European Learning Partnership FOODPRINT.

EU
EVALUATION Workshop PATRAS 30.11-04.12.2012 9 Partner, 9 participants, 8 answers Evaluation of project objectives
1. Did the workshop fulfil our expectations? ALL partners are satisfied with the meeting. Positive: a) Nothing is perfect, we already learned from our mistakes. Decisions were reached sooner and even though we were more people everything ran smoothly. b) The schedule for the days in Patras was well planned, prepared and carried out. The best part was visiting the market, local food tasting and learning about the olive oil preparation process. c) Generally all the programmed activities went well. d) The open discussion on the last day had less participation from the public than expected, probably due to the storm that had proceeded. e) All the organization and content of the workshop went well. This is due both to the perfect work of the coordinator and creative participation of the partners. Suggestions: a) We could have had more time for connecting cultures. b) Too many activities in a short time. 2. Did we find any difficulty or problem in the preparation or during the workshop and visits? 1. All answers = NO PROBLEM 2. Except the weather. 3.How was your organisation prepared? a) We did a long preparation to motivate all the people to go to Patras, unfortunately the language is still an enormous difficulty. b) We have discussed with all our members about the workshop, organized the details and inform the local community about it. c) Preparing a presentation about our organization, studying the program with all the staff, discussing and preparing the outcomes. d) We had met deadlines and participated actively in the meeting. e) Everybody had some duties before and during the visit. f) We had meetings of members involved in the project, shared duties. g) We prepared a PP presentation about our region and organization and prepared the trip for 3 members. h) Good and active preparation of all partners: meeting with the members, recruitment of participants, analysis of the application, preparation of own propositions. 4. Did we achieve the expected results from the internal meeting? A positive answer from ALL partners

Evaluation of cooperation and communication amongst partners 1.Did all the partners work for one goal? A positive answer from ALL partners. Comments: a) Being culturally diverse, it is sometimes difficult to row in the same direction, but I think we are on the right path. b) The cooperation was really good. c) It was important that all partners now better understand the participation in project outcomes and in project activities. 2. How did the communication amongst partners - before the workshop and during the meeting work? a) Very well, both email and directly. b) There were some little communication problems during the meeting but they were solved thanks to the good will of the partners. c) We have got information from hosts very quickly and also communication in Patra was really warm and nice also between new students. d) It was satisfactory. 3. What can we learn from this workshop experiences in terms of team working? a) The more help the host organisation has - the better the meeting will run. b) The team is big, but working well, and for now we all understand what we are doing and what our purpose is. c) That an international open discussion with English as the working language is feasible. d) That we should be more tolerant with each other. e) Team working and good coordination give best results. f) The second meeting shows that with time we better understand each other and that we accepted our differences. g) The ambience was friendly, the work was constructive and creative. h) A good work was done by the coordinator. e) Good work of all helped to use time efficiently and reach the aims of the meeting. Comments and suggestions: a) Our project is going well and we should strive to make it better by being flexible and working together to meet deadlines. Our Greek partners did an excellent job and thought about every little detail from logos on folders to woodchips on the mud so our shoes would not get dirty. Thank you! b) We are not native English speakers, and it means, that we need more time for listening, understanding and explaining our point of view to everybody. c) The team is big, many people stay together for many days, and get tired of that, so we really do need some time for ourselves at least in the evening before dinner - that must be considered in every next meeting. In Patras it worked well. d) Generally transportation of participants, especially if they are more than 20, is more convenient if a Van type vehicle is used. e) We need more time for connecting cultures. f) It is very important to discuss directly about any problem and admit our mistakes. g) Bravo Benito. Bravo EMP. Bravo the learning partnership. h) Thank you to our Greek hosts.

Organisation and logistics (Only for the partner hosting the workshop.) - What went wrong in the logistics and the organisation? We hope that everything was well done, except the bad weather! -What suggestion could you give to the other partners for the next workshops? It is important to inform the local community about the workshop, before, during and after the meeting. Also to give competences and work to all members of your organization.

II Part
EVALUATION OF WORKSHOP AND VISITS Questionnaire for Participants 27 answers

1. Did you understand clearly the workshop objectives, as presented by the partners? Yes ALL Only language problem. Every partner did clear presentations about their organisations. 2. Did the workshop fulfil your expectations? Yes ALL Comments: a) Only the rain stopped some organisations like collecting olives. b) No expectations, it was interesting to listen what the partners had to say. c) Expecting more discussion about local habits and food traditions. d) Expecting to learn and see a broader perspective on food in Greece, now and in the past. 3. Did the speakers contribute to the attainment of the goals? Yes ALL Comments: a) Coordinators helped with the translation. b) The discussions were open and everyone could say what they thought. 4. Did the workshop impart methods, new (modern) learning tools, and know-how? Yes ALL Comments: a) Missed the new learning tools. b) Many things to think about and know-how. c) The Press conference in Greece and the open discussion about volunteering were very interesting. d) Lot of know-how, less learning tools. e) Missed new things and tools.

5. Did the workshop impart an intercultural dialogue and teambuilding?

Yes ALL Comments: a) Every one helps us. b) Our members came for the first time in their lives to a EU country. That was very important and interesting for them. They changed many things in their mind. c) Less hours for formal sessions and more for connecting cultures. d) We had time enough to discuss about various topics. Everyone had chance to take part in the discussion. We talked a lot, and we did work as a team. e) Missed a little bit of teamwork like food preparing. 6. -Please, score your overall satisfaction regarding the workshop: 1 (not at all) 2 3 4 5 (very much) 15 5 / 15- 4 Comments: a) Greek persons and all the partners helped us. b) The conference was good but , should have been held earlier as participants were quite tired. c) All meeting was wonderful; only very good memories about that. I liked, that we had the possibility to visit real olive plantation and a little local olive oil factory and to see, how it works. Also I liked to visit our hosts office and to taste the local food, made by local hosts organisation members. I liked also this local public attention we had. I think, that during every next meeting we must have the local attention somehow and someway, because the issues we are dealing with are very close to other peoples too, they care also about ecology and we need to share our knowledge about this. d) It would be interesting to know more about organisations which are participating in the workshop. e) It would have been interesting to learn (or see) more about in which way our host (OIKIPA) is working in real life. f) The seminars were useful, perhaps some visits to the agricultural sites/nature would have been interesting. g) Missed the visit to public gardens , the distribution of food, cooking together. h) Very fruitful meeting in terms of exchanging good ideas. Organisation and logistics Please, score your satisfaction regarding: Board and lodging 1 (not at all) 2 3 4 5 (very much)

21-5/6-4

Transportation and logistics 1 (not at all) 2 3 4 5 (very much)

19-5/ 4-4/ 2-3

Materials and facilities 1 (not at all) 21/5/ 6-4 Timing 1 (not at all) 19-5/ 6-4/ 2-3 Communication 1 (not at all) 2 3 4 5 (very much) 2 3 5 (very much) 2 3 4 5 (very much)

19-5/ 8-4 Comments: a) b) c) d) e)

All partners and coordinator helped us with translation to understand important details. Timing, timing, timing ... when will we do this better, in time? Everything went very well talking into account that the group was large. Not enough logistics. Music was nice, but so loud (especially at the diners) that you couldnt even talk with your nearest friend. f) Food was tasty, too much sometimes! g) The Greek hosts organised everything in every detail and I would like to thank them for their efforts. Field visit 1. Do you reckon that the field visit was useful for your experience? (Score 1 to 5) 1 (not at all) 2 3 4 5 (very much) 19-5/8-4 2. Did you find any difficulty or problem during the visit? a) I was for the first time in a church, it was really interesting. b) The only enemy was the weather. c) It was a pity that very rainy weather. It could have been nice to collect olives and try to use "this separating machine" under trees. Thanks Makkis - the fastest demonstration in the world. d) The factory and the open market were so interesting! e) Thanks for visiting a real Greek home! f) There was no difficulty as the hosts assisted us in everything. 3.Please score your overall satisfaction regarding the field visit: 1 (not at all) 2 3 4 5 (very much) 17-5/ 10-4