57.3

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (9/24 - German) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 54 46.2

No 63 53.8

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (10/24 - Greek) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 30 25.6

No 87 74.4

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (11/24 - Hungarian) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 23 19.7

No 94 80.3

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (12/24 - Irish) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.1

No 111 94.9

Total 117 100.0

A304

Which language(s) did your project target? (13/24 - Italian) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 49 41.9

No 68 58.1

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (14/24 - Latvian) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 21 17.9

No 96 82.1

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (15/24 - Lithuanian) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 23 19.7

No 94 80.3

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (16/24 - Maltese) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 8.5

No 107 91.5

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (17/24 - Polish) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 35 29.9

No 82 70.1

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (18/24 - Portuguese) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 21 17.9

No 96 82.1

Total 117 100.0

A305

Which language(s) did your project target? (19/24 - Romanian) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 31 26.5

No 86 73.5

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (20/24 - Slovak) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 8.5

No 107 91.5

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (21/24 - Slovene) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 13 11.1

No 104 88.9

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (22/24 - Spanish) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 48 41.0

No 69 59.0

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (23/24 - Swedish) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 25 21.4

No 92 78.6

Total 117 100.0 Which language(s) did your project target? (24/24 - other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 30 25.6

No 87 74.4

Total 117 100.0

A306

What are the key outputs of your project? (1/21 - Exchange of experience and good practice) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 65 55.6

No 52 44.4

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (2/21 - Partnership or network) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 49 41.9

No 68 58.1

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (3/21 - Linguistic preparation for project participants) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 9 7.7

No 108 92.3

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (4/21 - New curriculum) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 14 12.0

No 103 88.0

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (5/21 - Training Course) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 20 17.1

No 97 82.9

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (6/21 - Teaching/training methodology and strategy) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 48 41.0

No 69 59.0

Total 117 100.0

A307

What are the key outputs of your project? (7/21 - Website(s)) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 66 56.4

No 51 43.6

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (8/21 - New teaching/training material) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 73 62.4

No 44 37.6

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (9/21 - Evaluation report(s)) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 15.4

No 99 84.6

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (10/21 - Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 15.4

No 99 84.6

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (11/21 - Provision of periods of mobility / virtual mobility) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 2 1.7

No 115 98.3

Total 117 100.0

A308

What are the key outputs of your project? (12/21 - Framework for the organisation of mobility activities) Frequency Percent

Valid No 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (13/21 - Transnational meetings (e.g. of network)) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 36 30.8

No 81 69.2

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (14/21 - Seminars. workshops, conferences, exhibitions / fairs) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 33 28.2

No 84 71.8

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (15/21 - Information/promotional campaign) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 38 32.5

No 79 67.5

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (16/21 - Media materials) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 50 42.7

No 67 57.3

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (17/21 - Other awareness-raising tool) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 15.4

No 99 84.6

Total 117 100.0

A309

What are the key outputs of your project? (18/21 - Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 17 14.5

No 100 85.5

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (19/21 - Valorisation) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 15 12.8

No 102 87.2

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (20/21 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 8 6.8

No 109 93.2

Total 117 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (21/21 - Do not know) Frequency Percent

Valid No 117 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (1/5 - Yes, within your organisation) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 78 66.7

No 39 33.3

Total 117 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (2/5 - Yes, within partner organisation) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 67 57.3

No 50 42.7

Total 117 100.0

A310

Are your project outputs still in use? (3/5 - Yes, within other (non-partner) organisations) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 53 45.3

No 64 54.7

Total 117 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (4/5 - No, not in use) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 3 2.6

No 114 97.4

Total 117 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (5/5 - Do not know) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 3 2.6

No 114 97.4

Total 117 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (1/9 - Not relevant to potential users) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (2/9 - Outputs are not transferable) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (3/9 - Insufficient demand/need for outputs) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0

A311

If not, give the reasons? (4/9 - Lack of funding) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (5/9 - Administrative difficulties) Frequency Percent

Valid No 117 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (6/9 - Outputs were not fully completed) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (7/9 - Partnership no longer exists) Frequency Percent

Valid No 117 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (8/9 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (9/9 - Do not know) Frequency Percent

Valid No 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (1/14 - University students) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 43 36.8

No 74 63.2

Total 117 100.0

A312

Who were your projects participants? (2/14 - School teachers) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 55 47.0

No 62 53.0

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (3/14 - Decision-makers and education specialists) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 25 21.4

No 92 78.6

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (4/14 - Schools) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 52 44.4

No 65 55.6

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (5/14 - Universities) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 71 60.7

No 46 39.3

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (6/14 - Teacher training institutions) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 29 24.8

No 88 75.2

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (7/14 - Adult education institutions) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 46 39.3

No 71 60.7

Total 117 100.0

A313

Who were your projects participants? (8/14 - Associations (students, parents, teachers, staff etc)) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 17 14.5

No 100 85.5

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (9/14 - Non-profit organisations) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 32 27.4

No 85 72.6

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (10/14 - Private companies) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 38 32.5

No 79 67.5

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (11/14 - Other institutions providing educational opportunities for adults) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 25 21.4

No 92 78.6

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (12/14 - Organisations with an interest in language teaching and learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 38 32.5

No 79 67.5

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (13/14 - ICT/media organisations) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 28 23.9

No 89 76.1

Total 117 100.0

A314

Who were your projects participants? (14/14 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 14 12.0

No 103 88.0

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (1/28 - Teachers (school)) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 62 53.0

No 55 47.0

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (2/28 - Teachers/trainers (higher education)) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 51 43.6

No 66 56.4

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (3/28 - Teachers/trainers/tutors (adult education)) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 43 36.8

No 74 63.2

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (4/28 - Trainers of teachers/trainers/tutors) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 39 33.3

No 78 66.7

Total 117 100.0

A315

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (5/28 - Other practitioners) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 20 17.1

No 97 82.9

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (6/28 - Learners) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 87 74.4

No 30 25.6

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (7/28 - Apprentices / Workers) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 8.5

No 107 91.5

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (8/28 - The unemployed) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 15 12.8

No 102 87.2

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (9/28 - Persons with special needs / disadvantaged groups) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 22 18.8

No 95 81.2

Total 117 100.0

A316

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (10/28 - Citizens in general / general public) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 58 49.6

No 59 50.4

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (11/28 - Administrative staff in schools, including head teachers) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 8.5

No 107 91.5

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (12/28 - Administrative staff in higher education establishments) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.1

No 111 94.9

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (13/28 - Other administrative staff) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 3 2.6

No 114 97.4

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (14/28 - Policy / decision-makers at national level) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 14 12.0

No 103 88.0

Total 117 100.0

A317

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (15/28 - Policy / decision-makers at regional level) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 8.5

No 107 91.5

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (16/28 - Policy / decision-makers at local level) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 11 9.4

No 106 90.6

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (17/28 - Policy / decision-makers at European level) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.1

No 111 94.9

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (18/28 - Inspectors / Advisors) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 11 9.4

No 106 90.6

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (19/28 - Government and administration / Education authorities) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 12 10.3

No 105 89.7

Total 117 100.0

A318

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (20/28 - Training providers) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 23 19.7

No 94 80.3

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (21/28 - Chambers of commerce / Professional bodies) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.1

No 111 94.9

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (22/28 - Curriculum development specialists) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 12 10.3

No 105 89.7

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (23/28 - e-Learning Industry) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 13 11.1

No 104 88.9

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (24/28 - Publishers / Broadcasters / Multimedia content providers) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 13.7

No 101 86.3

Total 117 100.0

A319

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (25/28 - Social partners (trade unions etc)) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 7 6.0

No 110 94.0

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (26/28 - The research community) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.1

No 111 94.9

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (27/28 - Standards bodies and working groups) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 4 3.4

No 113 96.6

Total 117 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (28/28 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 9 7.7

No 108 92.3

Total 117 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (1/7 - By promoting equal opportunities between men and women) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 15 12.8

No 102 87.2

Total 117 100.0

A320

Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (2/7 - By addressing the needs of disabled people) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 21 17.9

No 96 82.1

Total 117 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (3/7 - By helping to combat racism and xenophobia) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 23 19.7

No 94 80.3

Total 117 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (4/7 - By helping to address socio-economic disadvantage) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 22 18.8

No 95 81.2

Total 117 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (5/7 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 13 11.1

No 104 88.9

Total 117 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (6/7 - Not specifically) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 54 46.2

No 63 53.8

Total 117 100.0

A321

Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (7/7 - Do not know) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.1

No 111 94.9

Total 117 100.0 Did your project have (1/4 - a monitoring strategy?) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 59 50.4

No 58 49.6

Total 117 100.0 Did your project have (2/4 - a dedicated monitoring officer or someone responsible for project/network monitoring?) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 55 47.0

No 62 53.0

Total 117 100.0 Did your project have (3/4 - a strategy to disseminate your projects outputs, results and learning?) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 92 78.6

No 25 21.4

Total 117 100.0 Did your project have (4/4 - a dedicated dissemination officer or someone responsible for project/networks dissemination?) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 33 28.2

No 84 71.8

Total 117 100.0

A322

To what extent have your dissemination activities reached your target groups? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Reached all our target groups 32 28.3

Reached most of our target groups 44 38.9

Reached some of our target groups 20 17.7


Do not know 4 3.5

Total 113 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (1/7 - Informal discussions within the partnership) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 81 69.2

No 36 30.8

Total 117 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (2/7 - Self-evaluation methods) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 80 68.4

No 37 31.6

Total 117 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (3/7 - Peer group evaluation) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 45 38.5

No 72 61.5

Total 117 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (4/7 - External evaluation by a professional evaluator) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 74 63.2

No 43 36.8

Total 117 100.0

A323

How did you evaluate your activity? (5/7 - No evaluation activity undertaken) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 2 1.7

No 115 98.3

Total 117 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (6/7 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 8.5

No 107 91.5

Total 117 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (7/7 - Do not know) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 116 99.1

Total 117 100.0 Will the project activities continue after the end of the funding? Frequency Valid Percent



No 10 8.8

Do not know 22 19.5

Total 113 100.0

A324

Will the partnership continue? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes, all partners will continue work together 6 5.2

Yes, most partners will continue work together 24 20.7

Yes, some partners will continue work together 52 44.8

No 6 5.2

Do not know 28 24.1

Total 116 100.0

To what extent did the project/network meet your initial objectives? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Met all of our initial objectives 39 34.2

Met most of our initial objectives 45 39.5

Met some of our initial objectives 8 7.0

Met none of our initial objectives 1 .9

Our project is not finished/too early to say 21 18.4

Total 114 100.0



Poor 10 8.7

Adequate 29 25.2

Good 39 33.9

Very good 20 17.4

Do not know 15 13.0

Total 115 100.0

A325

How would you rate the support you received from the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 11 9.6

Adequate 24 20.9

Good 28 24.3

Very good 19 16.5

Do not know 30 26.1

Total 115 100.0

How would you rate the Commissions activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Lingua?

Frequency Cumulative Percent


Poor 7 9.6

Adequate 24 30.7

Good 24 51.8

Very good 17 66.7


Total 114

How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Poor 9 7.9

Adequate 24 21.1

Good 30 26.3

Very good 6 5.3

Do not know 45 39.5

Total 114 100.0

A326

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased and sustained cooperation amongst institutions/organisations? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 4 3.4


Agree 55 47.0


Do not know 2 1.7

Total 117 100.0



Disagree 7 6.1


Agree 50 43.5


Do not know 8 7.0

Total 115 100.0

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved the employability/adaptability of participants? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Disagree 8 7.0


Agree 46 40.0


Do not know 20 17.4

Total 115 100.0

A327

How far do you agree or disagree that this project has improved the employability and adaptability of participants facing disadvantage? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 12 10.5


Agree 23 20.2


Do not know 38 33.3

Total 114 100.0




Agree 52 45.2


Do not know 7 6.1

Total 115 100.0

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved quality of teaching/curricula? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 4 3.5


Agree 47 40.9


Do not know 14 12.2

Total 115 100.0

A328

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased the teaching and learning of EU languages? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 3 2.6


Agree 42 36.2


Do not know 11 9.5

Total 116 100.0

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved teaching/teacher training practice, approaches to learning and management? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 5 4.3


Agree 56 48.3


Do not know 11 9.5

Total 116 100.0

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has led to the integration of methods/tools/ frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice? Frequency Valid Percent



Agree 38 33.0


Do not know 30 26.1

Total 115 100.0

A329

How far do you agree or disagree that this project has led to greater transparency and recognition between member states of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc.? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 14 12.2


Agree 30 26.1


Do not know 29 25.2

Total 115 100.0

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased access to, diversity and quality of language training opportunities available? Frequency Valid Percent



Agree 62 54.4


Do not know 6 5.3

Total 114 100.0

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved teaching, approaches to learning and management in relation to specific target groups and languages? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 5 4.3


Agree 55 47.0


Do not know 13 11.1

Total 117 100.0

A330

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has informed practitioners and policy makers across Europe of learning/innovations from the Action? Frequency Valid Percent



Agree 54 47.0


Do not know 21 18.3

Total 115 100.0






Impact on curriculum 20 17.1


Do not know 5 4.3

Total 117 100.0

A331

Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project on management has been? Frequency Valid Percent





Impact on curriculum 19 16.2


Do not know 8 6.8

Total 117 100.0



Low 9 7.8

Moderate 27 23.3

High 40 34.5

Very high 31 26.7

Do not know 7 6.0

Total 116 100.0 How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at the European level on teaching and learning in your Country? Frequency Valid Percent


Low 16 14.0

Moderate 39 34.2

High 30 26.3

Very high 11 9.6

Do not know 12 10.5

Total 114 100.0

A332

Would your project have taken place without funding from Lingua? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 2 1.7



Yes but with a more limited impact without Lingua branding and support

6 5.2

No 90 78.3

Other 1 .9

Do not know 11 9.6

Total 115 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (1/14 - Greater European outlook including awareness of other cultures and European institutions) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 76 65.0

No 41 35.0

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (2/14 - Increased skills, knowledge and competences of staff participating in Lingua project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 70 59.8

No 47 40.2

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (3/14 - Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools and frameworks) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 63 53.8

No 54 46.2

Total 117 100.0

A333

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (4/14 - Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners competences) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 15 12.8

No 102 87.2

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (5/14 - Innovative changes in practice in language teaching and learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 62 53.0

No 55 47.0

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (6/14 - Improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 47 40.2

No 70 59.8

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (7/14 - Improved equipment and educational software) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 23 19.7

No 94 80.3

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (8/14 - Increased cooperation and sharing of good practice among language teaching professionals and those responsible for language teaching policies across Europe) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 44 37.6

No 73 62.4

Total 117 100.0

A334

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (9/14 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 22 18.8

No 95 81.2

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (10/14 - Improved organisational profile) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 21 17.9

No 96 82.1

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (11/14 - Improved information, guidance and support services for learners and providers) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 11 9.4

No 106 90.6

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (12/14 - Increase in number of learners taking up opportunities at your organisation) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.1

No 111 94.9

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (13/14 - Greater diversity of learners taking up opportunities at your organisation) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 7 6.0

No 110 94.0

Total 117 100.0

A335

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (14/14 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 8 6.8

No 109 93.2

Total 117 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (1/10 - Having a greater European outlook including awareness of other cultures and European institutions) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 69 59.0

No 48 41.0

Total 117 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (2/10 - Increased skills, knowledge and competences) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 76 65.0

No 41 35.0

Total 117 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (3/10 - Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools and frameworks) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 68 58.1

No 49 41.9

Total 117 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (4/10 - Increased awareness of innovation/good practice in language teaching and learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 68 58.1

No 49 41.9

Total 117 100.0

A336

What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (5/10 - Increased cooperation with colleagues from European partner organisations) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 73 62.4

No 44 37.6

Total 117 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (6/10 - Involvement in development of joint products with project partners) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 49 41.9

No 68 58.1

Total 117 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (7/10 - Improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 49 41.9

No 68 58.1

Total 117 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (8/10 - Improved equipment and educational software) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 14 12.0

No 103 88.0

Total 117 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (9/10 - Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners competences) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 12 10.3

No 105 89.7

Total 117 100.0

A337

What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (10/10 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.3

No 112 95.7

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (1/13 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 62 53.0

No 55 47.0

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (2/13 - Increased awareness of importance of language-learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 59 50.4

No 58 49.6

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (3/13 - Increased awareness of availability of language-learning opportunities) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 50 42.7

No 67 57.3

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (4/13 - Increased motivation to learn languages) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 82 70.1

No 35 29.9

Total 117 100.0

A338

What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (5/13 - Increased skills, knowledge and competences) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 48 41.0

No 69 59.0

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (6/13 - Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools and frameworks) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 44 37.6

No 73 62.4

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (7/13 - Increased awareness of innovation/good practice in language teaching and learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 43 36.8

No 74 63.2

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (8/13 - Improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 32 27.4

No 85 72.6

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (9/13 - Improved equipment and educational software) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 15 12.8

No 102 87.2

Total 117 100.0

A339

What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (10/13 - Improved information, guidance and support services) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 8 6.8

No 109 93.2

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (11/13 - Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners competences) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 8.5

No 107 91.5

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (12/13 - Increased diversity of language teaching and learning opportunities available) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 25 21.4

No 92 78.6

Total 117 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (13/13 - Other) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 3 2.6

No 114 97.4

Total 117 100.0 To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within your organisation? Frequency Valid Percent


Ta small extent 43 38.7

Ta great extent 53 47.7

Do not know 11 9.9

Total 111 100.0

A340

To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within partner organisations? Frequency Valid Percent




Do not know 38 34.5

Total 110 100.0

To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within other (non-partner) organisations? Frequency Valid Percent




Do not know 60 55.6

Total 108 100.0

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at local level? Frequency Valid Percent




Do not know 42 37.8

Total 111 100.0

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at regional level? Frequency Valid Percent




Do not know 56 50.5

Total 111 100.0

A341

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at national level? Frequency Valid Percent




Do not know 54 50.0

Total 108 100.0

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at European level? Frequency Valid Percent




Do not know 63 56.8

Total 111 100.0

We are intending to undertake telephone interviews and a small number of case studies. Would you be interested in participating in this part of the evaluation? Frequency Percent

Valid No 57 48.7

Yes 43 36.8


Total 117 100.0 Thematic Sector Frequency Percent

Valid Other 58 49.6

School 8 6.8



Total 117 100.0

A342

Case Study Frequency Percent


Finland 2 1.7

Germany 14 12.0

Netherlands 6 5.1

Poland 6 5.1

Spain 9 7.7

Total 117 100.0

A343

Annex Eleven: Socrates survey responses (Minerva)

A344

MINERVA frequency tables Your organisation type

Frequency Percent

Valid School 6 5.5




Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) 1 .9


Public authority - local 1 .9

Public authority - regional 1 .9

Public authority - national 1 .9


Research institute 4 3.7


ICT/multimedia organisation 4 3.7

Other 3 2.8

Total 109 100.0

A345

Country of your organisation Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Austria 3 2.8

Belgium 5 4.6

Bulgaria 2 1.8

Cyprus 2 1.8


Finland 3 2.8

France 2 1.8

Germany 5 4.6

Greece 5 4.6

Hungary 4 3.7

Ireland 6 5.5

Italy 13 11.9

Luxembourg 1 .9

Malta 1 .9


Norway 6 5.5

Poland 3 2.8

Portugal 3 2.8

Romania 8 7.3

Slovakia 3 2.8

Slovenia 3 2.8

Spain 10 9.2

Sweden 2 1.8

Switzerland 1 .9


A346

How did you find out about Minerva? Frequency Valid Percent


17 15.6


9 8.3





3 2.8

From other publication 1 .9

Other 13 11.9 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (1/9 - Previous Minerva project)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 31 28.4

No 78 71.6

Total 109 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (2/9 - Comenius, Grundtvig, Lingua, Erasmus)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 46 42.2

No 63 57.8

Total 109 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (3/9 - Previous Leonardo project)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 35 32.1

No 74 67.9

Total 109 100.0

A347

Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (4/9 - Previous eLearning project)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 15 13.8

No 94 86.2

Total 109 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (5/9 - Previous Culture 2000 project)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.6

No 104 95.4

Total 109 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (6/9 - Previous Youth project)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 9 8.3

No 100 91.7

Total 109 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (7/9 - Previous European Social Fund project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 14 12.8

No 95 87.2

Total 109 100.0 Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (8/9 - Involvement in other European project) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 48 44.0

No 61 56.0

Total 109 100.0

A348

Before this project, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? (9/9 - No)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 11 10.1

No 98 89.9

Total 109 100.0 Did you receive a preparatory grant in order to set up your partnership, project or network?


Valid Yes 23 21.1

No 77 70.6

Do not know 5 4.6 Was your organisation the lead partner for the project?

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 38 34.9

No 71 65.1

Total 109 100.0 Which country was your lead partner based in? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Austria 4 3.7

Belgium 6 5.5

Bulgaria 3 2.8

Cyprus 1 .9

Denmark 2 1.8

Estonia 1 .9

Finland 7 6.4

France 4 3.7

Germany 8 7.3

Greece 5 4.6

Hungary 1 .9

Iceland 1 .9

Ireland 4 3.7

Italy 12 11.0

A349



Norway 4 3.7

Poland 2 1.8

Portugal 5 4.6

Romania 4 3.7

Slovakia 1 .9

Slovenia 1 .9

Spain 5 4.6

United Kingdom 11 10.1 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (1/14 - School)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 35 32.1

No 74 67.9

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (2/14 - University or other higher education institution) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 91 83.5

No 18 16.5

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (3/14 - Teacher training institution/centre)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 23 21.1

No 86 78.9

Total 109 100.0

A350

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (4/14 - Adult education institution or organisation)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 26 23.9

No 83 76.1

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (5/14 - Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc))

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 7 6.4

No 102 93.6

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (6/14 - Non-profit organisation)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 21 19.3

No 88 80.7

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (7/14 - Public authority â€“ local)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 9 8.3

No 100 91.7

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (8/14 - Public authority â€“ regional)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 9.2

No 99 90.8

Total 109 100.0

A351

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (9/14 - Public authority - national)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.6

No 104 95.4

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (10/14 - Private company)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 34 31.2

No 75 68.8

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (11/14 - Research institute)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 19 17.4

No 90 82.6

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (12/14 - Other educational institution)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 14.7

No 93 85.3

Total 109 100.0 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (13/14 - ICT/multimedia organisation)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 16.5

No 91 83.5

Total 109 100.0

A352

What types of organisations were the partners in your project? (14/14 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 7 6.4

No 102 93.6




No, none of them 44 40.4 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (1/7 - Through involvement in a previous project)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 49 45.0

No 60 55.0

Total 109 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (2/7 - Existing network)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 42 38.5

No 67 61.5

Total 109 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (3/7 - Contact seminar)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 14 12.8

No 95 87.2

Total 109 100.0

A353


Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 22 20.2

No 87 79.8

Total 109 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (5/7 - Partners database)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.5

No 103 94.5

Total 109 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (6/7 - Pro-active recruitment based on reputation and/or status)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 16.5

No 91 83.5

Total 109 100.0 How did you first get in contact with your partners? (7/7 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 19 17.4

No 90 82.6

Total 109 100.0

A354

In what year did your project start?

Frequency Percent

Valid 2000 5 4.6

2001 10 9.2

2002 15 13.8

2003 21 19.3

2004 20 18.3

2005 20 18.3

2006 17 15.6

Do not know 1 .9

Total 109 100.0 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between the project partners?

Frequency Percent





Total 109 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (1/8 - Strengthening the European dimension in education)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 61 56.0

No 48 44.0

Total 109 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (2/8 - Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 46 42.2

No 63 57.8

Total 109 100.0

A355

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (3/8 - Promoting equal opportunities)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 9.2

No 99 90.8

Total 109 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (4/8 - Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 13 11.9

No 96 88.1

Total 109 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (5/8 - Promoting co-operation and mobility in education)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 31 28.4

No 78 71.6

Total 109 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (6/8 - Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 93 85.3

No 16 14.7

Total 109 100.0 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (7/8 - Exploring matters of common policy interest)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 4 3.7

No 105 96.3

Total 109 100.0

A356

Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? (8/8 - Do not know)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 108 99.1

Total 109 100.0 Which of the Minerva objectives did your project contribute to? (1/5 - To promote understanding of the implications of ODL and ICT for education)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 56 51.4

No 53 48.6

Total 109 100.0 Which of the Minerva objectives did your project contribute to? (2/5 - To promote understanding of the critical and responsible use of ICT for educational purposes)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 25 22.9

No 84 77.1

Total 109 100.0 Which of the Minerva objectives did your project contribute to? (3/5 - To ensure that pedagogical considerations are given proper weight in the development of ICT and multimedia-based educational products and services)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 48 44.0

No 61 56.0

Total 109 100.0 Which of the Minerva objectives did your project contribute to? (4/5 - To promote access to improved methods and educational resources as well as to results and best practices in this field)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 71 65.1

No 38 34.9

Total 109 100.0

A357

Which of the Minerva objectives did your project contribute to? (5/5 - Do not know)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 108 99.1

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (1/21 - Exchange of experience and good practice)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 76 69.7

No 33 30.3

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (2/21 - Partnership or network)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 54 49.5

No 55 50.5

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (3/21 - Linguistic preparation for project participants)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.6

No 104 95.4

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (4/21 - New curriculum)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 14.7

No 93 85.3

Total 109 100.0

A358


Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 35 32.1

No 74 67.9

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (6/21 - Teaching/training methodology and strategy)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 61 56.0

No 48 44.0

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (7/21 - Website(s))

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 51 46.8

No 58 53.2

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (8/21 - New teaching/training material)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 76 69.7

No 33 30.3

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (9/21 - Evaluation report(s))

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 33 30.3

No 76 69.7

Total 109 100.0

A359


Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 48 44.0

No 61 56.0

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (11/21 - Provision of periods of mobility / virtual mobility)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 4 3.7

No 105 96.3

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (12/21 - Framework for the organisation of mobility activities)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.6

No 104 95.4

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (13/21 - Transnational meetings (e.g. of network))

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 34 31.2

No 75 68.8

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (14/21 - Seminars. workshops, conferences, exhibitions / fairs)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 48 44.0

No 61 56.0

Total 109 100.0

A360


Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 14.7

No 93 85.3

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (16/21 - Media materials)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 36 33.0

No 73 67.0

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (17/21 - Other awareness-raising tool)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 8 7.3

No 101 92.7

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (18/21 - Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 16.5

No 91 83.5

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (19/21 - Valorisation)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 14.7

No 93 85.3

Total 109 100.0

A361


Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 8 7.3

No 101 92.7

Total 109 100.0 What are the key outputs of your project? (21/21 - Do not know)

Frequency Percent

Valid No 109 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (1/5 - Yes, within your organisation)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 74 67.9

No 35 32.1

Total 109 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (2/5 - Yes, within partner organisation)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 64 58.7

No 45 41.3

Total 109 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (3/5 - Yes, within other (non-partner) organisations)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 35 32.1

No 74 67.9

Total 109 100.0 Are your project outputs still in use? (4/5 - No, not in use)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 3 2.8

No 106 97.2

Total 109 100.0

A362

Are your project outputs still in use? (5/5 - Do not know)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.6

No 104 95.4

Total 109 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (1/9 - Not relevant to potential users)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 108 99.1

Total 109 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (2/9 - Outputs are not transferable)

Frequency Percent

Valid No 109 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (3/9 - Insufficient demand/need for outputs)

Frequency Percent

Valid No 109 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (4/9 - Lack of funding)

Frequency Percent

Valid No 109 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (5/9 - Administrative difficulties)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 1 .9

No 108 99.1

Total 109 100.0

A363


Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 2 1.8

No 107 98.2

Total 109 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (7/9 - Partnership no longer exists)

Frequency Percent

Valid No 109 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (8/9 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid No 109 100.0 If not, give the reasons? (9/9 - Do not know)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 2 1.8

No 107 98.2

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (1/12 - Resource centres or other organisations with expertise in the field of ICT in education and/or ODL)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 36 33.0

No 73 67.0

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (2/12 - Schools)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 45 41.3

No 64 58.7

Total 109 100.0

A364

Who were your projects participants? (3/12 - Universities)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 78 71.6

No 31 28.4

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (4/12 - Adult education institutions or organisations)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 25 22.9

No 84 77.1

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (5/12 - Distance education institutions)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 25 22.9

No 84 77.1

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (6/12 - Teacher training institutions)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 24 22.0

No 85 78.0

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (7/12 - Associations of teachers and learners)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 11 10.1

No 98 89.9

Total 109 100.0

A365

Who were your projects participants? (8/12 - Research teams working in the field of ICT in education and/or ODL)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 21 19.3

No 88 80.7

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (9/12 - Academic/educational associations or consortia at national or European level)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.6

No 104 95.4

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (10/12 - Organisations/institutions involved in educational innovation)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 26 23.9

No 83 76.1

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (11/12 - ICT/media organisations)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 20 18.3

No 89 81.7

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects participants? (12/12 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 7 6.4

No 102 93.6

Total 109 100.0

A366

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (1/28 - Teachers (school))

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 53 48.6

No 56 51.4

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (2/28 - Teachers/trainers (higher education))

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 72 66.1

No 37 33.9

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (3/28 - Teachers/trainers/tutors (adult education))

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 34 31.2

No 75 68.8

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (4/28 - Trainers of teachers/trainers/tutors)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 41 37.6

No 68 62.4

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (5/28 - Other practitioners)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 23 21.1

No 86 78.9

Total 109 100.0

A367

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (6/28 - Learners)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 67 61.5

No 42 38.5

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (7/28 - Apprentices / Workers)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 8 7.3

No 101 92.7

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (8/28 - The unemployed)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.6

No 104 95.4

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (9/28 - Persons with special needs / disadvantaged groups)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 14.7

No 93 85.3

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (10/28 - Citizens in general / general public)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 14 12.8

No 95 87.2

Total 109 100.0

A368

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (11/28 - Administrative staff in schools, including head teachers)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 11 10.1

No 98 89.9

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (12/28 - Administrative staff in higher education establishments)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 10 9.2

No 99 90.8

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (13/28 - Other administrative staff)

Frequency Percent

Valid No 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (14/28 - Policy / decision-makers at national level)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 16.5

No 91 83.5

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (15/28 - Policy / decision-makers at regional level)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 13 11.9

No 96 88.1

Total 109 100.0

A369

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (16/28 - Policy / decision-makers at local level)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 14 12.8

No 95 87.2

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (17/28 - Policy / decision-makers at European level)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 8 7.3

No 101 92.7

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (18/28 - Inspectors / Advisors)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 11 10.1

No 98 89.9

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (19/28 - Government and administration / Education authorities)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 14.7

No 93 85.3

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (20/28 - Training providers)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 19 17.4

No 90 82.6

Total 109 100.0

A370

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (21/28 - Chambers of commerce / Professional bodies)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 3 2.8

No 106 97.2

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (22/28 - Curriculum development specialists)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 14 12.8

No 95 87.2

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (23/28 - e-Learning Industry)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 21 19.3

No 88 80.7

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (24/28 - Publishers / Broadcasters / Multimedia content providers)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 4 3.7

No 105 96.3

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (25/28 - Social partners (trade unions etc))

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 3 2.8

No 106 97.2

Total 109 100.0

A371

Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (26/28 - The research community)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 22 20.2

No 87 79.8

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (27/28 - Standards bodies and working groups)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 4 3.7

No 105 96.3

Total 109 100.0 Who were your projects target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? (28/28 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.5

No 103 94.5

Total 109 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (1/7 - By promoting equal opportunities between men and women)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 21 19.3

No 88 80.7

Total 109 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (2/7 - By addressing the needs of disabled people)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 18 16.5

No 91 83.5

Total 109 100.0

A372


Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 7 6.4

No 102 93.6

Total 109 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (4/7 - By helping to address socio-economic disadvantage)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 14.7

No 93 85.3

Total 109 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (5/7 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 9 8.3

No 100 91.7

Total 109 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (6/7 - Not specifically)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 58 53.2

No 51 46.8

Total 109 100.0 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? (7/7 - Do not know)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.6

No 104 95.4

Total 109 100.0

A373

Did your project/network have... (1/4 - a monitoring strategy?)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 63 57.8

No 46 42.2

Total 109 100.0 Did your project/network have... (2/4 - a dedicated monitoring officer or someone responsible for project/network monitoring?)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 36 33.0

No 73 67.0

Total 109 100.0 Did your project/network have... (3/4 - a strategy to disseminate your projects outputs, results and learning?)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 94 86.2

No 15 13.8

Total 109 100.0 Did your project/network have... (4/4 - a dedicated dissemination officer or someone responsible for project/networks dissemination?)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 20 18.3

No 89 81.7

Total 109 100.0

A374

To what extent have your dissemination activities reached your target groups? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Have reached all our target groups 30 27.5

Have reached most of our target groups 47 43.1

Have reached some of our target groups 21 19.3


Do not know 3 2.8 How did you evaluate your activity? (1/7 - Informal discussions within the partnership)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 61 56.0

No 48 44.0

Total 109 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (2/7 - Self-evaluation methods)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 68 62.4

No 41 37.6

Total 109 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (3/7 - Peer group evaluation)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 47 43.1

No 62 56.9

Total 109 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (4/7 - External evaluation by a professional evaluator)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 60 55.0

No 49 45.0

Total 109 100.0

A375


Frequency Percent

Valid No 109 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (6/7 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 6 5.5

No 103 94.5

Total 109 100.0 How did you evaluate your activity? (7/7 - Do not know)

Frequency Percent

Valid No 109 100.0 Will the project activities continue after the end of the funding?

Frequency Percent



No 7 6.4

Do not know 9 8.3

Total 109 100.0 Will the partnership continue?

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes, all partners will continue to work together 15 13.8

Yes, most partners will continue to work together 30 27.5

Yes, some partners will continue to work together 42 38.5

No 7 6.4

Don’t know 15 13.8

Total 109 100.0

A376



Valid Met all of our initial objectives 35 32.1

Met most of our initial objectives 57 52.3

Met some of our initial objectives 8 7.3

Our project is not finished/too early to say 8 7.3


Valid Poor 6 5.5

Adequate 33 30.3

Good 45 41.3

Very good 15 13.8

Do not know 9 8.3 How would you rate the support you received from the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 11 10.1

Adequate 27 24.8

Good 31 28.4

Very good 18 16.5

Do not know 19 17.4

How would you rate the Commissions activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Minerva? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 12 11.0

Adequate 35 32.1

Good 24 22.0

Very good 7 6.4

Do not know 27 24.8

A377

How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Frequency Valid Percent


Poor 4 3.7

Adequate 31 28.4

Good 25 22.9

Very good 10 9.2

Do not know 32 29.4 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased and sustained cooperation amongst institutions/organisations? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 1 .9


Agree 54 49.5


Do not know 2 1.8



Disagree 4 3.7


Agree 49 45.0


Do not know 7 6.4

Total 109 100.0

A378

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved the employability/adaptability of participants? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 3 2.8


Agree 57 52.3


Do not know 11 10.1

How far do you agree or disagree that this project has improved the employability and adaptability of participants facing disadvantage? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 3 2.8


Agree 28 25.7


Do not know 28 25.7



Disagree 1 .9


Agree 59 54.1


Do not know 10 9.2

A379

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved quality of teaching/curricula? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 3 2.8


Agree 44 40.4


Do not know 3 2.8 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has increased the teaching and learning of EU languages? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 16 14.7


Agree 26 23.9


Do not know 19 17.4 How far do you agree or disagree that the project has improved teaching/teacher training practice, approaches to learning and management? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 3 2.8


Agree 46 42.2


Do not know 5 4.6

A380

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has led to the integration of methods/tools/ frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 7 6.4


Agree 33 30.3


Do not know 18 16.5

How far do you agree or disagree that this project has led to greater transparency and recognition between member states of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc.? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 12 11.0


Agree 40 36.7


Do not know 18 16.5

How far do you agree or disagree that the project has led to the convergence of policy and practice between EU Member States in relation to ICT and ODL? Frequency Valid Percent


Disagree 12 11.0


Agree 38 34.9


Do not know 17 15.6

A381








Do not know 6 5.5 Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project on management has been? Frequency Valid Percent







Do not know 4 3.7


Valid Very low 1 .9

Low 8 7.3

Moderate 28 25.7

High 42 38.5

Very high 23 21.1

Do not know 5 4.6

A382

How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at the European level on teaching and learning in your Country? Frequency Valid Percent


Low 14 12.8

Moderate 41 37.6

High 26 23.9

Very high 7 6.4

Do not know 14 12.8

Would your project have taken place without funding from Minerva? Frequency Valid Percent

Valid Yes 3 2.8



Yes but with a more limited impact without Minerva branding and support

12 11.0

No 75 68.8

Other 2 1.8

Do not know 4 3.7

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (1/13 - Improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models on education and training)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 74 67.9

No 35 32.1

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (2/13 - Innovative changes in practice in teaching and learning)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 71 65.1

No 38 34.9

Total 109 100.0

A383

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (3/13 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 46 42.2

No 63 57.8

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (4/13 - Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 39 35.8

No 70 64.2

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (5/13 - Improved equipment and educational software)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 29 26.6

No 80 73.4

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (6/13 - Increased dialogue/cooperation on ODL/ICT)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 30 27.5

No 79 72.5

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (7/13 - Increased awareness of innovation/good practice in other European countries)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 50 45.9

No 59 54.1

Total 109 100.0

A384

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (8/13 - Improved information services and systems)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 9 8.3

No 100 91.7

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (9/13 - Improved organisational profile)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 7 6.4

No 102 93.6

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (10/13 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 31 28.4

No 78 71.6

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (11/13 - Increased knowledge, skills and competences of participants in Minerva project)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 42 38.5

No 67 61.5

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (12/13 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 28 25.7

No 81 74.3

Total 109 100.0

A385

What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? (13/13 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 5 4.6

No 104 95.4

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (1/13 - Improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models on the organisation of learning/teaching)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 61 56.0

No 48 44.0

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (2/13 - Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 56 51.4

No 53 48.6

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (3/13 - Improved equipment and educational software)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 30 27.5

No 79 72.5

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (4/13 - Increased dialogue/cooperation on ODL / ICT with participating organisations and individuals) Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 44 40.4

No 65 59.6

Total 109 100.0

A386

What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (5/13 - Increased capacity to share good practice in future)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 45 41.3

No 64 58.7

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (6/13 - Increased awareness of innovation/good practice in other European countries)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 52 47.7

No 57 52.3

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (7/13 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 42 38.5

No 67 61.5

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (8/13 - Access to a platform for cooperation with colleagues across Europe)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 33 30.3

No 76 69.7

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (9/13 - Improved information services and systems)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 9 8.3

No 100 91.7

Total 109 100.0

A387

What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (10/13 - Greater European outlook - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 25 22.9

No 84 77.1

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (11/13 - Increased ICT skills)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 38 34.9

No 71 65.1

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (12/13 - Increased other skills, knowledge and competences)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 22 20.2

No 87 79.8

Total 109 100.0 What have been the direct benefits to your projects participants? (13/13 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 2 1.8

No 107 98.2

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (1/9 - Improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models on education and training)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 63 57.8

No 46 42.2

Total 109 100.0

A388

What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (2/9 - Innovative changes in practice in teaching and learning)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 80 73.4

No 29 26.6

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (3/9 - Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 58 53.2

No 51 46.8

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (4/9 - Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 56 51.4

No 53 48.6

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (5/9 - Improved equipment and educational software)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 34 31.2

No 75 68.8

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (6/9 - Increased dialogue/cooperation on ODL/ICT)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 31 28.4

No 78 71.6

Total 109 100.0

A389

What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (7/9 - Increased awareness of innovation/good practice in other European countries)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 49 45.0

No 60 55.0

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (8/9 - Improved information services and systems)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 16 14.7

No 93 85.3

Total 109 100.0 What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? (9/9 - Other)

Frequency Percent

Valid Yes 7 6.4

No 102 93.6

Total 109 100.0 To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within your organisation?





Do not know 9 8.3

A390

To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within partner organisations?





Do not know 19 17.4 To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the Action been adopted in practice within other (non-partner) organisations?





Do not know 35 32.1 To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at local level?





Do not know 27 24.8 To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at regional level? Frequency Valid Percent




Do not know 40 36.7

A391

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at national level?





Do not know 46 42.2 To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making at European level?





Do not know 58 53.2 We are intending to undertake telephone interviews and a small number of case studies. Would you be interested in participating in this part of the evaluation?

Frequency Percent

Valid No 49 45.0

Yes 44 40.4


Total 109 100.0 Thematic Sector Frequency Percent

Valid Other 45 41.3

School 6 5.5



Total 109 100.0

A392

Case Study Frequency Percent


Finland 3 2.8

Germany 5 4.6

Netherlands 3 2.8

Poland 3 2.8

Spain 10 9.2

Total 109 100.0

A393

Annex Twelve: Project Case Studies

A394

Project case: Comenius, VISTA

Programme: Socrates

Project name: VISTA – Violence In Schools Training Action

Action (sub Action): Comenius 2.1, European Co-operation Project

Short summary: The VISTA project produced a training package aimed at reducing violence in schools. The training was developed by a variety of international experts in research, practice and training from the disciplines of sociology, psychology, education and criminology. The VISTA training was designed to benefit and inform not only teachers and educators but also local education authorities (LEAs) and policy-makers Europe-wide and young people themselves.

Theme: Teacher training

Country: UK Dates: 2003-2006

Budget: €245,928.00

Key words: teacher training, schools, anti-violence

Co-ordinator organisation: University of Surrey

Partner(s) and co-operation:

There were six partners in total including research institutes, university departments and one NGO:

UK Observatory for the Promotion of Non-Violence, University of Surrey, UK;

Project 'Criminality and Worldviews' KULeuven, Belgium;

Institut Za Reshavane Na Konflikti, Bulgaria;

The Anti-Bullying Research and Resource Centre, Ireland;

Centre for Behavioral Research, University of Stavanger, Norway:

Faculty Science of Education, Cordoba University, Spain.

Aims and objectives:

To produce an educator training package on violence in the school context;

To disseminate good practice through this training at European, national and local levels;

A395

To provide active support to key policy-makers and to schools.

Methodology and approach:

Initial meetings were held between international expert partners in order to share research knowledge and best practice on violence in schools and how to deliver this as teacher training. There has been a growing concern to understand the roots of violence and the effects on all members of the school community (children and young people, teachers, families) and on the school culture and ethos itself, and to find constructive ways to reduce it when it occurs and, if possible, to prevent it. In light of this the training incorporated an interactive and community-based approach; involving teachers, educators, non-teaching staff, young people, families, local communities, specialist provision, social services, NGOs and local policy makers.

Outputs and Results:

TOOLS: The VISTA training package contains five modules and eighteen units. A key strength of the package is its flexibility. Due to the interactive, bottom-up approach of the materials, they can be suitably applied to all members of school communities at pre-school, primary and secondary level. Training activities include: information on current research and practice about violence reduction and prevention; needs analysis including preparation and planning, implementation, and review and evaluation; pupil and school self-audit, and strategies for improving the school and classroom climate; exercises on conflict resolution, mediation, restorative practice, peer support; exercises for integrating a wider-society approach with political initiatives1. This innovative design has led to wider access to training tools, throughout local communities. The team have also produced written publications and papers addressing how to implement and sustain their approach in various contexts2.

NETWORKS: Working across disciplines and countries was paramount to producing a high quality, freestanding training product which has been successfully implemented Europe-wide. All partners gained a better European outlook of their work, which informed the final products.

Impacts and Sustainability:

Having been taken up by institutions widely across Europe, in partner and non-partner countries alike, VISTA has had many positive effects on teaching and learning. The VISTA package introduced a new topic to the teacher training curriculum. The 'whole school' approach utilised by VISTA meant that the training engaged managers and policy makers as well as educators, encouraging them to reflect on their practices and their possible impacts on the wider community.

1 http://www.vista-europe.org/ 2 Cowie, H. & Jennifer, D. (2007 in press) Managing Violence in Schools: a Whole-School Approach to Best Practice. London: Sage. Cowie, H. (2007) VISTA in Europe. Keynote address at the 13th International Congress of the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) 'Bridging the Gaps: Integrating Perspectives in Child and Adolescent Mental Health', Florence, Italy August 26-29.

A396

As well as being part of a strong and successful anti-violence in schools campaign in the UK, the training package has potential for socio-economic benefits across Europe. The design of the package strongly promotes active citizenship and social cohesion between members of local communities at all levels.

Sources: In-depth interviews with University of Surrey, UK and University of Dublin. Project website: http://www.vista-europe.org/ . UK observatory for the Promotion on non-violence website: http://www.ukobservatory.com/projects/project5.html . Vista Final Report, selection 2003. Cowie, H. & Jennifer, D. (2007 in press) Managing Violence in Schools: a Whole-School Approach to Best Practice. London: Sage. Cowie, H. (2007) VISTA in Europe. Keynote address at the 13th International Congress of the European Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (ESCAP) 'Bridging the Gaps: Integrating Perspectives in Child and Adolescent Mental Health', Florence, Italy August 26-29.

A397

Project case: Comenius, Intercultural discoveries

Programme: Socrates Project name: Intercultural discoveries

Action: Comenius

Short summary: By offering secondary vocational students a chance to exchange information with other students abroad and by letting them work together in projects (virtually and face-to-face), the project aimed to afford students an international outlook. The project encouraged them to accept, respect and value other cultures.

Theme: Mobility

Country: Netherlands Dates: 2002-2005

Budget: €15,000.00

Key words: secondary vocational students, accepting cultural differences, school project work, student correspondence.

Co-ordinator organisation: OSG Piter Jelles Nijlân school, secondary school, vocational education.

Partner(s) and co-operation: Two partners, both are secondary schools offering vocational education. One is situated in Estonia: Puka secondary school and one in Tenerife (Spain): IES San Matías.

During the search for partners, the lead partner focused on partners offering the same type of education (secondary vocational education). The co-ordinator felt that vocational students have a practical view on life, difficult to match with more academic-oriented students. Overall the cooperation has been very satisfactory and led to an open approach. Both partners were given a chance to share their ideas and plans.

Aims and objectives: The project aimed to offer secondary vocational students (VMBO) a broader outlook by teaching them to accept, respect and value other cultures. They wanted to make their students realise that not everybody lives in the same way as they do.

Methodology and approach: The approach was to bring the students of each partner school into contact with each other and exchange information, experience and ideas. They achieved this through the following activities:

A398

Step 1: All involved students were asked to write a presentation of themselves (in English) with pictures. Then, each student could pick out a presentation of another student and start corresponding with him/her. This could be done by chat (program at school), MSN Messenger (home), regular letters, email, phone or more recently Skype, a combination of telephone and chat.

Step 2: All students were taking part in projects based on exchanging local experiences and culture. Depending on the appropriateness of these "sub-projects", they were embedded in regular class room teaching, or otherwise undertaken during two annual project weeks. For example, in one project the students were asked to talk to each other about their local hero. Then a guest country would take the local hero with them on a 'virtual trip' through their country showing him/her their cultural landscape (festivals, foods, practices, etc.). In another project, students made a small movie about themselves to show to the students of a partner school. For this they received some lessons from a local TV correspondent. All these projects led to the development of various materials (booklets, DVD’s, etc.).

Step 3: Every time the project partners met in one of the partner countries, two students received the opportunity to travel with them and stay for a week with a guest family and attend classes of the partner school. These students played an active role in the official presentation, often involving local policy makers of the partner country. The official presentation focused on the presentation of the end results and on showing the importance of international projects and the necessary support of local authorities. The students were chosen on the basis of their effort in the project.


• Increased language skills – Both the students and teachers involved have become more acquainted with the English language and how to use it practically.

• Greater (EU) outlook – Both the students and teachers involved received a chance to broaden their horizon and get to know other EU cultures. This gave them a greater EU or global outlook.

• Networks –The teachers got the chance to share best practice and the project offered the involved schools the opportunity to work closely together.

• Methods/tools- The project led to the development of a lot of material to exchange: booklets, DVD’s, etc.

A399


• Effects on curriculum – Perhaps in the long run, the teachers involved adjust/improve their courses and programmes on the basis of what they learned from other partner teachers.

• Increased mobility – Perhaps in the long run, the students who have been involved in the project become more mobile as they have become more open-minded about other EU cultures.

• Improved employment prospects – Perhaps in the long run, the students and teachers involved gain an improved employment prospect because of their experiences gained during the project.

• Policy – Perhaps the project has an indirect effect on policy because they always invited the Board of the involved municipalities to come to the end-presentation(s). Most of these policy makers were positively surprised about the results and the impact the project had on the students.

• Networks – The teachers stay in touch and continue to exchange information and experiences.

• European outlook – The students mostly don’t describe their experience like this, but the project helps them to understand better what it is to be a European citizen.

Sources: In-depth interview with OSG Piter Jelles Nijlân school, Socrates Comenius 1 school partnerships, application for extension, 2004

A400

Project case: Grundtvig, Museum as a source of Knowledge

Programme: Socrates Project name: Museum as a source of knowledge

Action: Grundtvig

Summary: Museum as a source of knowledge raised the profile of Museums as socially responsible sites for creative learning. The project built strong networks with local communities and socially excluded groups within them, providing varied courses and workshops to this target group.

Theme: Adult education Country: Finland Dates: 2003-2005

Key words: museums, social inclusion, adult education

Co-ordinator organisation: Aboa Vetus & Ars Nova Museum

Partner(s) and co-operation: There were three partners in the project, all were museums:

Bryggens Museum, Norway

Tartu Linnamuuseum, Estonia

Aboa Vetus & Ars Nova, Finland

This network was thought to be particularly fruitful. Estonia is a rapidly developing state whereas Norway and Finland have established adult education and museum systems and ways of working. Thus Estonia provided refreshing and innovative input to discussions, whilst Norway and Finland could inform and offer experiences and lessons learned.

Aims and objectives: The project aimed to initiate and establish adult education in museums, raising awareness of the possibilities of museums as creative learning environments for life-long learning.

Specific aims included:

Developing methods for using museums;

Creating networks of local artists and people;

A401

Engaging with hard to reach groups in the work of the museum, both as influences on content and visitors.

Methodology and approach: The approach was to increase public involvement by delivering diverse courses and workshops to socially excluded groups in the local communities. The tutors were artists, also drawn from the local communities. Exhibitions from these courses and workshops were displayed within the museums in order to publicly display the interactive nature of the museums. Media coverage of exhibitions and activities were encouraged throughout to achieve maximum awareness of museums as socially responsible creative learning environments.

Outputs and Results: Methods – Various courses and workshops provided by local artists. Due to the European funding these courses could be offered at subsidised rates, widening access to basic creative techniques and cultural learning. Courses included: basic art techniques starter courses in water colour, oil painting, drawing etc; drama courses; artists' guided tours of local area; and history learning workshops.

Networks – Successful networks were created between museum staff, local artists and local communities. At a European level museum staff shared best practice around the delivery of their community courses and on a range of other museum issues. At a national level museums created strong networks with their local communities and artists. Socially excluded groups participating in the project included: Immigrants, senior citizens, visual ly impaired, political prisoners and socially excluded young people (16-20 years).

Impacts and Sustainability: Museum as a source of knowledge has had the following impacts:

Active Citizenship – The participating organisations ensured a wide impact of the project's work by interconnecting with local communities and hard-to-reach groups within them. The courses and workshops involved participants reflecting on their own communities and lives. For example a course targeted at immigrant women produced an exhibition on 'Childhood' introspective, based on the current theme exhibition about Childhood in the Middle Ages in the museum. In Estonia workshops explored the lives of KGB political prisoners. These courses had social benefits for the learners. Integrating them within the wider community & making museums more accessible to them. By integrating these groups' work in to the museum displays, the project also raised awareness in the wider community of these groups and their experiences.

Integration of methods – The project explored and piloted new methods and techniques, making museums more interactive sites for learning. The diverse techniques incorporated into museums' work within the three partner institutions were reviewed and the results

A402

shared. This improved professional development in the museums at all staff levels, particularly in terms of increasing knowledge of methods and teaching practices. The integration of interactive methods and community involvement was especially significant to the Estonian partner, with regard to the changes in their national status as an independent and rapidly evolving nation. This project pioneered the model of interactive, socially responsive museums within the country.

Demand for courses run by the project exceeded expectation. All museums have continued to provide educational community involvement programmes, ranging from public lectures1 to folk dancing workshops and performances2.

Sources: In-depth interview with Aboa Vetus & Ars Nova Museum, Finland. Web pages: Project Compendium - http://www.ua.gov.tr/socrates/docs/tur/Grundtvig2_KabulProje.pdf; Estonian National Museum - http://www.erm.ee/?lang=ENG&node=60; Bryggens Museum- http://www.uib.no/bmu/

1 Estonian National Museum - http://www.erm.ee/?lang=ENG&node=60 2 Bryggens Museum- http://www.uib.no/bmu/

A403

Project case: Lingua, ONENESS

Programme: Socrates Project name: ONENESS

Action (sub Action): Lingua

Short summary: ONENESS created a website of language learning courses in less widely used languages: Lithuanian, Polish, Finnish, Estonian and Portuguese. The project's target audience were international students and immigrants in the five partner countries.

Theme: Languages Country: Lithuania

Dates: 2003-2006 Budget: €309.069

Key words: Less widely used and taught languages, innovation and ICT, online courses

Co-ordinator organisation: Vilnius University, Department of Lithuanian Studies

Partner(s) and co-operation: There were eight partners in the project. The partners were based in the five countries corresponding to the language courses created. Partners were higher education institutions, publishing houses and broadcasting companies:

Vilnius University, Department of Lithuanian Studies (LT);

Jagiellonian University, School of Polish Language and Culture (PL);

Publishing House, Society of Academic Research Authors and Publishers UNIVERSITAS (PL);

New University of Lisbon, Department of Linguistics in the Faculty of Social and Human Sciences (PT);

Tartu University (EE);

Finnish Broadcasting Company, YLE (FI);

Publishing House, Oy Finn Lectura Ab (FI).


To create an online facility for learning the less widely used languages: Lithuanian, Polish, Finnish, Estonian and Portuguese.


The curricula and methodology of the courses was based on the principles of the 'Common European Framework of Reference for Languages'. The courses incorporated a

A404

didactic or communicative approach. The main goal of this style of teaching / learning is to develop real-life communicative competence in listening, reading, speaking and writing. Socio-cultural background information on the countries was also integrated into the courses.


Courses and Tools:

Five beginners level (A1) language courses in less widely used languages were created. These are accessible on the user friendly website and virtual classroom, 'Oneness City'. Within the Virtual classroom there are various components:

the 'language school' which contains 10 lessons involving listening, speaking, reading and writing, vocabulary and grammar, with learning material;

a 'Library' containing dictionary, grammar compendium, laboratory of Phonetics, compendium of phrases;

an 'Information centre' offering socio-cultural introductions to the five countries (10 chapters, related to the 10 language lessons);

an 'Entertainment park' an original interactive computer game as self assessment test;

and an 'Internet café' , a chat room and forum for students' and teachers' interaction .

As a result of this project there is wider access to less widely used language courses. elearning strategies have been employed to maximise this access. Partners were able to share best practice and gain a European outlook in the production of the outputs. The courses produced are user friendly, containing elaborate new teaching content. The products aim specifically to aid and encourage trans-national mobility through improving quality of learning for migrant groups.


Languages: Oneness city courses have been widely accessed and used to acquire language skills in less widely used European languages. Uptake of the courses has greatly exceeded expectation. Requests have been made by institutions outside of the partner countries to translate the course instructions so that the uptake can be increased further.

Migration: The course has been targeted at exchange students and migrants within the partner countries. This will aid the migration process and encourage mobilisation of students and others to the partner countries. Plans to make the courses accessible to a wider audience (e.g. Russia) will increase trans-national mobility further.

Sources: In-depth interviews with Vilnius University Oneness News website: http://www1018.vu.lt/index.php/pageid/27, Oneness City website: http://www.oneness.vu.lt/about/

A405

Project Case: Minerva, European Studies Intercultural Communication (ICC) - an intensive European course supported by the use of ICT –

Programme: Socrates Project name: European Studies Intercultural Communication (ICC) - an intensive European course supported by the use of ICT

Action (sub Action): Minerva Budget: EUR 239.822,17

Short summary: The project aimed to build new teaching materials for students who go abroad (also international students), for higher education institutions in general, as well as for companies. The materials were online courses on culture, communication and how to do business in a given country. Altogether the project developed 6 main modules and 26 country profiles on the completion of which a joint certificate at EU was awarded (Bachelors level). The country profiles were tested in 26 countries on approximately 500-600 students and 100 teachers. Three diplomas at EU level were developed and are currently used by the partner network (SPACE network). They are now further developing the modules at Masters level.

Theme(s): Mobility (mobility periods and mobility of the labour force), European area of education and training

Country: Denmark Dates: October 2004 – September 2005

Key words: module, intercultural communication, mobility, country profile

Co-ordinator organisation: Tietgen Business College, Denmark

Partner(s) and co-operation: The partners were from every EU Member States apart from Luxembourg (26 partners altogether). The partners previously cooperated with each other within the SPACE network; however, they were not previously engaged in any EU project (as a network). Initially, there were 20 partners from 17 countries, but with time the network expanded.

Outputs and Results: 6 basic online modules, 26 country profiles “How to do business in Europe?”, a course guide online and in hard copy, in-depth evaluation with best practice highlights, articles for conferences, European Certificate

Sources: Project final report

Project coordinator interview

SPACE Network website: www.space-eu.info

A406

Project Case: Minerva, Citizen-E

Programme: Socrates Project name: Citizen-E

Action (sub Action): Minerva

Short summary: The project aims at establishing peer network for teachers in the field of citizenship enabling them to communicate and exchange experiences and at creating support tools that they can use during classes.

Theme(s): European area of education and training, Innovation and ICT

Country: Belgium Dates: October 2004 – October 2006

Key words: citizenship, peer network

Co-ordinator organisation: ATiT, Audiovisual Technologies, Informatics and Telecommunications

Partner(s) and co-operation: KaHo Sint-Lieven (BE), PIXEL (IT), WOM (PL), Mayo Education Centre (IE)

The partnership consisted of 5 organisations, one of which had just coordinating functions and 4 were teacher training organisation in 4 Member States with specific focus on in -service teacher training. Since the in-service teacher training is regulated differently across the EU, the partners involved ranged from the private companies (which were contracted by the regional authorities to carry out teacher training activities and which also provided their respective facilities such as networks and libraries) to universities.

Management of the project partnership was based on three monthly reports which focused on project activities in each partner country and financial performance of the project. The coordinating organisation monitored the progress and managed the finances. Some of the financial arrangements, such as travel and subsistence, were managed entirely centrally which allowed for some savings.

Aims and objectives: The main objectives of the project were to increase the ICT skills of the teachers, to benchmark in-service training and support provided to develop best practice models, to develop teaching skills and resources on European citizenship, to increase intercultural understanding and to share best practice among other teachers and practitioners. The target groups included teachers in the field of citizenship, students, in-service teacher training institutions and all relevant stakeholders in the field of teacher training.

Methodology and approach: The main project activities included workshops for teachers, preparation of teaching materials in the field of citizenship education, school twinning activities and mini-projects between schools and students. In total, there were 9 workshops, 8 of which were organised in 4 partner countries and 1 was a cross-border

A407

event, co-financed by Comenius and Italian partners. Dissemination strategy was designed at three levels: at partnership level, at national level (meetings in institutions) and at partner level (for example, through peer networks in each partner country). The project was externally evaluated twice, namely for the interim and final report.

Outputs and Results: Training curriculum for teacher training and support centres, 35 twinning arrangements between schools, 35 collaborative mini projects, a collaborative platform based on readily available technology, dissemination materials, a website and a best practice manual (handbook). The website contains materials that can be used by teachers in their lessons such as lesson plans.

Impacts and Sustainability: The impact of the project was different in different countries, mainly due to the fact that citizenship teaching is quite varied (in Belgium/Flanders citizenship as a subject does not exist and its elements are incorporated across the curriculum) and some notions that are taught in the framework of citizenship classes, such as nation and identity, are very sensitive. However, the project succeeded in providing a common framework for teaching citizenship by providing common definition to the subject or the notion of nationality. In Ireland, a group on citizenship teaching has taken up some of the results of the project as ongoing examples for teachers to be used in classrooms.

The impact achieved by the project also lay in the fact that the target group were the teachers from teacher training institutions who further provided training to other teachers (multiplication) and who can still access the online support tools.

Since one of the outputs of the project is a handbook on the setting up of e-twinning projects at schools. As a result of the project and in the framework of eTwinning Action (under eLearning programme) some schools that participated in Citizen-E project now participate in eTwinning.

Sources:

Project coordinator interview (Ms Sally Reynolds, ATiT, Belgium) Citizen-E project website: www.citizen-e.net

A408

Project case: Accompanying measures, Human Plus

Programme: Socrates Project name: Human Plus – The European Archipelago of Humanistic Thematic Networks

Action : Accompanying measures

Short summary: The Archipelago of the Humanistic Thematic Networks is formed of 20 Erasmus-Socrates Thematic Networks which deal with different areas and aspects of the Humanistic Arts and Sciences. Its aim is to establish links and collaboration between the separate ‘humanistic’ disciplines, arts and sciences.

Theme: European area of education and training

Country: Italy Dates: 2004-2005

Budget: €75,498.81

Key words: European co-operation, dissemination, curriculum development

Co-ordinator organisation: University of Pisa

Partner(s) and co-operation: The Archipelago incorporates 20 existing Erasmus Thematic Networks with diverse interests, but a connection to the humanities:

ACUME, Cultural Memory in European Countries, University of Bologna, Italy;

ATHENA, Advanced Thematic Network in European Women's Studies, University of Utrecht, Netherlands;

CNN, Consumer Citizenship Network, Hedmark University College, Norway;

CiCe, Children's Identity and Citizenship in Europe, London Metropolitan University, UK;

CLIOHnet, Creating Links and Innovative Overviews to Enhance Historical Perspectives in European Culture, University of Pisa, Italy;

ENHSA, European Network of Heads of Schools of Architecture, Aristotle University of Tessaloniki, Greece;

ENOTHE, European Network of Occupational Therapy in Higher Education, Hogeschool van Amsterdam, Netherlands;

EURESIS NET, European Studies on Religion and State Interaction, Aristotle University of Tessaloniki, Greece;

A409

EUROPET, European Paediatrics Thematic Network, University of Oulu, Finland;

EUSW, European Platform for Worldwide Social Work, University of Parma, Italy;

HERODOT, Network for Geography in Higher Education, Liverpool Hope University, UK;

Humanitariannet, Thematic Network on Humanitarian Development Studies, University of Deusto, Spain;

Inter}artes, Artes Higher Education in Europe. Joint co-ordinators: Zelwerowicz State Theatre Academy, Poland and European League of Institutes of the Arts;

Le:Notre, Landscape Education: New opportunities for teaching and research in Europe, Vienna University of Technology, Austria;

Lefis, Legal Framework for the information Society, University of Zaragoza, Spain;

NETTLE, Network of European Tertiary Level Educators, Southampton University, UK;

Phoenixnet, European Thematic Network on Health and Social Welfare Policy, University of Eura, Portugal;

Polifonia, Thematic Network for Music, Joint co-ordinators: European Association of Conservatoires (AEC) and Malmö Academy of Music (MAM), Netherlands.

TNP3, Thematic Network Project in the area of Languages, Freie University Berlin, Germany;

TRES, Network on Teaching Religion in a Multicultural European Society, Uppsala University, Sweden.

Human Plus archipelago represents over 2000 higher education departments and professional organisations, in 32 countries.

In the first year of the project (2004/2005) there were 16 Networks involved in the Archipelago.


To transmit, to extend and to utilise knowledge in domains directly regarding human beings.

To extend the European education area by bringing together existing Erasmus Thematic Networks.

To improve teaching and learning in European Humanities.

To generate multidisciplinary discussion around key issues in Europe.

A410

To facilitate dialogue between more traditionally academic perspectives and more practice based disciplines, in order to achieve useable, applied results.

To develop notions of citizenship through a fuller realisation of the meaning which humanistic arts and sciences can bring to citizens lives.


Many of the Networks had working groups dedicated to the Human Plus theme, 'The Role of Humanistic Arts and Sciences in European Society, Education and Research'.

A variety of delegates, partners and co-ordinators, from each disciplinary thematic network participated in the archipelago themed conference and associated activities. Five representatives, an 'archipelago team'1 from each network attend the annual archipelago conferences.

The Human Plus archipelago also acted as a vehicle for dissemination between existing networks.


The major output was the international conference, 'The Role of Humanistic Arts and Sciences in European Society, Education and Research'. Coordinators and partners of the Thematic Networks, students and many speakers and guests were in a two-day structured discussion of the humanistic area and its significance for European society and cohesive citizenship.

Networks: Integral to the output was bringing together pan-European representatives of humanistic disciplines in order to get a fresh, Humanistic approach to European issues. The conference achieved this aim, illustrating to discipline representatives their own role in humanities as a whole and their potential in tackling real world problems.

Methods: The focus on inclusion of non-academic partners and practice-based disciplines as well as traditional academic disciplines, encouraged new and innovative developments in education and research in the humanities.


Language: Language was a central theme of the conference. The archipelago allowed a space for educational leaders in humanities to discuss and review the language Action plans and strategies devised by the Language Thematic Network TNP3 in relation to their own teaching/learning. There was also a specific focus on less widely used languages, with publications produced by CLIOHnet and the History Network and disseminated through the archipelago, providing summaries in the language of the writer. These have included Latvian, Basque and Gaelic.

1 http://www.archhumannets.net/meetings.htm

A411

Curriculum: The archipelago produced guidelines and reference points for humanities subjects, specific to various European countries. All delegates gained a better understanding of curriculum development in line with the achievement of Bologna principles. Many thematic networks participated in curriculum 'Tuning' surveys as a result of Tuning dissemination at the archipelago conference. The products distributed on the creation of curricula have led to various developments increasing the quality of learning and teaching environments.

Policy: The Human Plus project has had considerable policy impact at a national level, in Italy. The HumanPlus archipelago and the tuning work delivered through Erasmus networks were given particular attention in the formulation of Bologna Process guidelines. The networks are mentioned explicitly in the new guidelines, produced by the Deans of Humanistic faculties in Italy. Regarding professions, personal development and citizenship the guidelines highlight the need to:

'take into account what the disciplinary networks (e.g. Human Plus, Tuning) are doing at a European level, connecting research, didactics and ‘general culture’ (Bologna, 2007).

Regarding the shaping of humanistic disciplines they note:

'It is necessary to foresee that areas of innovative and ‘emerging’ knowledge have space for development. This same awareness has also been expressed by the disciplinary humanistic thematic networks and their coordination (Human Plus). It is opportune to study shared solutions at European level, being aware that our country (Italy) possesses in this field a specific wealth and can become a promoter of pilot initiatives' (Bologna, 2007).

Sustainability: The archipelago membership continues to grow. The success of the initial conference in ensuring the impact of the work of the networks and generating fresh insights into European issues has resulted in subsequent grant awards. In 2006 and 2007 the archipelago hosted successful and productive conferences on themes of: 'Im/Emigration and Mobility in European Culture, Society and Citizenship' and 'Images of Europe”.

Sources: In-depth interviews with University of Pisa, European Association of Conservatoires, Freie University Berlin and Liverpool Hope University. Website: http://www.archhumannets.net/, Human Plus Archipelago Information Booklet 2004, Human Plus 2004, 'The Role of Humanistic Arts and Sciences in European Society, Education and Research' conference itinerary. Bologna Process Guidelines (2007), Deans of Humanistic faculties.

A412

Project case: Accompanying Measures, MODE

Programme: Socrates Project name: MODE – Mobility and European Dimension, Final Report

Action (sub Action): Accompanying measures

Short summary: Mode explored the impact of individual mobility carried out in Socrates projects: Arion study visits; Comenius 2.2.C in service teacher training; and Grundtvig 3 training activities for adult educators. Mode conducted a survey measuring the quality of impact in areas of personal development, professional development and impact on the workplace and the community.

Theme: European area of education and training

Country: Spain Dates: 2005-2006

Budget: Not available

Key words: individual mobility, teacher training, dissemination.

Co-ordinator organisation: Socrates National Agency, Spain

Partner(s) and co-operation: The Mode team consists of six National agencies and three teams of external experts:

Socrates National Agency, Spain;

Cirius, Denmark;

InWent, Germany;

Academic Programme Agency, Latvia;

ANPCDEFP, Romania;

CMEPIUS, Slovenia;

External experts in ICT, statistics and management, Spain

External experts in school and project management and pedagogy, Denmark

External experts in project management

A413


Main objectives:

-Establish the relationship between the individual mobility activities of teachers and administrators within the Socrates Actions: Arion (study visits for Educational administrators), Comenius 2.2.C (in-service teacher training activities) and Grundtvig 3 (in-service training activities for adult educators) and the development of the European dimension in schools and institutions.

-Facilitate the means for National Agencies to share their views and concerns on mobility that could lead to an improvement of these activities in the new LLP 2007-2013.

-Demonstrate how the Socrates individual mobilities contribute to the objective for Education and Training 2010 set by the European Council of upgrading the initial education and in-service training of teachers and trainers, so their knowledge and skills respond to the changes and experiences in society.

-Disseminate examples of good practice in mobility.

Sub-objectives:

-Identify examples of good practice

-Find indicators that help us identify quality in individual mobility

-Establish links between individual mobility Actions and activities such as: organisation of Arion visits; development of new European projects, centralised and de-centralised; hosting of language assistants; implication of new clients in the Socrates programme (institutions and individuals); foreign language learning; teacher student exchanges; and teacher professional development.

-Celebrate the European Years of Workers’ Mobility


The project had three phases:

1. Identification of quality examples and collection of data. The work of this phase involved developing criteria to identify examples of good practice in training activities and study visits abroad regarding subsequent impact. It also entailed developing an online survey to be undertaken by grant holders.

2. Analysing data and drawing conclusions. Participants met to discuss and draw up a final selection of the '21 European best examples of good mobility practice'. The statistical analysis of questionnaires was carried out by external experts. Individual NAs also evaluated their national batches of questionnaires separately to draw out national trends and characteristics. These national analyses were then used in a comparative analysis.

A414

3. Dissemination. The dissemination of MODE conclusions through specially designed materials and conference.


Mode Report: A report which contains a comparative study of the individual mobility activities of teachers and administrators within the Socrates Programme Actions: Arion (study visits for Education administrators, Comenius 2.2.C (in-service teacher training activities) and Grundtvig 3 (in-service training activities for adult educators) and the development of the European dimension in schools and institutions. The report includes suggestions to improve the impact of individual mobility activities. For example, an Action plan to increase the impact on institutions and the identification of areas in which greater control needs to be exercised by NAs:

-The quality of the activity, especially with regards to innovation of the academic content of courses and visits.

-The European dimension concerning both the content and the organisation of visits.

-Dissemination amongst new potential candidates within the educational sector at which each Action is directed.

-Rejection of grant applications to people who have received them in the last two years.

MODE Assessment Tool: The Online MODE Assessment Tool (MAT) is intended to evaluate the magnitude of the impact, its sustainability and transferability on three different levels: personal, individual and on the work place.

Best Practice: A profile of best practice by Mode outlining the 21 best European practitioners within the Actions specified.


Mobility: The main impact of the Mode project has been an increased understanding of the impact of Socrates individual mobility activities. This has been achieved by the strategic dissemination of results and outputs to grant holders, school teachers, head teachers, teacher-trainers, visit organisers, National Agencies, the Commission and potential future beneficiaries. All parties involved in participation, support and organisation of individual mobility activities have been recipients of

Sustainability: The results of analyses have been successfully fed into the new LLP design (2007-2013). This was a key objective for the project and the achievement of this outcome was integral to the project design. New elements added include: more support for job-shadowing; lump sums for language preparation; mobility up to six weeks; updated tables for subsistence rates.

Sources: Mobility and European Dimension Final report, 2006. Website: http://modeproject.net/

A415

Annex Thirteen: Online survey tools

ERASMUS SURVEY

A416

Topics for survey Draft text for introductory note:

(Note to developer - text for emails to be sent to participants)

Dear Socrates II participant,

ECOTEC Research and Consulting has been Commissioned by the European Commission (DG Education and Culture) to undertake the Ex-post evaluation of the Socrates II Programme.

As part of this evaluation, we are undertaking an online survey of participants in all Actions of the programme (2000-2006). Your participation in the survey is crucial for the success of the evaluation and to shape the future implementation of the Lifelong Learning programmes as well as other Commission activities in this area.

The evaluation survey can be accessed from the following websites: http://surveys.ecotec.com/socrates

The survey is available in English, French, German, Italian, Polish and Spanish and should take only 30 minutes to complete.

Please complete the evaluation survey by [insert date]

ERASMUS SURVEY

A417

Our confidentiality policy is simple: ECOTEC will not share your contact details with any other organisation. All replies to the survey will remain confidential and will be used only at aggregate level.

Any queries about the surveys or the evaluation can be addressed in English, French, German, Italian, Polish and Spanish to: [email protected]

Please submit one questionnaire for each Socrates project.

Thank you very much for taking part in the evaluation. If you have been involved in more than one Socrates project, please try to complete a questionnaire for each one. If this is not possible, please complete the questionnaire for the most significant project(s) you took part in.

ERASMUS SURVEY

A418

Note to developers: Below is Text to be used for homepage

We agreed all responses would be left blank as the default (as in no reply) rather than defaulting to a specific answer. We have removed all compulsory questions so that this does not stop people filling it in. Data will be saved from each question as they proceed through the survey.

Survey homepage:

Welcome to the Socrates web survey being conducted by ECOTEC Research and Consulting on behalf of DG Education and Culture of the European Commission.

The survey should take no more than 30 minutes to complete. Please submit one questionnaire for each Socrates project (Erasmus, Comenius, Grundtvig, Lingua, Minerva, Arion visits, Joint Actions and Accompanying Measures). If you have been involved in more than one project, please try to complete a questionnaire for each one. If this is not possible, please complete the questionnaire for the most significant project you took part in.

If your project is still ongoing, please complete all questions referring only to your activities, progress and achievements to date.

To proceed, please select a language below.

English / German / French / Spanish / Italian / Polish

ERASMUS SURVEY

A419

1. About you

Instructions to developers (not for

translation)

1.1.1 Project title ------ Text box words limited to 200

1.1.2 Your organisation's name ------ Text box words limited to 200 1.2 Your organisation type

Choose one option • School • University or other higher education institution • Teacher training institution/centre • Adult education institution or organisation • Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) • Non-profit organisation • Public authority – local • Public authority – regional • Public authority - national • Private company • Research institute • Other educational institution • ICT/multimedia organisation • Other

Allow selection of 1 option only

ERASMUS SURVEY

A420

1.3 Country of your organisation Choose one option

Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Cyprus, Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; the Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain, Sweden; Turkey; United Kingdom: Switzerland; Other.


1.4.ER Which sub-Action was your project/activity funded under? Choose one option

• Erasmus 1 European inter-university cooperation • Erasmus 2 Mobility of students and university teachers and organisation of mobility • Erasmus 3 Thematic networks


1.4.3.ER For which activity did you receive funding? Choose one option

• Joint development of study programmes • Joint development of European modules • Intensive programmes • Student mobility • Teaching staff mobility • Organisation of mobility of students and teaching staff • ECTS for Lifelong Learning Grant • Grants for Site Visit of ECTS/DS Counsellors • ECTS and Diploma Supplement Labels • Erasmus Intensive Language courses • Thematic networks


ERASMUS SURVEY

A421

1.5 How did you find out about Erasmus? Choose one option

• Directorate General for Education and Culture website • Other European programme's National Agency website • Education Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency

(EACEA) website • From colleague • From other organisation / partner • From publicity event • From Directorate General Education and Culture

newsletter • From other publication • Other

Allow selection of 1 option only Only one word in this question differs from the same question in other questionnaires = "Erasmus". But the responses are identical and can still be aggregated across all questionnaires.

1.6 Before this project/network, did your organisation have any previous experience of European projects? Tick all that apply

• Previous Erasmus project • Comenius, Grundtvig, Lingua, Minerva • Previous Leonardo project • Previous eLearning project • Previous Culture 2000 project • Previous Youth project • Previous European Social Fund project • Involvement in other European project • No

Allow selection of multiple options. The second response option differs from questionnaire to questionnaire. However, the responses can be grouped across questionnaires, as the response is the same in essence despite the different wording.

1.7 Did you receive a preparatory grant in order to set up your partnership, project or network?

• Yes • No • Don’t know

Allow selection of 1 option only.

ERASMUS SURVEY

A422

2. Information about your project/activity

2.1 Was your organisation the lead partner for the project/activity? Choose one option

• Yes • No • Don't know

Allow 1 option to be selected

2.2 Which country was your lead partner based in? Choose one option



2.3 What types of organisations were the partners in your project/activity? Tick all that apply.

• School • University or other higher education institution • Teacher training institution/centre • Adult education institution or organisation • Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) • Non-profit organisation • Public authority – local • Public authority – regional • Public authority - national • Private company • Research institute • Other educational institution • ICT/multimedia organisation • Other

Allow multiple options to be selected

ERASMUS SURVEY

A423

2.4 Had you previously worked with your European partners on projects? Choose one option

• Yes, all of them • Yes, some of them • No, none of them • Don't know


2.5 How did you first get in contact with your partners? Tick all that apply.

• Through involvement in a previous project • Existing network • Contact seminar • Preparatory visit • Partners database • Pro-active recruitment based on reputation and/or status • Other


2.6 In what year did your project/activity start? Choose one option

• 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • Don't know


2.7 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between the partners? Choose one option (For example how effective were the communications and working together between project partners)

• Very satisfied • Fairly satisfied • Fairly dissatisfied • Very dissatisfied • Don't know

Allow 1 option to be selected to be selected

ERASMUS SURVEY

A424

3. Project Activity

3.1 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives

did your project/activity contribute to? Select up to three options which most apply

• Strengthening the European dimension in education • Facilitating wide transnational access to educational

resources • Promoting equal opportunities • Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU,

particularly those less widely used and taught • Promoting co-operation and mobility in education • Encouraging innovation in educational practice and

materials • Exploring matters of common policy interest • Don't know

This question needs to be restricted so that only three options (max.) can be ticked The three options should be recorded in different columns of the database.

3.2.ER Which of the Erasmus Action objectives did your project/activity contribute to? Select up to two options which most apply

• Enhancing the quality and reinforce the European dimension of higher education

• Encouraging transnational cooperation between higher education institutions

• Promoting mobility for students and higher education teaching staff

• Improving transparency and academic recognition of studies and qualification throughout the European union

• Don't know

This question needs to be restricted so that only two options (max.) can be ticked The two options should be recorded in different columns of the database.

ERASMUS SURVEY

A425

3.2.1.ER

What discipline (s) / subject area (s) was the focus of your activity? Tick all that apply.

• Agricultural Sciences • Architecture, urban and regional planning • Art and design • Business studies and management sciences • Education teacher training • Engineering, technology • Geography, geology • Humanities • Languages and philosophical sciences • Law • Mathematics, informatics • Medical sciences • Natural sciences • Social sciences • Communication and information sciences • Other areas of study


ERASMUS SURVEY

A426

3.3 What are the key outputs of your project/activity? Tick all that apply.

• Exchange of experience and good practice • Partnership or network • Linguistic preparation for project participants • New curriculum • Training Course • Teaching/training methodology and strategy • Website(s) • New teaching/training material • Evaluation report(s) • Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication • Provision of periods of mobility/virtual mobility • Framework for the organisation of mobility activities • Transnational meetings (e.g. of network) • Seminars, workshops, conferences ,exhibitions / fairs • Information/promotional campaign • Media materials • Other awareness-raising tool • Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences • Valorisation • Other

Each option will have a tick box Allow multiple options to be selected Rotate options

3.4 Are your project/activity outputs still in use? Tick all that apply

• Yes, within your organisation • Yes, within partner organisation • Yes, within other (non-partner) organisations • No, not in use • Don't know


ERASMUS SURVEY

A427

3.5 If not, give the reasons? Tick all that apply.

• Not relevant to potential users • Outputs are not transferable • Insufficient demand/need for outputs • Lack of funding • Administrative difficulties • Outputs were not fully completed • Partnership no longer exists • Other • Don't know

Q3.5 to pop up to be answered only if respondent selects final 2 options at Q3.4 (Not in use / don't know)

3.6.1.ER

Who were your project's participants? Tick all that apply.

• Students at undergraduate level • Students at postgraduate level (e.g. Masters degree) • Students at doctoral/PhD level • Adult learners • University / other higher education teaching staff • Non-teaching education staff • Other


ERASMUS SURVEY

A428

3.6.2 Who were your project's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Tick all that apply

Practitioners: o Teachers (school) o Teachers/trainers (higher education) o Teachers/trainers/tutors (adult education) o Trainers of teachers/trainers/tutors o Other practitioners Learners:

o Learners o Apprentices / Workers o The unemployed o Persons with special needs / disadvantaged groups o Citizens in general / general public Support staff: o Administrative staff in schools, including head teachers o Administrative staff in higher education establishments o Other administrative staff Policy: o Policy / decision-makers at national level o Policy / decision-makers at regional level

o Policy / decision-makers at local level o Policy / decision-makers at European level

Providers, sponsors and other key actors: o Inspectors / Advisors o Government and administration / Education authorities o Training providers o Chambers of commerce / Professional bodies o Curriculum development specialists o e-Learning Industry o Publishers / Broadcasters / Multimedia content providers o Social partners (trade unions etc) o The research community o Standards bodies and working groups Other: o


ERASMUS SURVEY

A429

3.7 Did your project/activity specifically address equal opportunities? Tick all that apply

Yes..

• By promoting equal opportunities between men and women

• By addressing the needs of disabled people • By helping to combat racism and xenophobia • By helping to address socio-economic disadvantage • Other No

• Not specifically • Don't know

Allow multiple options to be selected within "Yes". Do not allow "Yes" and "No" responses.

3.8

Did your project/activity/network have… Tick all that apply

• a monitoring strategy? • a dedicated monitoring officer or someone responsible for

project/network monitoring? • a strategy to disseminate your project's outputs, results

and learning? • a dedicated dissemination officer or someone responsible

for project/networks dissemination?

Allow multiple options to be selected. Record each option in a separate variable/column in the back-end database (as a Y/N for each option) rather than listing all options in 1 variable.

3.9 To what extent have your dissemination activities reached your target groups? Choose one option

• reached all our target groups • reached most of our target groups • reached some of our target groups • reached none of our target groups • Not applicable • Don't know


ERASMUS SURVEY

A430

3.10

How did you evaluate your activity? Tick all that apply

• Informal discussions within the partnership • Self-evaluation methods • Peer group evaluation • External evaluation by a professional evaluator • No evaluation activity undertaken • Other • Don't know


3.11 Will the activities continue after the end of the funding? Choose one option

• Yes, all of the activities will continue • Yes, some of the activities will continue • No • Don't know


3.12 Will the partnership continue? Choose one option

• Yes, all partners will continue to work together • Yes, most partners will continue to work together • Yes, some partners will continue to work together • No • Don’t know


3.13 To what extent did the project/network meet your initial objectives? Choose one option

• met all of our initial objectives • met most of our initial objectives • met some of our initial objectives • met none of our initial objectives • Our project/activity is not finished/too early to say


A431

4. Opinion of management at EU and national levels

4.1

How would you rate the overall application process? Choose one option (This includes the quality and usability of the application form, the Guidelines for Applicants, the feedback provided on your application and the support with finding partners).

• Very poor • Poor • Adequate • Good • Very good • Don't know


4.2

How would you rate the support you received from the Technical Assistance Office (TAO)/ Executive Agency (EACEA) /National Agency (NA)? Choose one option (This would include aspects such as the support you received in managing, monitoring, evaluating and disseminating your project).

• Very poor • Poor • Adequate • Good • Very good • Don’t know

Allow 1 option to be selected. This question differs very slightly in the wording from the questionnaires for eLearning, Grundtvig 3 and Comenius 2.2. However, it essentially asks the same thing and responses are identical. Responses can therefore be collated across all questionnaires.

4.3.1

How would you rate the Commission's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Erasmus? Choose one option.



A432

4.3.2 How would you rate the National Agency's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Erasmus? Choose one option.

• Very poor • Poor • Adequate • Good • Very good • Don’t know •


4.4

How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Choose one option.


Allow 1 option to be selected. This question differs very slightly in the wording from the questionnaire for eLearning. However, it essentially asks the same thing and responses are identical. Responses can therefore be collated across all questionnaires.

A433

5. Opinion on impact

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3

5.1.4 5.1.5

5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8

5.1.9

5.1.10

How far do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the impact of your project/activity ? Choose one option for each (If your project/activity is still ongoing, please complete all questions referring only to your activities, progress and achievements to date.) • The project/activity has increased and sustained cooperation

amongst institutions/organisations. • The project/activity has increased capacity for mobility of

participants • The project/activity has improved the

employability/adaptability of participants • This project/activity has improved the employability and

adaptability of participants facing disadvantage • The project/activity has increased the European "outlook" of

individuals and institutions • The project/activity has improved quality of

teaching/curricula. • The project/activity has increased the teaching and learning

of EU languages • The project/activity has improved teaching/teacher training

practice, approaches to learning and management • The project/activity has led to the integration of

methods/tools/ frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice

• This project/activity has led to greater transparency and recognition between member states of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc.

• Strongly disagree • Disagree • Neither agree or disagree • Agree • Strongly agree • Don't know

Provide one tick box for each impact Allow one option to be selected for each.

A434

5.1.11

5.1.12 5.1.13 5.1.14

• The project/activity has increased comparability of higher education degrees.

• The project/activity has increased convergence of study programmes.

• The project/activity has improved in the training and specialisation needs demanded by the labour market.

• The project/activity has increase awareness of national governments regarding the importance of internationalisation of higher education policy.

5.1.20 Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your

project/activity on the curriculum has been: Choose one option.

• Major across all curriculum areas • Major in some curriculum areas • Minor across all curriculum areas • Minor in some curriculum areas • No impact on curriculum • Not applicable • Don't know

Allow one option to be selected

5.1.21 Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project/activity on management has been: Choose one option

• Major across all areas of management • Major in some areas of management • Minor across all areas of management • Minor in some areas of management • No impact on management • Not applicable • Don't know


5.2.1 5.2.2

How would you rate the effect/added value of collaboration at European level on teaching and learning in your… Choose one option for each

- Organisation? - Country?

• Very low • Low • Moderate • High • Very high • Don't know

Allow one option to be selected for each

A435

5.3 Would your project have taken place without funding from Erasmus? Choose one option

• Yes • Yes but without transnational partners • Yes but over a longer timescale • Yes but with a more limited impact

without Erasmus 'branding' and support • No • Other • Don't know


A436

5.4.ER What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to your organisation? Select up to five options which most apply

• Greater 'European outlook' - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions

• Access to a wider range of products, methods, tools, frameworks etc

• Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and strategies • Increased cultural dialogue between organisations • Better training teachers/trainers in the organisation • Better trained managers in the organisation • Improved quality of work/research • Development of new concepts and contents for study

programmes • Increased use and development of common tools/methods for

recognition of qualifications/ competences • Establish a network with institutions from other European

countries • Increased cooperation amongst higher education

institutions/other organisations involved in the activities • Improved communication/co-operation between the

organisation and the "labour market"/employers • Increased capacity to share good practice in future • Improved institutional profile • Improved attractiveness as a learning organisation • Learn ways of bringing in extra funding to the organisation • Improved working relations within your organisation (e.g.

among departments..) • Other • None • Don't know

Allow multiple options to be selected. Rotate options if possible

A437

5.5.1.ER

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the staff? Select up to five options which most apply


• Increased foreign language skills • Increased ICT skills • Increased project management and organisation skills • Increased other skills, knowledge and competences • Personal development • Improved motivation in their work • Improved employability and career prospects • Increased cooperation with colleagues from European partner

organisations • Involvement in development of joint products with project

partners • Increased capacity to share good practice in future • Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc • Development of their knowledge of the study area • Development of work in networks • Better knowledge of EU procedures • Improved capacity for mobility • International perspective in teaching and research • Desire to transfer benefits to staff who were not directly

involved in the project • Improved attractiveness of working in a learning organisation • Better involvement in the life of the organisation/institution • Other • None • Don't know

This question needs to be restricted so that only five options (max.) can be ticked. Rotate if possible.

A438

5.5.2.ER

What have been the main benefits of this project/activity to the students? Select up to five options which most apply


• Access to new learning methods and materials

• Improved IT skills • Improved of foreign language skills • Increased other skills, knowledge and

competences • Maturity and personal development • Improved capacity for mobility • Preparation for future employment and

work • Improved employability and career

prospects • Better involvement in the life of the

organisation • Other


A439

5.6.ER What have been the direct benefits to your target audiences/target groups? Please ignore if you are an Erasmus 2 mobility project. Select up to five options which most apply

• Increased skills, knowledge and competences

• Improved motivation in their work • Innovative changes in practice in higher

education and teacher training • Increase in supply of training/career

development opportunities • Improved quality of initial and in-service

teacher training • Improved quality of teaching

methodologies and pedagogical strategies

• Increased access to mobility activities for student teachers

• Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc

• Increased cooperation across Europe of actors in higher education

• Awareness of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning across Europe

• Awareness of good practice across Europe

• Access to a 'platform' for cooperation with peers across Europe

• Other

Allow multiple options to be selected. Rotate options if possible.

A440

5.7

5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3

To what extent have the results or learning from your project / activity/network funded through the Action been adopted in practice? Choose one option for each within your organisation within partner organisations within other (non-partner) organisations

• Not at all • To a small extent • To a great extent • Don't know

Allow 1 option to be selected for each.

5.8

5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4

To what extent have the results or learning from your project/activity been adopted in policy-making? Choose one option for each • at local level • at regional level • at national level • at European level



5.9 Do you have any other comments? (Please note we can only receive comments provided in English, French, Italian, German, Spanish and Polish.)

---------- Text box with 200 limited words

5.10 We are intending to undertake telephone interviews and a small number of case studies. Would you be interested in participating in this part of the evaluation? Is it ok if we store your email address and contact you at a later date?

No Would like more information Yes Please supply your email and a daytime telephone number where we can contact you for a brief interview. Name E-mail address

Your daytime telephone number (Including the international and area codes):

If they select 'Would like more information' or 'Yes' provide the pop up box to collect personal data

Thank you for your contribution

A441

Comenius (excluding Comenius 2.2) About you

Instructions to developers (not

for translation)

1.1.1 Project title/acronym ------ Text box words limited to 200


Choose one option • School • University or other higher education institution • Teacher training institution/centre • Adult education institution or organisation • Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) • Non-profit organisation • Public authority – local • Public authority – regional • Public authority - national • Private company • Research institute • Other educational institution • ICT/multimedia organisation • Other



Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Cyprus, Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; the Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain, Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; United Kingdom; Other.


A442

1.5 How did you find out about Comenius? Choose one option

• Directorate General for Education and Culture website • Other European programme's National Agency website • Education Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA)

website • From colleague • From other organisation / partner • From publicity event • From Directorate General Education and Culture newsletter • From other publication • Other

Allow selection of 1 option only Only one word in this question differs from the same question in other questionnaires = "Comenius". But the responses are identical and can still be aggregated across all questionnaires.


• Previous Comenius project • Erasmus, Grundtvig, Lingua, Minerva • Previous Leonardo project • Previous eLearning project • Previous Culture 2000 project • Previous Youth project • Previous European Social Fund project • Involvement in other European project • No





A443

Information about your project

2.1 Was your organisation the lead partner for the project? Choose one option




• Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Cyprus, Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; the Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain, Sweden; Switzerland Turkey; United Kingdom; Other.


2.3 What types of organisations were the partners in your project? Tick all that apply.









A444

2.6 In what year did your project start? Choose one option

• 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • Don't know


2.7 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between the project partners? Choose one option (For example how effective were the communications and working together between project partners?)



A445

Project activity

3.1 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? Select up to three options which most apply.

• Strengthening the European dimension in education • Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources • Promoting equal opportunities • Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly

those less widely used and taught • Promoting co-operation and mobility in education • Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials • Exploring matters of common policy interest • Don't know


3.2.C Which of the Comenius objectives did your project contribute to? Select up to two options which most apply

• To enhance the quality of school education • To reinforce the European dimension of school education • To promote the learning of languages • To promote intercultural awareness • Don't know


A446

3.3 What are the key outputs of your project? Tick all that apply

• Exchange of experience and good practice • Partnership or network • Linguistic preparation for project participants • New curriculum • Training Course • Teaching/training methodology and strategy • Website(s) • New teaching/training material • Evaluation report(s) • Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication • Provision of periods of mobility/virtual mobility • Framework for the organisation of mobility activities • Transnational meetings (e.g. of network) • Seminars, workshops, conferences ,exhibitions / fairs • Information/promotional campaign • Media materials • Other awareness-raising tool • Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences • Valorisation • Other

Each option will have a tick box Allow multiple options to be selected Rotate options

3.4 Are your project outputs still in use? Tick all that apply



A447

3.5 If not, give the reasons? Tick all that apply



3.6.1.C Who were your project's participants? Tick all that apply.

• Primary and/or pre-primary pupils • Secondary school students • Student teachers • School teachers • Tutors, mentors or other educators working with pupils at risk of

exclusion, children of migrant workers, Gypsies, Travellers and Occupational Travellers

• Non-teaching education staff • Teacher trainers • Other educational professionals • Decision makers and education specialists • Other

Allow multiple options to be selected for each question.

A448

3.6.2 Who were your project's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? Tick all that apply.




Providers, sponsors and other key actors: o Inspectors / Advisors o Government and administration / Education authorities o Training providers o Chambers of commerce / Professional bodies o Curriculum development specialists o e-Learning Industry o Publishers / Broadcasters / Multimedia content

providers o Social partners (trade unions etc) o The research community o Standards bodies and working groups Other: o


A449

3.7 Did your project specifically address equal opportunities? Tick all that apply

Yes..

• By promoting equal opportunities between men and women • By addressing the needs of disabled people • By helping to combat racism and xenophobia • By helping to address socio-economic disadvantage • Other No



3.8

Did your project/network have… Tick all that apply

• a monitoring strategy? • a dedicated monitoring officer or someone responsible for

project/network monitoring? • a strategy to disseminate your project's outputs, results and

learning? • a dedicated dissemination officer or someone responsible for

project/networks dissemination?



• reached all our target groups • reached most of our target groups • have reached some of our target groups • have reached none of our target groups • Not applicable • Don't know


3.10




A450

3.11 Will the project activities continue after the end of the funding? Choose one option







• Met all of our initial objectives • Met most of our initial objectives • Met some of our initial objectives • Met none of our initial objectives • Our project is not finished/too early to say


A451

Opinion of management at EU and national levels

4.1

How would you rate the overall application process? Choose one option (This includes the quality and usability of the application form, the Guidelines for Applicants, the feedback provided on your application and the support with finding partner).



4.2

How would you rate the support you received from the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Choose one option (This would include aspects such as the support you received in managing, monitoring, evaluating and disseminating your project).



4.3.1

How would you rate the Commission's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Comenius? Choose one option.



A452

4.3.2 How would you rate the National Agency's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Comenius? Choose one option.

• Very poor • Poor • Adequate • Good • Very good • Don’t know •


4.4




A453

Opinion of impact 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8 5.1.9 5.1.10

How far do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the impact of your project? Choose one option for each (If your project is still ongoing, please complete all questions referring only to your activities, progress and achievements to date.) • The project has increased and sustained cooperation amongst

institutions/organisations. • The project has increased capacity for mobility of participants • The project has improved the employability/adaptability of participants • This project has improved the employability and adaptability of participants

facing disadvantage • The project has increased the European "outlook" of individuals and

institutions • The project has improved quality of teaching/curricula. • The project has increased the teaching and learning of EU languages • The project has improved teaching/teacher training practice, approaches to

learning and management • The project has led to the integration of methods/tools/ frameworks into

national (regional) policy and practice • This project has led to greater transparency and recognition between

member states of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc.



5.1.20 Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project on the curriculum has been: Choose one option



A454

5.1.21 Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project on management has been: Choose one option

• Major across all areas of management

• Major in some areas of management • Minor across all areas of

management • Minor in some areas of management • No impact on management • Not applicable • Don't know


5.2

5.2.1 5.2.2





5.3 Would your project have taken place without funding from Comenius? Choose one option

• Yes • Yes but without transnational partners • Yes but over a longer timescale • Yes but with a more limited impact

without Comenius 'branding' and support

• No • Other • Don't know


A455

5.4.C What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? Select up to five options which most apply


• Increased knowledge, skills and competences of staff participating in Comenius project


• Increased cooperation and sharing of good practice among teaching and teacher-training professionals and those responsible for teaching and teacher-training policies across Europe

• Improved organisational profile • Better contacts with other European

institutions • Increased capacity to share good

practice in future • Innovative changes in practice in

school education and teacher training • Increase in quality of teaching


• Improved foreign language teaching • Improved quality of initial and in-

service teacher training • Increase in supply of teacher

training/career development opportunities

• Better trained teachers/trainers in the organisation

• Better trained managers in the organisation

• Improved attractiveness as a working/learning organisation

• Establishment of a network with institutions from other European countries

• Other • None • Don’t know


A456

5.5.1.C This question relates to C1 projects only. If you participated in a C2.1 or C3 project, please go forward to question 5.5.3. What have been the direct benefits to the students who participated in the project? Select up to five options which most apply

• Greater 'European outlook' – awareness of other cultures and EU institutions

• Opportunity to spend time in another European country

• Building contacts with contemporaries in other European countries

• Increased foreign language skills • Increased ICT skills • Increased team working and social

skills • Increased other skills, knowledge and

competences • Improved motivation in their school

work • Involvement in development of joint

products with project partners • Increased involvement of pupils at

risk of social exclusion and pupils with special educational needs

• Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning

• Other • None • Don’t know


A457

5.5.2.C This question relates to C1 projects only. If you participated in a C2.1 or C3 project, please go forward to the next question. What have been the direct benefits to the staff who participated in the project? Select up to five options which most apply


• Opportunity to spend time in another European country

• Building contacts with colleagues in other European countries

• Increased foreign language skills • Increased foreign language teaching

skills • Increased ICT skills • Increased project management and

organisation skills • Improved teaching/training skills • Increased other skills, knowledge and

competences • Involvement in development of joint

products with project partners • Improved motivation in their work • Improved attractiveness of working in

a learning organisation • Improvement in the quality of

teaching and learning • Increase in cooperation with

colleagues at partner organisations • Increased contacts within

organisations in the local community • Increased capacity to share good

practice in future • Awareness of innovative changes in

teaching practice • Increased access to methods, tools,

frameworks etc • Other • None • Not applicable • Don't know


A458

5.5.3C This question relates to C2.1 and C3 projects only. If you took part in a C1 project, please go forward to question 5.7. What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? Select up to five options which most apply


• Increased foreign language skills • Increased foreign language teaching

skills • Increased ICT skills • Increased project management and

organisation skills • Improved teaching/training skills • Increased other skills, knowledge and

competences • Improved motivation in their work • Improved attractiveness of working in

a learning organisation • Increased cooperation with

colleagues from European partner organisations

• Involvement in development of joint products with project partners

• Increased capacity to share good practice in future

• Awareness of innovative changes in teaching and teacher training practice



• Awareness of good practice in other European countries

• Increased use of ICT in school education and teacher training

• Access to a 'platform' for cooperation with colleagues across Europe

• Other • None • Not applicable • Don’t know

A459

5.6.C This question relates to C2.1 and C3 projects only. If you took part in a C1 project, please go forward to the next question. What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? Select up to five options which most apply

• Increased skills, knowledge and competences

• Increased foreign language teaching skills

• Improved motivation in their work • Improved attractiveness of working in

a learning organisation • Innovative changes in practice in

school education and teacher training • Increase in supply of training/career

development opportunities • Improved quality of initial and in-

service teacher training • Improved quality of teaching


• Increased access to mobility activities for student teachers


• Increased cooperation across Europe of actors in school education

• Awareness of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning across Europe

• Awareness of good practice across Europe

• Access to a 'platform' for cooperation with peers across Europe

• Other


5.7

5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3

To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the action been adopted in practice? Choose one option for each within your organisation within partner organisations within other (non-partner) organisations



A460

5.8

5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making? Choose one option for each • at local level • at regional level • at national level • at European level






No Would like more information Yes Please supply your email and a daytime telephone number where we can contact you for a brief interview. Name E-mail address Your daytime telephone number (Including the international and area codes):


Thank you for your contribution.

461

Comenius 2.2 About you

Instructions to developers

(not for translation)


Choose one option. • School • University or other higher education institution • Teacher training institution/centre • Adult education institution or organisation • Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) • Non-profit organisation • Public authority – local • Public authority – regional • Public authority - national • Private company • Research institute • Other educational institution • ICT/multimedia organisation • Other


462

1.2.1.X What was your occupation when you received the Comenius training grant? Choose one option.

• Student language teacher • Student teacher (non-languages) • Teacher (languages) • Teacher (non-languages) • Head teacher • Education Manager • School inspector • Counsellor/mentor • Careers advisor • Staff working with pupils at risk of social exclusion • Staff involved in intercultural education • Staff working with children of migrant workers, Gypsies and Travellers and

Occupational Travellers • Staff working with pupils with special education needs • Other school education staff


1.2.2.X Do you have a disability? Choose one option.

• Yes • No


1.2.3 What was your age when you received the Comenius grant? Choose one option.

• Under 20 • 20-29 • 30-39 • 40-49 • 50+


1.2.6 Are you: • Male • Female


1.3 Country of your employer / organisation Choose one option

Austria; Belgium; Bulgaria; Cyprus, Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Iceland; Ireland; Italy; Latvia; Liechtenstein; Lithuania; Luxembourg; Malta; the Netherlands; Norway; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Slovakia; Slovenia; Spain, Sweden; Switzerland; Turkey; United Kingdom; Other


463

1.5 How did you find out about Comenius? Choose one option

• Directorate General for Education and Culture website • Other European programme's National Agency website • Education Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) website • From colleague • From other organisation / partner • From publicity event • From Directorate General Education and Culture newsletter • From other publication • Other



• Previous Comenius project • Erasmus, Grundtvig, Lingua, Minerva • Previous Leonardo project • Previous eLearning project • Previous Culture 2000 project • Previous Youth project • Previous European Social Fund project • Involvement in other European project • No


1.8.X Was this the first Comenius training grant you had received? Choose one option.

• Yes • No


464

Information about your training grant

2.2.X Which country did you visit to do your training abroad? Choose one option.



2.4.X Had your institution previously co-operated with your host institution? Choose one option.



2.5 How did you first get in contact with your host institution? Tick all that apply.


Allow selection of multiple options.

2.6 In what year did your training abroad / period of mobility take place?

• 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • Don't know

Allow 1 option to be selected. This question differs very slightly in the wording from the other questionnaires. However, it essentially asks the same thing and responses are identical. Responses can therefore be collated across all questionnaires.

465

2.7 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between your employer institution and the host institution?



2.8.X What was the purpose of your grant/placement? Choose one option.

• Initial teacher training • Language assistantship • In-service training course • Other


2.9.X How much of the cost of your training did the grant from Comenius cover? Choose one option.

• Less than 50% • 50% - 75% • 76% - 100%


2.10.X How did you cover the cost of your training? Tick all that apply.

• Comenius funding only • National funding • Funding from my employer • Personal funding • Other


2.11.X What type of organisation was your host organisation? Choose one option.

• Pre-primary school • Primary school • Secondary school • Teacher training institution • Adult education institution • Public authority • Non-governmental organisation • Private company • Other • Don’t know


466

2.12.X What activities did you undertake within your host organisation? Tick all that apply.

• Supervised study • Practical initial teacher training • Language teaching (language assistantship) • In-service training course • In-service placement in commerce or industry • In-service placement in a public or non-governmental organisation


2.13.X Was your attendance on the training course accredited? Choose one option.



2.14.X How did you find out about your training course? Tick all that apply.

• Comenius Course database • Comenius National Agency • Employer / home institution • Other • Don't know


467

Project activity

3.2 Which of the Comenius objectives did your training activity contribute to? Tick the two options which most apply to your training activity.

• Enhance the quality of school education • Reinforce the European dimension of school education • Promote the learning of languages • Promote intercultural awareness • Don't know


3.13.X To what extent did the training meet your objectives? Choose one option.

• Met all of my objectives. • Met most of our objectives. • Met some of our objectives. • Met none of our objectives. • Training is not finished / too early to say.


3.14 What are your key gains from your training activity? Tick the five options which most apply to your training activity.

• Greater European outlook – awareness of other EU cultures and EU institutions

• Opportunity to spend time in another European country • Increased understanding of the European Dimension to teaching and

learning • Increased understanding of other education systems • Increased language skills • Improved teaching skills • Understanding of new teaching techniques or methodologies • Increased other skills, knowledge and competences • Building contacts with contemporaries/colleagues in other countries • Increased cooperation with European colleagues • Increased capacity to share good practice in future • Other

This question needs to be restricted so that only five options (max.) can be ticked The five options should be recorded in different columns of the database.

468

3.15.X Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment?

• Yes – improved teaching of language already taught • Yes – teaching new language • Yes – using languages to teach other subjects • Yes – in other teaching activities • Yes – in other school education activities • Yes - other • No – unable to use gains from training activity in current employment • Don't know

Allow selection of multiple options. Do not allow selection of "Yes" and "No" options.

3.16 QUESTION ONLY FOR THOSE WHO TICKED 'NO – UNABLE TO USE GAINS FROM TRAINING' FOR Q3.15 If you answered 'no' to the previous question, please indicate why. Tick all that apply?

• Skills/knowledge gained are not relevant to current position • No demand for language learning within current organisation • No demand for other type of learning within current organisation • Not possible to implement changes in teaching practice without change in

local/regional/national policy • Administrative difficulties • New teaching practices learned do not adhere to traditional views of

education/training within your country • Other


469


4.1 How would you rate the overall application

process? Choose one option. (This includes the quality and usability of the application form, the Guidelines for Applicants, the feedback provided on your application and the support with finding partner.)

• Very poor • Poor • Adequate • Good • Very good


4.2 How would you rate the support you received from the National Agency? Choose one option.



4.3.2 How would you rate the National Agency's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Comenius? Choose one option.



470

4.4 How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the National Agency (NA)? Choose one option.



471

Opinion of impact

5.2.X How would you rate the effect/added value of your participation in the Comenius training on your current employer organisation? Choose one option.

• Very low • Low • Moderate • High • Very high


5.3.X Would you have taken part in this kind of training activity without funding from Comenius? Choose the option which most applies.

• Yes – same training but within own country • Yes – similar course but not as appropriate to needs • Yes - if other funding could have been accessed • Yes - using own private funds • No – not possible to pursue this kind of training on a national level • No – not possible to fund this kind of training activity without Comenius grant • Other • Don't know


472

5.4.X What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? Please tick the five options which most apply.

• Greater 'European outlook' - awareness of other cultures and EU institutions • Increase in language learning opportunities provided within your

organisation • Increase in other learning opportunities provided within your organisation • Increased involvement of pupils at risk of social exclusion or with special

educational needs • Innovative changes in teaching practice • Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning • Better contacts with other European organisations • Access to a wider range of products, methods, tools, frameworks etc. • Improved organisational profile • Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies • Awareness of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning across

Europe • Awareness of innovative changes in practice • Awareness of good practice across Europe • Other


5.5.1.X LANGUAGE ASSISTANTSHIPS ONLY What were the direct benefits to the students at your host institution? Choose the three option which most apply.

• Greater 'European outlook' – awareness of other cultures and EU institutions • Increased language skills • Increased motivation to learn languages • Increased other skills, knowledge and competences • Increased support for students with specific needs • Innovative changes in teaching practice • Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning • Other


473

5.5.2.X What are the direct benefits to the students at your current employer? Select up to three options which most apply

• Greater 'European outlook' – awareness of other cultures and EU institutions • Increased language skills • Increased ICT skills • Increased other skills, knowledge and competences • Increase in language learning opportunities provided within your

organisation • Increase in other learning opportunities provided within your organisation • Increased involvement of pupils at risk of social exclusion or with special

educational needs • Innovative changes in teaching practice • Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning • Other • Don't know


5.7.X Has your employer organisation joined a Comenius Network as a result of your Comenius training?

• Yes • No • Employer already in a Comenius Network • Don't know


5.9 Do you have any other comments? We can only receive comments in English, French, Italian, German, Spanish and Polish.

Text box with 200 limited words


No Would like more information Yes Please also supply your email and a telephone number where we can contact you for a brief interview. Name E-mail Telephone Please include the international and area codes



A474

Grundtvig

1. Project activity

Instructions to

developers (not for translation)


1.1.2 Your organisation's name ------ Text box words limited to 200

1.2 Your organisation type Choose one option



A475




1.5 How did you find out about Grundtvig? Choose one option


Allow selection of 1 option only Only one word in this question differs from the same question in other questionnaires = "Grundtvig". But the responses are identical and can still be aggregated across all questionnaires.


• Previous Grundtvig project • Comenius, Erasmus, Lingua, Minerva • Previous Leonardo project • Previous eLearning project • Previous Culture 2000 project • Previous Youth project • Previous European Social Fund project • Involvement in other European project • No





A476

2. Information about your project




2.2 Which country was your lead partner based in? Choose one option.






A477

2.4 Had you previously worked with your European partners on projects? Choose one option.






2.6 In what year did your project start? Choose one option.

• 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • Don't know


2.7 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between the project partners? Choose one option. (For example how effective were the communications and working together between project partners)



A478

3. Project activity

3.1 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives

did your project contribute to? Select up to three options which most apply

• Strengthening the European dimension in education • Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources • Promoting equal opportunities • Promoting knowledge of the languages of the EU, particularly those

less widely used and taught • Promoting co-operation and mobility in education • Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials • Exploring matters of common policy interest • Don't know


3.2.G Which of the Grundtvig Action objectives did your project contribute to? Tick the two options which most apply

• Promote European co-operation in lifelong learning, notably between bodies providing adult education or remedial education

• Improve the training of persons involved in the teaching of adults, as broadly defined within the Grundtvig Action

• Promote the development of tangible ‘products’ and other results which will be of wider potential across several European countries

• Further the debate on lifelong learning and contribute to the dissemination of good practice.

• Don't know


A479

3.2.1.G Which of these areas was your project involved in? Choose the three most relevant options

• Innovation and improvement in teaching & learning processes in adult education or the training of adult education staff

• Strategies for promoting learning among the adult population • Developing strategies for adult learning as a contribution to regional/local

development • Evaluation & dissemination of results of previous projects • ICT tools; distance learning; media • Comparative studies on adult education • Prison education • Adult education for persons without school certificates / apprenticeship

certificates • Assessment, recognition, accreditation of prior learning • Quality assurance, indicators and/or benchmarking in adult education • Further training of adult educators • Opening new environments for learning , for example shopping centres,

leisure facilities, etc. • Guidance, counselling and information on adults learning • Strengthening the European dimension of institutions or publications • Education in hospitals or social care institutions • Training and counselling of project co-ordinators • Learning in libraries, museums, art galleries, etc. • Other


A480

3.3 What are the key outputs of your project? Tick all that apply.

• Exchange of experience and good practice • Partnership or network • Linguistic preparation for project participants • New curriculum • Training Course • Teaching/training methodology and strategy • Website(s) • New teaching/training material • Evaluation report(s) • Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication • Provision of periods of mobility/virtual mobility • Framework for the organisation of mobility activities • Transnational meetings (e.g. of network) • Seminars, workshops, conferences, exhibitions / fairs • Information/promotional campaign • Media materials • Other awareness-raising tool • Tools for recognition and evaluation of competences • Valorisation • Other

Each option will have a tick box Allow multiple options to be selected Rotate options if possible.




A481




3.6.1.G Who were your project's participants? Tick all that apply.

• Adult learners • Non-teaching education staff • Teachers, trainers, mentors and other educators • Other


A482





Providers, sponsors and other key actors: o Inspectors / Advisors o Government and administration / Education authorities o Training providers o Chambers of commerce / Professional bodies o Curriculum development specialists o e-Learning Industry o Publishers / Broadcasters / Multimedia content providers o Social partners (trade unions etc) o The research community o Standards bodies and working groups Other: o


A483


Yes

• By promoting equal opportunities between men and women • By addressing the needs of disabled people • By helping to combat racism and xenophobia • By helping to address socio-economic disadvantage • Other No



3.8


• a monitoring strategy? • a dedicated monitoring officer or someone responsible for project/network

monitoring? • a strategy to disseminate your project's outputs, results and learning? • a dedicated dissemination officer or someone responsible for

project/networks dissemination?



• reached all our target groups. • reached most of our target groups. • reached some of our target groups. • reached none of our target groups. • Not applicable • Don't know


A484

3.10

How did you evaluate your activity? Tick all that apply.










• met all of our initial objectives. • met most of our initial objectives. • met some of our initial objectives. • met none of our initial objectives. • Our project is not finished / too early to say.


A485

4. Opinion of management at EU and national levels

4.1

How would you rate the overall application process? Choose one option. (This includes the quality and usability of the application form, the Guidelines for Applicants, the feedback provided on your application and the support with finding partner.)



4.2.

How would you rate the support you received from the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Choose one option. (This would include aspects such as the support you received in managing, monitoring, evaluating and disseminating your project.)



A486

4.3.1 How would you rate the Commission's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Grundtvig? Choose one option.



4.3.2 How would you rate the National Agency's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Grundtvig? Choose one option.



4.4 How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the Technical Assistance Office (TAO) / Executive Agency (EACEA) / National Agency (NA)? Choose one option.



A487

5. Opinion of impact

5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 5.1.4 5.1.5 5.1.6 5.1.7 5.1.8 5.1.9 5.1.10


institutions/organisations. • The project has increased capacity for mobility of participants • The project has improved the employability/adaptability of

participants • This project has improved the employability and adaptability of

participants facing disadvantage • The project has increased the European "outlook" of individuals

and institutions • The project has improved quality of teaching/curricula. • The project has increased the teaching and learning of EU

languages • The project has improved teaching/teacher training practice,

approaches to learning and management • The project has led to the integration of methods/tools/ frameworks

into national (regional) policy and practice • This project has led to greater transparency and recognition

between member states of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc.



A488

5.1.11.G

5.1.12.G

5.1.13.G

5.1.14.G

5.1.15.G

• The project has widened access to adult learning. • The project has developed new routes into education • The project has improved information, guidance and support for

learners • The project has improved tools for validating knowledge, skills

and competencies. • The project has stimulated the exchange of good practice.

5.1.20 Would you say that within your organisation the impact of your project on curriculum has been: Choose one option

• Major across all curriculum areas • Major in some curriculum areas • Minor across all curriculum areas • Minor in some curriculum areas • No impact on the curriculum • Not applicable • Don't know



• Major across all areas of management • Major in some areas of management • Minor across all areas of management • Minor in some areas of management • No impact on management • Not applicable • Don't know


A489

5.2.1 5.2.2





5.3 Would your project have taken place without funding from Grundtvig? Choose one option

• Yes • Yes but without transnational partners • Yes but over a longer timescale • Yes but with a more limited impact without Grundtvig

'branding' and support • No • Other • Don't know


A490

5.4 What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? Select up to five options which most apply.


• Increased knowledge, skills and competences of staff participating in the project


• Increased cooperation and sharing of good practice on teaching and learning

• Improved organisational profile • Increased capacity to share good practice in future • Generated innovative changes in practice in adult

education and teacher training • Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and

pedagogical strategies including for language learning and target groups


• Other


A491

5.5.1.G What have been the main benefits of your project to the participants? Select up to five options which most apply.


• Increased foreign language skills • Increased ICT skills • Increased project management and organisation

skills • Increased other skills, knowledge and competences • Improved motivation in their work • Involvement in development of joint products with

project partners • Increased capacity to share good practice in future • Awareness of innovative changes in teaching and

teacher training practice • Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning • Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc • Better/wider spread of tools for validating

knowledge, skills and competencies • Improved capacity for mobility • Awareness of good practice in other European

countries • Access to a 'platform' for cooperation with

colleagues across Europe • Other


A492

5.6.G What have been the main benefits to your target audiences for dissemination? Select up to five options which most apply.

• Increased skills, knowledge and competences • Improved motivation in their work • Innovative changes in practice in adult education

and teacher training • Increase in supply of training/career development

opportunities • Improved quality of initial and in-service teacher

training • Improved quality of teaching methodologies and

pedagogical strategies • Increased access to mobility activities for student

teachers • Improved access to methods, tools, frameworks etc • Increased cooperation across Europe of actors in

adult education • Awareness of improvements in the quality of

teaching and learning across Europe • Awareness of good practice across Europe • Access to a 'platform' for cooperation with peers

across Europe • Other


A493

5.7

5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3

To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the action been adopted in practice?

Choose one option for each.

• within your organisation • within partner organisations • within other (non-partner) organisations



5.8

5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making? Choose one option

• at local level • at regional level • at national level • at European level





A494


No Would like more information Yes Please supply your email and a telephone number. Name: E-mail: Telephone (include international and area codes):



495

Grundtvig 3 About you

Instructions to developers

(not for translation)


Choose one option. • School • University or other higher education institution • Teacher training institution/centre • Adult education institution or organisation • Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) • Non-profit organisation • Public authority – local • Public authority – regional • Public authority - national • Private company • Research institute • Other educational institution • ICT/multimedia organisation • Other


496

1.2.1.Y What was your occupation when you received the Grundtvig training grant? Choose one option.

• Teacher / trainer (languages) • Teacher / trainer (non-languages) • Head/managerial staff of an adult education institution / organisation • Inspector • Counsellor/mentor • Careers advisor • Staff working with people at risk of social exclusion • Staff involved in intercultural education • Staff working with migrant workers, Gypsies and Travellers and

Occupational Travellers • Staff working with pupils with special education needs • Other school education staff • Other


1.2.2.Y Do you have a disability? Choose one option.

• Yes • No


1.2.3.Y What was your age when you received the Grundtvig grant? Choose one option.

• Under 20 • 20-29 • 30-39 • 40-49 • 50+


1.2.4.Y Are you: • Male • Female


1.3 Country of your employer / organisation Choose one option



497

1.5 How did you find out about Grundtvig? Choose one option




• Previous Grundtvig project • Comenius, Erasmus, Lingua, Minerva • Previous Leonardo project • Previous eLearning project • Previous Culture 2000 project • Previous Youth project • Previous European Social Fund project • Involvement in other European project • No


1.8.Y Was this the first Grundtvig 3 training grant you had received? Choose one option

• Yes • No


498

Information about your training grant

2.2.Y Which country did you visit to do your training abroad? Choose one option.



2.4.Y Had your institution previously co-operated with your host institution? Choose one option.



2.5 How did you first get in contact with your host institution? Tick all that apply.



2.6 In what year did your training abroad / period of mobility take place?

• 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • Don't know


499

2.7 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between your employer institution and the host institution?



2.8.Y What was the purpose of your grant/placement? Choose one option.

• Structured training courses • Practical placements / job shadowing / study periods in foreign institutions /

organisations • European conferences or fairs, seminars, workshops • Other


2.9.Y How much of the cost of your training did the grant from Grundtvig cover? Choose one option.

• Less than 50% • 50% - 75% • 76% - 100%


2.10.Y How did you cover the cost of your training? Tick all that apply.

• Grundtvig funding only • National funding • Funding from my employer • Personal funding • Other


500

2.11.Y What type of organisation was your host organisation? Choose one option.

• School • University or other higher education institution • Teacher training institution/centre • Adult education institution or organisation • Association (students, parents, teachers, staff etc) • Non-profit organisation • Public authority – local • Public authority – regional • Public authority - national • Private company • Research institute • Other educational institution • ICT/multimedia organisation • Other • Don't know


2.12.Y To what did your training activity relate? Tick all that apply.

• Content and delivery of adult education • Accessibility of learning opportunities for adults • Management of adult learning • System / policy level of adult education • Other


2.13.Y Was your attendance on the training course accredited? Choose one option.



2.14.Y How did you find out about your training course? Tick all that apply.

• Grundtvig Course database • Grundtvig National Agency • Employer / home institution • Other • Don't know


501

2.15.Y Was your training course developed by the host institution with funding from Grundtvig 1 (Grundtvig Co-operation Projects / Training Courses for Adult Education Staff)



502

Project activity

3.2.Y Which of the Grundtvig objectives did your training activity contribute to? Tick the two options which most apply to your training activity.

• Promote European co-operation in lifelong learning, notably between bodies providing adult education or remedial education

• Improve the training of persons involved in the teaching of adults, as broadly defined within the Grundtvig Action

• Promote the development of tangible ‘products’ and other results which will be of wider potential across several European countries

• Further the debate on lifelong learning and contribute to the dissemination of good practice.

• Don't know


3.13.Y To what extent did the training meet your objectives? Choose one option.

• Met all of my objectives. • Met most of our objectives. • Met some of our objectives. • Met none of our objectives. • Training is not finished / too early to say.


503

3.14 What are your key gains from your training activity? Tick the five options which most apply to your training activity.

• Greater European outlook – awareness of other EU cultures and EU institutions

• Opportunity to spend time in another European country • Increased understanding of the European Dimension to teaching and

learning • Increased understanding of other education systems • Increased language skills • Improved teaching skills • Understanding of new teaching techniques or methodologies • Increased other skills, knowledge and competences • Building contacts with contemporaries/colleagues in other countries • Increased co-operation with European colleagues • Increased capacity to share good practice in future • Other


3.15.Y Are you able to make use of these gains in your current employment?

• Yes – improved teaching of language already taught • Yes – teaching new language • Yes – using languages to teach other subjects • Yes – in other teaching activities • Yes – in other education activities • Yes - other • No – unable to use gains from training activity in current employment • Don't know

Allow selection of multiple options. Do not allow selection of "Yes" and "No" options.

3.16 QUESTION ONLY FOR THOSE WHO TICKED 'NO – UNABLE TO USE GAINS FROM TRAINING' FOR QU. 3.15 If you answered 'no' to the previous question, please indicate why. Tick all that apply.

• Skills/knowledge gained are not relevant to current position • No demand for language learning within current organisation • No demand for other type of learning within current organisation • Not possible to implement changes in teaching practice without change in

local/regional/national policy • Administrative difficulties • New teaching practices learned do not adhere to traditional views of

education/training within your country • Other


504


4.1

How would you rate the overall application process? Choose one option. (This includes the quality and usability of the application form, the Guidelines for Applicants, the feedback provided on your application and the support with finding partner.)



4.2 How would you rate the support you received from the National Agency? Choose one option.



4.3.2 How would you rate the National Agency's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Grundtvig? Choose one option.



4.4 How would you rate usefulness of the monitoring and evaluation activities of the National Agency (NA) to your training activity? Choose one option.



505

Opinion of impact

5.2.Y How would you rate the added value of your participation in the Grundtvig training on your current employer organisation? Choose one option.



5.3.Y Would you have taken part in this kind of training activity without funding from Grundtvig? Choose the option which most applies

• Yes – same training but within own country • Yes – similar course but not as appropriate to needs • Yes - if other funding could have been accessed • Yes - using own private funds • No – not possible to pursue this kind of training on a national level • No – not possible to fund this kind of training activity without Grundtvig

grant • Don't know


506

5.4.Y What have been the main benefits to your employer organisation? Please tick the five options which most apply.


• Increase in language learning opportunities provided within your organisation

• Increase in other learning opportunities provided within your organisation • Increased involvement of learners at risk of social exclusion or with

special educational needs • Innovative changes in teaching practice • Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning • Better contacts with other European organisations • Access to a wider range of products, methods, tools, frameworks etc. • Improved organisational profile • Increase in quality of teaching methodologies and pedagogical strategies • Awareness of improvements in the quality of teaching and learning

across Europe • Awareness of innovative changes in practice • Awareness of good practice across Europe • Other


507

5.5.1.Y What are the direct benefits to the learners at your current employer? Select up to three options which most apply


• Increased language skills • Increased ICT skills • Increased other skills, knowledge and competences • Increase in language learning opportunities provided within your

organisation • Increase in other learning opportunities provided within your organisation • Increased involvement of learners at risk of social exclusion or with

special educational needs • Innovative changes in teaching practice • Improvement in the quality of teaching and learning • Other • Don't know


5.7.Y Has your employer organisation joined a Grundtvig 1 Project or Grundtvig 4 Network as a result of your Grundtvig 3 training activity?

• Yes • No • Employer already in a Grundtvig 1 project or Grundtvig 4 Network • Don't know





No Would like more information Yes Please also supply your email and a telephone number where we can contact you for a brief interview. Name E-mail Telephone Please include the international and area codes



508

Lingua 1 About you

Instructions to developers (not for translation)



Choose one option • School • University or other higher education institution • Teacher training institution/centre • Adult education institution or organisation • Association (students, parents, teachers, staff

etc) • Non-profit organisation • Public authority – local • Public authority – regional • Public authority - national • Private company • Research institute • Other educational institution • ICT/multimedia organisation Other


509




1.4.L Which sub-action was your project funded under? Choose one option

• Lingua 1 Promotion of Language Learning • Lingua 2 Development of Tools and Materials


1.5 How did you find out about Lingua? Choose one option

• Directorate General for Education and Culture website

• Other European programme's National Agency website

• Education Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA) website

• From colleague • From other organisation / partner • From publicity event • From Directorate General Education and

Culture newsletter • From other publication • Other

Allow selection of 1 option only Only one word in this question differs from the same question in other questionnaires = "Lingua". But the responses are identical and can still be aggregated across all questionnaires.

510


• Previous Lingua project • Comenius, Grundtvig, Erasmus, Minerva • Previous Leonardo project • Previous eLearning project • Previous Culture 2000 project • Previous Youth project • Previous European Social Fund project • Involvement in other European project • No





511









• School • University or other higher education institution • Teacher training institution/centre • Adult education institution or organisation • Association (students, parents, teachers, staff

etc) • Non-profit organisation • Public authority – local • Public authority – regional • Public authority - national • Private company • Research institute • Other educational institution • ICT/multimedia organisation • Other


512





• Through involvement in a previous project • Existing network • Contact seminar • Preparatory visit • Partners database • Pro-active recruitment based on reputation and/or

status • Other



• 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • Don't know





513

Project activity

3.1 Which of the Socrates Programme objectives did your project contribute to? Select up to three options which most apply

• Strengthening the European dimension in education

• Facilitating wide transnational access to educational resources

• Promoting equal opportunities • Promoting knowledge of the languages of

the EU, particularly those less widely used and taught

• Promoting co-operation and mobility in education

• Encouraging innovation in educational practice and materials

• Exploring matters of common policy interest • Don't know


514

3.2.1.L Which of the Lingua 1 objectives did your project contribute to? Please ignore this question if your project is Lingua 2. Select up to three options which most apply.

• Raising citizens’ awareness of the multilingual character of the EU

• Raising citizens awareness of the advantages of lifelong language learning

• Encouraging citizens to take up language learning

• Improving access to language learning resources

• Increasing support available to those learning languages

• Promoting the dissemination of information about innovative techniques and good practices in foreign language teaching in Europe

• Don't know

This question needs to be restricted so that only three options (max.) can be ticked

3.2.2.L Which of the Lingua 2 objectives did/does your project contribute to? Please ignore this question if your project is Lingua 1. Tick the option which most applies

• Educational media and materials for foreign language teaching

• Educational media and materials for raising awareness of languages

• Methods and tools to recognise and evaluate language skills

• Curricula • Don't know

This question needs to be restricted so that only one option (max.) can be ticked.

515

3.2.3.L Which language(s) did your project target? Tick all that apply

• Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish, other.


516


• Exchange of experience and good practice • Partnership or network • Linguistic preparation for project participants • New curriculum • Training Course • Teaching/training methodology and strategy • Website(s) • New teaching/training material • Evaluation report(s) • Research report(s) / article(s)/other publication • Provision of periods of mobility/virtual mobility • Framework for the organisation of mobility

activities • Transnational meetings (e.g. of network) • Seminars, workshops, conferences ,exhibitions

/ fairs • Information/promotional campaign • Media materials • Other awareness-raising tool • Tools for recognition and evaluation of

competences • Valorisation • Other

Each option will have a tick box. Allow multiple options to be selected

517






Q3.5 to pop up and be answered only if respondent selects final 2 options at Q3.4 (Not in use / don't know)

518

3.6.1.L Who were your project's participants? Tick all that apply.

• University students • School teachers • Decision-makers and education specialists • Schools • Universities • Teacher training institutions • Adult education institutions • Associations (students, parents, teachers, staff

etc) • Non-profit organisations • Private companies • Other institutions providing educational

opportunities for adults • Organisations with an interest in language

teaching and learning • ICT/media organisations • Other


519

3.6.2

Who were your project's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? Tick all that apply.

Practitioners: o Teachers (school) o Teachers/trainers (higher

education) o Teachers/trainers/tutors (adult

education) o Trainers of teachers/trainers/tutors o Other practitioners Learners:

o Learners o Apprentices / Workers o The unemployed o Persons with special needs /

disadvantaged groups o Citizens in general / general public Support staff: o Administrative staff in schools,

including head teachers o Administrative staff in higher

education establishments o Other administrative staff Policy: o Policy / decision-makers at

national level o Policy / decision-makers at

regional level o Policy / decision-makers at local

level o Policy / decision-makers at

European level Providers, sponsors and other key actors: o Inspectors / Advisors o Government and administration /

Education authorities o Training providers o Chambers of commerce /

Professional bodies o Curriculum development

specialists o e-Learning Industry o Publishers / Broadcasters /

Multimedia content providers o Social partners (trade unions etc)


520


Yes..


• By addressing the needs of disabled people • By helping to combat racism and xenophobia • By helping to address socio-economic

disadvantage • Other No



3.8


• a monitoring strategy? • a dedicated monitoring officer or someone

responsible for project/network monitoring? • a strategy to disseminate your project's outputs,

results and learning? • a dedicated dissemination officer or someone

responsible for project/networks dissemination?



• Reached all our target groups • Reached most of our target groups • Reached some of our target groups • Reached none of our target groups • Not applicable • Don't know


521

3.10




3.11 Will the project activities continue after the end of the funding? Choose one option.



3.12 Will the partnership continue? Choose one option.

• Yes, all partners will continue to work together • Yes, most partners will continue to work

together • Yes, some partners will continue to work

together • No • Don’t know


3.13 To what extent did the project/network meet your initial objectives? Choose one option.



522


4.1




4.2




4.3.1

How would you rate the Commission's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Lingua? Choose one option.



523

4.4




524








approaches to learning and management • The project has led to the integration of methods/tools/

frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice • This project has led to greater transparency and recognition




525

5.1.11.L 5.1.12.L 5.1.13.L

• The project has increased access to, diversity and quality of language training opportunities available.

• The project has improved teaching, approaches to learning and management in relation to specific target groups and languages.

• The project has informed practitioners and policy makers across Europe of learning/innovations from the action.


project on the curriculum has been: Choose one option

• Major across all curriculum areas

• Major in some curriculum areas

• Minor across all curriculum areas

• Minor in some curriculum areas

• No impact on curriculum • Not applicable • Don't know


526



• Major in some areas of management

• Minor across all areas of management

• Minor in some areas of management

• No impact on management • Not applicable • Don't know


5.2.1 5.2.2




Allow one option to be selected for each.

527

5.3 Would your project have taken place without funding from Lingua? Choose one option.

• Yes • Yes but without

transnational partners • Yes but over a longer

timescale • Yes but with a more limited

impact without Lingua 'branding' and support



528

5.4.L What have been the main benefits of your project to your organisation? Select up to five options which most apply


• Increased skills, knowledge and competences of staff participating in Lingua project

• Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools and frameworks

• Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners' competences

• Innovative changes in practice in language teaching and learning • Improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning • Improved equipment and educational software • Increased cooperation and sharing of good practice among

language teaching professionals and those responsible for language teaching policies across Europe

• Increased capacity to share good practice in future • Improved organisational profile • Improved information, guidance and support services for learners

and providers • Increase in number of learners taking up opportunities at your

organisation • Greater diversity of learners taking up opportunities at your



529

5.5.1.L What have been the direct benefits of your project to your participants? Select up to five options which most apply.


• Increased skills, knowledge and competences • Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools

and frameworks • Increased awareness of innovation/good practice in language

teaching and learning • Increased cooperation with colleagues from European partner

organisations • Involvement in development of joint products with project partners • Improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning • Improved equipment and educational software • Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners'

competences • Other


530

5.6.L What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? Select up to five options which most apply.


• Increased awareness of importance of language-learning • Increased awareness of availability of language-learning

opportunities • Increased motivation to learn languages • Increased skills, knowledge and competences • Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools


teaching and learning • Improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning • Improved equipment and educational software • Improved information, guidance and support services • Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners'

competences • Increased diversity of language teaching and learning opportunities

available • Other


531

5.7

5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3


Choose one option for each

• within your organisation • within partner organisations • within other (non-partner)

organisations



5.8

5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making?





532




No Would like more information Yes Please also supply your email and a telephone number where we can contact you for a brief interview. Name E-mail Telephone: Please include the international and area codes

If they select 'Would like more information' or 'Yes' provide the pop up box to collect personal data.


533

Minerva About you

Instructions to developers (not for translation)




etc) • Non-profit organisation • Public authority – local • Public authority – regional • Public authority - national • Private company • Research institute • Other educational institution • ICT/multimedia organisation Other


534




1.4.L Which sub-action was your project funded under? Choose one option

• Lingua 1 Promotion of Language Learning • Lingua 2 Development of Tools and Materials


1.5 How did you find out about Lingua? Choose one option







535


• Previous Lingua project • Comenius, Grundtvig, Erasmus, Minerva • Previous Leonardo project • Previous eLearning project • Previous Culture 2000 project • Previous Youth project • Previous European Social Fund project • Involvement in other European project • No





536












537






status • Other



• 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • Don't know





538

Project activity










539

3.2.1.L Which of the Lingua 1 objectives did your project contribute to? Please ignore this question if your project is Lingua 2. Select up to three options which most apply.

• Raising citizens’ awareness of the multilingual character of the EU

• Raising citizens awareness of the advantages of lifelong language learning

• Encouraging citizens to take up language learning

• Improving access to language learning resources

• Increasing support available to those learning languages

• Promoting the dissemination of information about innovative techniques and good practices in foreign language teaching in Europe

• Don't know

This question needs to be restricted so that only three options (max.) can be ticked

3.2.2.L Which of the Lingua 2 objectives did/does your project contribute to? Please ignore this question if your project is Lingua 1. Tick the option which most applies

• Educational media and materials for foreign language teaching

• Educational media and materials for raising awareness of languages

• Methods and tools to recognise and evaluate language skills

• Curricula • Don't know

This question needs to be restricted so that only one option (max.) can be ticked.

540

3.2.3.L Which language(s) did your project target? Tick all that apply

• Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovene, Spanish, Swedish, other.


541






Each option will have a tick box. Allow multiple options to be selected

542







543

3.6.1.L Who were your project's participants? Tick all that apply.

• University students • School teachers • Decision-makers and education specialists • Schools • Universities • Teacher training institutions • Adult education institutions • Associations (students, parents, teachers, staff

etc) • Non-profit organisations • Private companies • Other institutions providing educational

opportunities for adults • Organisations with an interest in language

teaching and learning • ICT/media organisations • Other


544

3.6.2

Who were your project's target audiences for the dissemination of outputs and results? Tick all that apply.



education) o Trainers of teachers/trainers/tutors o Other practitioners Learners:


disadvantaged groups o Citizens in general / general public Support staff: o Administrative staff in schools,










Multimedia content providers o Social partners (trade unions etc)


545


Yes..






3.8








• Reached all our target groups • Reached most of our target groups • Reached some of our target groups • Reached none of our target groups • Not applicable • Don't know


546

3.10




3.11 Will the project activities continue after the end of the funding? Choose one option.



3.12 Will the partnership continue? Choose one option.





3.13 To what extent did the project/network meet your initial objectives? Choose one option.



547


4.1




4.2




4.3.1

How would you rate the Commission's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Lingua? Choose one option.



548

4.4




549








approaches to learning and management • The project has led to the integration of methods/tools/

frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice • This project has led to greater transparency and recognition




550

5.1.11.L 5.1.12.L 5.1.13.L

• The project has increased access to, diversity and quality of language training opportunities available.

• The project has improved teaching, approaches to learning and management in relation to specific target groups and languages.

• The project has informed practitioners and policy makers across Europe of learning/innovations from the action.


project on the curriculum has been: Choose one option

• Major across all curriculum areas

• Major in some curriculum areas

• Minor across all curriculum areas

• Minor in some curriculum areas

• No impact on curriculum • Not applicable • Don't know


551



• Major in some areas of management

• Minor across all areas of management

• Minor in some areas of management

• No impact on management • Not applicable • Don't know


5.2.1 5.2.2




Allow one option to be selected for each.

552

5.3 Would your project have taken place without funding from Lingua? Choose one option.

• Yes • Yes but without

transnational partners • Yes but over a longer

timescale • Yes but with a more limited

impact without Lingua 'branding' and support



553

5.4.L What have been the main benefits of your project to your organisation? Select up to five options which most apply


• Increased skills, knowledge and competences of staff participating in Lingua project

• Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools and frameworks

• Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners' competences

• Innovative changes in practice in language teaching and learning • Improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning • Improved equipment and educational software • Increased cooperation and sharing of good practice among

language teaching professionals and those responsible for language teaching policies across Europe

• Increased capacity to share good practice in future • Improved organisational profile • Improved information, guidance and support services for learners

and providers • Increase in number of learners taking up opportunities at your

organisation • Greater diversity of learners taking up opportunities at your



554

5.5.1.L What have been the direct benefits of your project to your participants? Select up to five options which most apply.


• Increased skills, knowledge and competences • Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools


teaching and learning • Increased cooperation with colleagues from European partner

organisations • Involvement in development of joint products with project partners • Improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning • Improved equipment and educational software • Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners'

competences • Other


555

5.6.L What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? Select up to five options which most apply.


• Increased awareness of importance of language-learning • Increased awareness of availability of language-learning

opportunities • Increased motivation to learn languages • Increased skills, knowledge and competences • Wider access to language learning opportunities, methods, tools


teaching and learning • Improvement in the quality of language teaching and learning • Improved equipment and educational software • Improved information, guidance and support services • Improvement in recognition/recording of language learners'

competences • Increased diversity of language teaching and learning opportunities

available • Other


556

5.7

5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3



• within your organisation • within partner organisations • within other (non-partner)

organisations



5.8

5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making?





557




No Would like more information Yes Please also supply your email and a telephone number where we can contact you for a brief interview. Name E-mail Telephone: Please include the international and area codes

If they select 'Would like more information' or 'Yes' provide the pop up box to collect personal data.


ECOTEC

A558

1 About you

Instructions to developers (not for

translation)









ECOTEC

A559

1.5 How did you find out about Minerva? Choose one option






Allow selection of 1 option only Only one word in this question differs from the same question in other questionnaires = "Minerva". But the responses are identical and can still be aggregated across all questionnaires.


• Previous Minerva project • Comenius, Grundtvig, Lingua, Erasmus • Previous Leonardo project • Previous eLearning project • Previous Culture 2000 project • Previous Youth project • Previous European Social Fund project • Involvement in other European project • No





ECOTEC

A560

2 Information about your project














ECOTEC

A561



status • Other



• 2000 • 2001 • 2002 • 2003 • 2004 • 2005 • 2006 • Don't know


2.7 How satisfied are you about the cooperation between the project partners? Choose one option (For example how effective were the communications and working together between project partners)



ECOTEC

A562

Project activity










3.2.M Which of the Minerva objectives did your project contribute to? Select up to two options which most apply

• To promote understanding of the implications of ODL and ICT for education

• To promote understanding of the critical and responsible use of ICT for educational purposes

• To ensure that pedagogical considerations are given proper weight in the development of ICT and multimedia-based educational products and services

• To promote access to improved methods and educational resources as well as to results and best practices in this field

• Don't know


ECOTEC

A563

3.3 What are the key outputs of your project? Tick all that apply.





Each option will have a tick box Allow multiple options to be selected Rotate options if possible.




ECOTEC

A564




3.6.1.M

Who were your project's participants? Tick all that apply.

• Resource centres or other organisations with expertise in the field of ICT in education and/or ODL

• Schools • Universities • Adult education institutions or organisations • Distance education institutions • Teacher training institutions • Associations of teachers and learners • Research teams working in the field of ICT in

education and/or ODL • Academic/educational associations or consortia

at national or European level • Organisations/institutions involved in

educational innovation • ICT/media organisations • Other


ECOTEC

A565




education) o Trainers of

teachers/trainers/tutors o Other practitioners Learners:


disadvantaged groups o Citizens in general / general

public Support staff: o Administrative staff in schools,










Multimedia content providers o Social partners (trade unions

etc)


ECOTEC

A566


Yes..





Allow multiple options to be selected within "Yes". Do not allow "Yes" and "No" responses.

3.8








• Have reached all our target groups • Have reached most of our target groups • Have reached some of our target groups • Have reached none of our target groups • Not applicable • Don't know


3.10




ECOTEC

A567












ECOTEC

A568


4.1




4.2




4.3.1

How would you rate the Commission's activity to disseminate the outputs, results and learning from Minerva? Choose one option



4.4

How would you rate the monitoring and evaluation activities of the Technical Assistance Office (TAO)/ Executive Agency (EACEA) /National Agency (NA) have been to your project? Choose one option.



ECOTEC

A569

Opinion of impact

5.1.1

5.1.2

5.1.3

5.1.4

5.1.5

5.1.6

5.1.7

5.1.8

5.1.9

5.1.10

How far do you agree or disagree with the following statements about the impact of your project? Choose one option for each (If your project is still ongoing, please complete all questions referring only to your activities, progress and achievements to date.) • The project has increased and sustained

cooperation amongst institutions/organisations.

• The project has increased capacity for mobility of participants

• The project has improved the employability/adaptability of participants

• This project has improved the employability and adaptability of participants facing disadvantage

• The project has increased the European "outlook" of individuals and institutions

• The project has improved quality of teaching/curricula.

• The project has increased the teaching and learning of EU languages

• The project has improved teaching/teacher training practice, approaches to learning and management

• The project has led to the integration of methods/tools/ frameworks into national (regional) policy and practice

• This project has led to greater transparency and recognition between member states of curricula, study programmes, qualifications etc.



ECOTEC

A570

5.1.11 • The project has led to the convergence of policy and practice between EU Member States in relation to ICT and ODL

5.1.20 Would you say that within your

organisation the impact of your project on the curriculum has been: Choose one option





• Major in some areas of management • Minor across all areas of

management • Minor in some areas of management • No impact on management • Not applicable • Don't know


5.2.1 5.2.2





ECOTEC

A571

5.3 Would your project have taken place without funding from Minerva? Choose one option

• Yes • Yes but without transnational

partners • Yes but over a longer timescale • Yes but with a more limited impact

without Minerva 'branding' and support



ECOTEC

A572

5.4.M What have been the main benefits of this project to your organisation? Select up to five options which most apply

• Improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models on education and training

• Innovative changes in practice in teaching and learning



• Improved equipment and educational software

• Increased dialogue/cooperation on ODL/ICT

• Increased awareness of innovation/good practice in other European countries

• Improved information services and systems

• Improved organisational profile • Greater 'European outlook' -

awareness of other cultures and EU institutions

• Increased knowledge, skills and competences of participants in Minerva project


• Other


ECOTEC

A573

5.5.1.M What have been the direct benefits to your project's participants? Select up to five options which most apply

• Improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models on the organisation of learning/teaching



• Increased dialogue/cooperation on ODL / ICT with participating organisations and individuals







• Increased ICT skills • Increased other skills, knowledge

and competences • Other


ECOTEC

A574

5.6.M What have been the main benefits of your project to your target audiences for dissemination? Select up to five options which most apply

• Improved understanding of the impact of ICT and/or ODL models on education and training

• Innovative changes in practice in teaching and learning




• Increased dialogue/cooperation on ODL/ICT



• Other

This question needs to be restricted so that only five options (max.) can be ticked The five options should be recorded in different columns of the database. Rotate options if possible.

5.7

5.7.1 5.7.2 5.7.3

To what extent have the results or learning from your project / network funded through the action been adopted in practice? Choose one option for each within your organisation within partner organisations within other (non-partner) organisations



5.8

5.8.1 5.8.2 5.8.3 5.8.4

To what extent have the results or learning from your project been adopted in policy-making? Choose one option for each • at local level • at regional level • at national level • at European level



ECOTEC

A575




No Would like more information Yes Please supply your email and a daytime telephone number where we can contact you for a brief interview. Name E-mail address Your daytime telephone number (Including the international and area codes):



ECOTEC

A576

Annex Fourteen: Topic guides for co-ordinators, partners, stakeholders and Erasmus co-ordinators

ECOTEC

A577

Topic guides

This annex contains three topic guides:

• Stakeholders, national agencies and EU and EACEA staff • Project co-ordinators and partners • Erasmus co-ordinators

ECOTEC

A578

This topic guide is for use with four audiences:

A: EU STAFF AND Executive Agency

B: Stakeholders

C: National Agencies at Socrates top-level (one person)

D: Case study interviews with NA's on specific Actions/sub-Actions/programmes/activities (more than one person)

Introduction/overview

This document gives a general indication of the topics to be explored during the interview with each of the four audiences listed above. The topic guide should be tailored to suit the audience being interviewed, and full instructions are given throughout. For some questions probes are provided in italics to encourage the interviewee to respond. Please take written notes during the interview. Responses will be written up into a grid designed to match the questions being asked. Responses will be analysed in conjunction with documents collected and other sources of evidence (survey). The purpose of these interviews is to establish how the programmes have been managed and the impacts achieved, identify success factors, problems overcome, continuing weaknesses, specific examples of best practice and recommendations for the future.

Explain ECOTEC's evaluation and introduce self.

Any questions before we begin?

1 BACKGROUND (5 mins)

Description of interviewee's involvement with the programme.

2 RELEVANCE (5-10 mins)

• What are the key needs in [Insert subject area specific to Action as appropriate: adult education, schools, further education, ICT and open and distance learning (etc).] in:

- Europe in general? - Your country?

• How relevant are the objectives of the [insert programme/Action] to these needs: - In Europe in general? - In your country? • How well do the types of activities/projects carried out reflect the objectives of the [insert

programme/Action]?

ECOTEC

A579

[Leonardo only – overall to what extent do the projects carried out reflect the objectives of the programme? To a great extent / to a small extent / not at all]

• How have EU-level objectives etc. been tailored to your national context? (e.g. in the application and selection procedure or criteria) [Leonardo only – overall to what extent etc…. To a great extent / to a small extent / not at all]

• What influence have national priorities had on project selection and how has this been manifested? [Leonardo only – overall to what extent etc…. To a great extent / to a small extent / not at all]

• What degree of flexibility has there been to develop or revise the objectives during the implementation phase, in the light of experience gained? [Leonardo only – overall to what extent etc…. To a great extent / to a small extent / not at all]

• To what extent does the [insert programme/Action] complement national and European education and training systems and policies? [Leonardo only – overall to what extent etc…. To a great extent / to a small extent / not at all]

3 EFFICIENCY (5-10 mins) ASK SECTION 3 ONLY TO THOSE AWARE OF THE ADMINISTRATION/ IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROGRAMMES.

Design of calls and application and selection process • What were the strengths and weaknesses in the administration of the application and

selection processes? Probe on – Design of the call, promotion of calls, accessibility of calls, quality of information /materials supporting the call process?

• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the selection and contracting process for

successful applicants? Probe on - any delays, clarity, transparency, feedback provided?

Implementation • What was required from the projects in terms of: • management, and monitoring? • evaluation and dissemination? - Probe: How effective were these?

ECOTEC

A580

• What ongoing support was provided to the projects? • What was done to encourage networking, dissemination and exchange between

applicants? - Probe: How effective were these? Project performance • How have projects performed in terms of: • starting and finishing on time? • completing on budget? • meeting their objectives? • producing the expected outputs? • value for money (cost versus outputs/results achieved)? NA, EA and Commission performance • How have NAs, EA and COM performed in terms of managing budgets, meeting their

objectives, supporting projects and dissemination? [Leonardo only – clarify the rating on each of these aspects following the qualitative discussion - overall to what extent etc…. very/poor/adequate/good/very good]

4 EFFECTIVENESS (15 mins)

For the evaluation we have produced a typology of expected outputs and results that might be seen from the projects (OVERLEAF). We would like to discuss project outputs and results with you in more detail using this typology as a guide. [Interviewer note: use the below typology as a set of prompts/probes to help the interviewee explore the types of outputs that projects in their country / in the programme may have had].

Outputs (use as probes)

Results (use as probes)

Transnational mobility (study periods and virtual mobility) for students, teachers and trainers

- Greater European outlook - Increased knowledge, skills and competencies - Professional development of teachers


- Greater European outlook - Increased co-operation between institutions - Increased capacity to share best practice - Innovative changes in practice and improvements

in the quality of teaching and learning - Improved information, guidance and support

services for learners and providers

Methods, courses, programmes, tools and frameworks

- Wider access to methods, courses, programmes, tools etc.

- Innovative changes in practice and improvements in the quality of teaching and learning

- Improved equipment and educational software - Improved information, guidance and support

services for learners and providers - More attention for entrepreneurship in education

ECOTEC

A581

Outputs • What types of outputs have been produced in your country/across the programme?

Probe using the headings from outputs column above - MOBILITY - NETWORKS - METHODS

• Are the outputs produced appropriate to the programme objectives? • Are they of high quality? • What did the outputs lead to? (i.e. What results were achieved from the outputs? Use

list above as a prompt) Exploitation and dissemination [Note to interviewer: Clarify the definition that we are using of dissemination and exploitation is understood by the interviewee.] Now I would like to speak to you about dissemination and exploitation. This is often taken to mean the initial promotion of the project. In this case we mean the dissemination of project outputs, results and learning during and after the life of the project. Exploitation is where outputs, results and learning from one project are picked up and used elsewhere, perhaps being adapted in the process. • Have outputs been disseminated to specific target groups (policy-makers, teachers,

students etc.)? was this appropriate? Probe: dissemination activities both by projects and by Commission, EA, NAs

• What evidence is there that outputs have been taken up, used or exploited by target groups? What has the result of this exploitation been?

5 IMPACTS (15 mins)

Can you provide any evidence of how the outputs discussed above have been translated into impacts in terms of the following? [Interviewer note: use the below typology as a set of prompts/probes to help the interviewee explore the types of impacts that projects in their country / in the programme may have had].

ECOTEC

A582

Expected Impacts Interviewer note: Write in any impacts noted by interviewee and evidence of how the impact has been felt/seen. Impacts Write in below Increased proficiency in EU languages Increased teaching and learning of EU languages? More people speaking foreign languages, especially less widely used ones?

Positive effects in teaching and learning Positive effects on the curriculum? Positive effects on teacher training? Positive effects on management? Improvements in the attractiveness of the teaching profession in VET?

Socio-economic impacts Increased mobility? Improved employment prospects? Increased active citizenship? Policy impacts Integration of methods, tools and frameworks into national and regional education and training policy?

Convergence of policy and practice between Member States?

Greater transparency and recognition of qualifications (including recognition of non-formal learning and work experience)?

Creation of a European education area Development of self-sustaining networks/ communities of interest in lifelong learning at EU level?

Creation of cooperation activity and sustainable partnerships?

Increased ‘European outlook’ for professionals and students?

• What were the most significant impacts in your country?

Probe: - What were the reasons for this? - Which programmes/Actions/project activities contributed most and in what ways?

ECOTEC

A583

• How important are the relative contributions of the different programmes/Actions/project activities to the overall objectives of EU policy in education and training? Probe:

- Transnational mobility? - Networks, platforms and partnerships? - Methods, courses, programmes, tools and frameworks?

• Has the programmes/Actions/project activities had any impact on other policy areas at

European or national level? In what ways? Probe: for example ICT policy, social inclusion policy etc

6 OTHER COMMENTS (2-3 mins)

Are there any good practice/lessons learned for the future?

Any further comments?

7 FURTHER ANALYSIS, CASE STUDIES ETC. (2-3 mins)

• Please suggest any projects, partnerships or individuals (in your country) that you consider may be able to provide examples of best practice and are worthy of in-depth analysis.

• Please suggest any stakeholders, social partners or experts who might provide us with

valuable inputs to our evaluation. [Interviewer note: Please make a note of any projects or stakeholders that are recommended.]

Thank you for your help.

Thank and close.

ECOTEC

A584

Topic Guide for Project Co-ordinators and Partners


This document gives a general indication of the topics to be explored during the interview. Please review any existing information held about the project before the interview [including any information from online survey or project documentation already held]. For some questions probes are provided in italics to encourage the interviewee to respond. Please take written notes during the interview. Responses should be written up into a grid designed to match the questions being asked. Responses to the interviews will be analysed in conjunction with documents collected and other sources of evidence (survey). The purpose of interviews with project coordinators is to establish how the projects have been managed and the impact achieved, identify success factors, problems overcome, continuing weaknesses, specific examples of best practice and recommendations for the future. The bulk of the interview time should be devoted to effectiveness and impact.

Explain ECOTEC's evaluation and introduce self. Any questions before we begin?

1. BACKGROUND

Description of interviewee's involvement with the programme. [Establish if project manager/project partner etc and their role].

2. PROJECT INFORMATION [Only ask this section if information is not already available from online survey]

• Name of project • Which programme/Action/sub-Action was the project funded under? • Briefly describe the project: - Aims and objectives - Deliverables - Intended outcomes and impacts • Check start and end dates? • Was your organisation the lead partner for the project? • How many partners? what types of organisations were partners? which countries? • How satisfied were you about the cooperation and working together between the project

partners? Please explain.

• Before this project/network, did your have any previous experience of European projects? Please explain.

ECOTEC

A585

3. EFFICIENCY

The application and selection process • What worked and didn't work in the administration of the application and selection

processes? Probe on - Promotion of calls, accessibility of calls, quality of all information /materials?

• What worked and didn't work in the selection and contracting process for successful

applicants? Probe on - any delays, clarity, transparency, feedback provided?

Implementation • What was required from your project in terms of: • management, and monitoring? • evaluation and dissemination? - Probe: How effective were these? • What ongoing support was provided to your project? • What was done to encourage networking, dissemination and exchange between

projects? - Probe: How effective were these? Project performance • How has your project performed in terms of: • starting and finishing on time? • completing on budget? • meeting your objectives? • producing the expected outputs? • value for money (cost versus outputs/results achieved)?

ECOTEC

A586

4. EFFECTIVENESS

For the evaluation we have produced a typology of expected outputs and results that might be seen from the projects (OVERLEAF). We would like to discuss your projects outputs and results in more detail using this typology as a guide. [Interviewer note: use the below typology as a set of prompts to help the interviewee explore the types of outputs that their project has had].

Outputs Results Transnational mobility (study periods and virtual mobility) for students, teachers and trainers

- Greater European outlook - Increased knowledge, skills and

competencies - Professional development of teachers


- Greater European outlook - Increased co-operation between

institutions - Increased capacity to share best practice - Innovative changes in practice and

improvements in the quality of teaching and learning

- Improved information, guidance and support services for learners and providers




- Improved equipment and educational software


- More attention for entrepreneurship in education

Outputs • What types of outputs have been produced in your project?

Probe using the headings from outputs column above - MOBILITY - NETWORKS - METHODS

• Are the outputs produced appropriate to the programme objectives? • Are they of high quality? • What did the outputs lead to? (i.e. What results were achieved from the outputs? Use

list above as a prompt)

ECOTEC

A587

Exploitation and dissemination [Note to interviewer: Clarify the definition that we are using of dissemination and exploitation is understood by the interviewee.] Now I would like to speak to you about dissemination and exploitation. This is often taken to mean the initial promotion of the project. In this case we mean the dissemination of project outputs, results and learning during and after the life of the project. Exploitation is where outputs, results and learning from one project are picked up and used elsewhere, perhaps being adapted in the process. • What was your dissemination strategy? • To which specific target groups were your project outputs disseminated (policy-makers,

teachers, students etc.) and how were they designed to be appropriate/targeted to specific target groups?

• What evidence is there that outputs have been taken up, used or exploited by target groups? Probe: use the headings MOBILITY, NETWORKS, METHODS to explore examples]

5. IMPACTS

Can you provide any evidence of how the outputs/results discussed above have been translated into impacts in terms of the following? [Interviewer note: use the below typology as a set of prompts/probes to help the interviewee explore the types of impacts that projects in their country / in the programme may have had].



Socio-economic impacts Increased mobility? Improved employment prospects? Increased active citizenship?

ECOTEC

A588

Policy impacts Integration of methods, tools and frameworks into national and regional education and training policy?

Convergence of policy and practice between Member States?

Greater transparency and recognition of qualifications (including recognition of non-formal learning and work experience)?





Probe: - What were the reasons for this? - Which programmes/Actions/project activities contributed most and in what ways? • How important are the relative contributions of the different programmes/Actions/project

activities to the overall objectives of EU policy in education and training? Probe:


• Has the programmes/Actions/project activities had any impact on other policy areas at

European or national level? In what ways? Probe: for example ICT policy, social inclusion policy etc

6. OTHER COMMENTS




Thank and close.

ECOTEC

A589

Topic Guide for Erasmus Co-ordinators


This document gives a general indication of the topics to be explored during the interview. Please review any existing information held about the project before the interview [including any information from online survey or project documentation already held]. For some questions probes are provided in italics to encourage the interviewee to respond. Please take written notes during the interview. Responses should be written up into a grid designed to match the questions being asked. Responses to the interviews will be analysed in conjunction with documents collected and other sources of evidence (survey). The purpose of interviews with project coordinators is to establish how the projects have been managed and the impact achieved, identify success factors, problems overcome, continuing weaknesses, specific examples of best practice and recommendations for the future. The bulk of the interview time should be devoted to effectiveness and impact.

Explain ECOTEC's evaluation and introduce self. Any questions before we begin?

1. BACKGROUND

Description of interviewee's involvement with the programme. [Establish if project manager/project partner etc and their role].

2. EFFICIENCY

• What worked and didn't work in the administration of the application and selection processes for your ERASMUS University Charter? Probe on - Promotion of calls, accessibility of calls, quality of all information /materials?

• What are your views on the allocation of grants to the institutions? Implementation • What was required from your project in terms of management/monitoring/evaluation or

your mobility activity? - Probe: How effective were these? • What ongoing support was provided to your project? Activity performance • How has your project performed in terms of: • allocating grants/using all the fund?

ECOTEC

A590

• meeting your objectives? • producing the expected outputs?

3. EFFECTIVENESS

For the evaluation we have produced a typology of expected outputs and results that might be seen from the projects (OVERLEAF). We would like to discuss your projects outputs and results in more detail using this typology as a guide. [Interviewer note: use the below typology as a set of prompts to help the interviewee explore the types of outputs that their project has had].

Outputs Results Transnational mobility (study periods and virtual mobility) for students, teachers and trainers

- Greater European outlook - Increased knowledge, skills and

competencies - Professional development of teachers


- Greater European outlook - Increased co-operation between

institutions - Increased capacity to share best practice - Innovative changes in practice and

improvements in the quality of teaching and learning





- Improved equipment and educational software


- More attention for entrepreneurship in education

Outputs • What types of outputs have been produced in your activity? • Are the outputs produced appropriate to the programme objectives? • Are they of high quality? • What did the outputs lead to?

ECOTEC

A591

4. IMPACTS

Can you provide any evidence of how the outputs/results discussed above have been translated into impacts in terms of the following? [Interviewer note: use the below typology as a set of prompts/probes to help the interviewee explore the types of impacts that projects in their country / in the programme may have had]. (On staff, students and the community).



Socio-economic impacts Increased mobility? Improved employment prospects? Increased active citizenship? Policy impacts Integration of methods, tools and frameworks into national and regional education and training policy?

Convergence of policy and practice between Member States? Greater transparency and recognition of qualifications (including recognition of non-formal learning and work experience)?




ECOTEC

A592


Probe: - What were the reasons for this? - Which programmes/Actions/project activities contributed most and in what ways? • How important are the relative contributions of the mobility activities to the overall

objectives of EU policy in education and training? Probe:


• Has the mobility activities had any impact on other policy areas at European or national

level? In what ways? Probe: for example ICT policy, social inclusion policy etc

5. OTHER COMMENTS




Thank and close.

Joint Report on the Final Evaluation of Socrates II ... · Socrates II was the Community Action...

Documents

Transcript of Joint Report on the Final Evaluation of Socrates II ... · Socrates II was the Community Action...