| No. |
Performance
indicator |
Themes |
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
1.
|
Quality
of the prior information to the Hagen meeting
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1.1. |
Input
into the Hagen meeting by the project co-ordinator |
1.
Travel/hotel arrangements
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.
Contents matter/organisation of Hagen meeting |
|
|
|
|
| 3.
Distribution of work among project partners |
|
|
|
|
| 4.
Time schedule |
|
|
|
|
| 2. |
Quality
of the transnational element |
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.1. |
Input
of the Hagen meeting by all project partners |
1.
The extent to which the project co-ordinator (Verband Wiener Volksbildung) has
contributed to the Hagen meeting (overall impression)
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.
The extent to which the other project partners have contributed
to the Hagen meeting (overall impression, each partner has
played a role in the preparation and delivery of the Hagen
meeting according to an agreed prior division of roles and responsibilities). |
|
|
|
|
| 3.
The evidence of project partners sharing roles and responsibilities
during the Hagen meeting (overall impression of the collaborative
aproach and team work) |
|
|
|
|
| 2.2. |
Links
between the
aims of the Hagen meeting and the overall aims of the project.
|
1.
Mutual understanding amongst the project partners about the
project targets and aims and the Hagen rationale.
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.
The short term objectives of the Hagen meeting (e.g. further
agreements on further timelines, tasks and milestones) |
|
|
|
|
| 3.
The long term objectives of the project (e.g. evaluation procedures) |
|
|
|
|
| 4.
Evidence in the Hagen programme of real synergy with
the overall objectives of the project (detailed discussion, knowledge available, further steps etc.) |
|
|
|
|
| 3. |
Development
of positive attitudes towards Europe |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.1. |
Promotion
of co-operation among project partners |
The
extent of opportunities for project partners to share information and needs of the target groups for the final project product
(different modules on VLE) |
|
|
|
|
| 3.2. |
Promotion
of other languages among project partners |
1.
Extent and quality of the opportunities for the use of various
languages by all project partners (e.g. languages support by
the bi- and multi-lingual project partners)
|
|
|
|
|
2.
Evidence of strategies for overcoming language difficulties (handouts,
translations, explanations, use of visual aids)
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.3. |
Representation
from a variety of European countries |
The
extent to which a reasonable representation of project partners
from various countries has been achieved. |
|
|
|
|
| 4. |
Structure,
content and delivery of the meeting in Hagen |
|
|
|
|
|
| 4.1. |
Organisation
of Hagen meeting |
1.
Evidence of planning
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.
Realistic timescales |
|
|
|
|
| 4.2. |
Effectiveness
of contents and appropriate range and balance of activities during
the Hagen meeting |
Relevant
mixture of activities
(eg. presentations of all project partners present), presentations (contents, financial implications etc.),
methodological and didactic sessions,
discussions, talks, show&tell sessions.
|
|
|
|
|
| 4.3. |
Effectiveness
of the delivery by the project co-ordinator |
1.
The project co-ordinator has the appropriate subject competence
and knowledge (e.g. has created a team with distributed roles).
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.
The co-ordinator is a good communicator with the necessary language skills. |
|
|
|
|
3.
The co-ordinator has the appropriate technical and methodological experience
for delivering professional development of the Hagen meeting.
|
|
|
|
|
| 4.4. |
Effectiveness
of the delivery by the other project partners |
1.
The project partners have the appropriate subject competence
and knowledge with regard to their individual roles and responsibilities
within the project.
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.
They have the appropriate technical, methodological and didactic
experience for delivering professional development (with regard
to their individual roles and responsibilities). |
|
|
|
|
| 3.
They are good communicators with the necessary language skills. |
|
|
|
|
| 4.5. |
Effectiveness
of shared ownership of the Hagen meeting and the whole project |
1.
Evidence that the needs and expectations of the project partners
have been taken into account.
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.
Evidence that the project partners have had the opportunity to
contribute their own expertise (eg. in groupwork, discussions, in show&tell
sessions). |
|
|
|
|
| 4.6. |
Effectiveness
of the process of monitoring and evaluation |
1.
Quality of the mechanism for evaluation both short term and long
term (e.g. monitoring tool: it`slearning project platform) |
|
|
|
|
| 2.
Evidence of assistance to project partners (e.g. by email, Skype; Motto: "Are we doing the right things? Are we doing the things right?") |
|
|
|
|
| 5. |
Materials,
resources and equipment |
|
|
|
|
|
| 5.1. |
Provision
and suitability of materials, resources and equipment used during
the Hagen meeting |
1.
Evidence of appropriate prior information being issued to project
partners
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.
Relevance and quality of materials issued during the Hagen
meeting (e.g. handouts, check lists) |
|
|
|
|
| 3.
Sufficiency, range and suitability of other resources, including
ICT (e.g. presentation tools). |
|
|
|
|
| 6. |
Quality
of the arrangements of the Hagen meeting |
|
|
|
|
|
| 6.1. |
Quality
and appropriateness of the domestic arrangements and the comfort
factor (concerning the Hagen meeting arranged by the project
co-ordinator and the Hagen partner)
|
1.
Attention to practical details and catering (e.g. timetable, how
to get to ; meals)
|
|
|
|
|
| 2.
Suitability of the lodging/working venue (Hotel/Fernuniversity Hagen) |
|
|
|
|
| 3.
Quality of hotel |
|
|
|
|
