evaluation questionnaire analysis · 2020-06-24 · evaluation questionnaire analysis 5th general...

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS 5th General Meeting

NULES, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03-04 July 2019 Project 585603-EPP-1-2017-1-DE-EPPKA2-CBHE-JP (2017 –

3299/001-001) / TOPAS

From theoretical-oriented to practical education in agrarian

studies Editor(s): Oleh Pasko

Responsible

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

Status-Version: FINAL VERSION

Date (dd/mm/year): 25/07/2019

Dissemination

Level Restricted to other program participants (including the

Commission Services)

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

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

enable evaluation TOPAS progress and delivery by gathering open and

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

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

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

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

TOPAS partners took part in the fifth project survey in early Jule 2019

straight after the meeting by the means of online platform. The results are

shown below.

From Theoretical-Oriented to Practical education in Agrarian Studies

EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE ANALYSIS,

Meeting 5, NULES, Kyiv, Ukraine, 03-04 July 2019

2

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

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

To what extent were the questions connected with the project

explained during the meeting?




3

To what extent did the time dedicated to the questions connected

with the project satisfy your expectations during the discussions?

To what extent did the objectives of the meeting satisfy your

expectations?




4

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

to you?

To what extent did the meeting make you think?




5

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

your institution in the project?

Did the meeting allow you to exchange opinions and experience

with the partners?




6

How do you mark the organisation and the facilities at your

disposal during the meeting?

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




7

How would you assess the quality of the documentation?

How would you evaluate the location of the meeting?




8

How would you evaluate the social aspects of the meeting?

How would you generally evaluate the meeting?




9

OPEN QUESTIONS

Which aspects of the meeting do you consider the best?1

Intensive, effective work in working groups * 4

"world cafe" workgroups and their results, presentations on

progress at NULES

Discussions, informal talks and communication

Friendly, pleasant atmosphere of evening meetings

hand book

handbook content

ICT tool elaboration issues

Perfect organisation

Strong cooperation among participants and common workshops.

Subject of the disscusion

Team live discussion, hardworking and productivity, location (host

institution has done its best for our convenience)

Team work, general arrangement, amazing location

The opportunities to discuss progression of the project

workshops

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

None*12

Long working sessions

Difficult to answer

I have no comments

Too busy schedule

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





10

What are THREE NEW THINGS you have discovered for yourself in

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

4 respondents returned no answer

Brain storm method, 2) Content of TOPAS Handbook,

farma data collection methods 2) mobile application 3) web

application

Final book consistency 2) Kahoot 3) Google classroom

handbook content; 2)future plans; 3) MOODLE platform

I can do world cafe discussions; 2) We are all very productive; 3)

My leadership skills are improving

Moodle 2) Ways of students involvement 3) Active usage of

modern software

New friends, 2) New aproaches, 3) New viewes

poll everywhere app; 2) John Nix Farm Management Pocketbook;

strength of committment by host 2) improved feed-back of

partners to task list and deadlines 3) need for deeper

understanding of data management systems by some partners

the new Erasmus possibilities 2) Socrative 3) Kahoot

1)SWOT analysis by TOPAS team, appraisal, suggestions for next

steps; 2) Farm data management and ICT set-up at NULES; 3)Panel

discussions

1. Clarifying the content of the handbook, 2. The method of

financing the "Tropentag - conference"

Kahoot





11

Which characteristics of the meeting contributed to its

effectiveness?

3 respondents returned no answer

Hard job, full of work

Subdivision in workgroups, less presentations, more results

developped during meeting

Classroom, active involvement

Work hard, play hard

Common discussion and work shops

Round table discussions

Intensive work in working groups

informal talks and communication

Depth of issues of disscusions

Content, workshops, team work

Professional and dedicated work of most of participants.

The delegates' willingness to work and collaborate

Experienced staff

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

improve the results of the next meetings?4

None or returned no answer*5

Actually, I do not have any special comments, though, the

university - meeting organizer, could organize some transfer from

and to the airport

Allow for time to digest the work done during the day.

Difficult to answer

Focus on the results you would like to achieve in the end of the

meeting





12

I think if the employers of production will involve in the next

meetings it will be more effectively

More team work

Provide materials for discussion in advance or at least keywords,

Planning an excursion to the city would be a bonus for everyone,

as cultural enrichment is also part of the project

Set list of raporteurs for sessions at the beginning of the sessions

Short seightseeing tour as a break in very intensive TOPAS work.

Spend more time on preparatory works beforehand.

Take into account the date of work

July 3th 2019 Heroiv Oborony Str.15 building 3, Kyiv, Ukraine

evaluation questionnaire analysis · 2020-06-24 · evaluation questionnaire analysis 5th general...

Documents