Partakers’ experiences and opinions of the project European Approach
Gathered at the meeting 20 September, 2011
The partakers (24 persons) were divided into six small groups (3 – 5 members) to discuss the project European Approach. Each group wrote short comments on their common experiences, with regard to the studies of partner countries in the study group in Kuusankoski and the visits to partner countries.
What has been good about the project?
Group A thought that the good atmosphere and continuing enthusiasm in the study group show that the project has been successful. Language studies, music from partner countries, cultural studies and discussions as well as visitors (from Greece , Poland and Turkey
In Group B’s opinion, they have got a lot of information from the good presentations in the study group. At the same time, they have met new interesting people.
Group C had also experienced the good atmosphere; getting acquainted with the culture of other countries has been rewarding.
Group D had also found enthusiasm in the study group. Common knowledge, cultural and language studies have been useful. Two members had made a tour of Italy
Group E paid attention to both working in the study group and the journeys, on which it has been possible to learn more about the country’s history, culture and language by meeting people. One important form of everyday culture for them was traditional food. This group also mentioned the EU information coordinator’s visit.
Group F mentioned that getting more knowledge of the partner countries has widened horizons and given impetus to finding out more about the countries. Readiness to travel has increased. Those who have taken part in the partnership meetings have dedicated a lot of time and energy to the assignments given. Enthusiasm in the study group has prevailed and the visitors have been interesting.
What could have been done better/ otherwise?
Group A thought that a longer summer pause would have been ok (the writer’s comment: it was now six weeks), and the programme could have been less tight (the writer’s comment: there were on an average two meetings a month during each three-month study period).
Group F thought that the tasks in the study group could have been allocated to more people. (The writer’s comment: Each study period has been led by a different voluntary tutor.)
The members of Group B thought that they missed a lot of what was told in the study group, thus handouts of the contents would have been useful and a summary of the lessons could have been put in the net. (The writer’s comment: a number of handouts have been dealt to the participants and the material has mostly been taken from the net). They would prefer shorter language studies. The group would also like to have more contact with the partners before and after the journeys.
Both Group C and Group D would have liked the study period of the country where the next meeting was held to be immediately before the journey (the writer’s comment: because studies were planned to go on with the partners in pairs, it was not always possible to have the ”right” partner). Keeping to the timetables on the journeys did not always succeed and, on the other hand, tight timetables were a weakness, thought Group C. There should be more interpretation during the visits to partners, otherwise those who don’t understand the language miss a lot.
Group E’s wish was to have more visits to people’s homes.
Group F suggested more versatile activities in the study group to enliven the lessons.
What has been done wrong?
Group C and Group E mentioned that the study timetable had been too tight (the writer’s comment: carrying out the project needed this timetable, with six partners a period of about three months had to be reserved for each of them).
Other ideas
Groups B and C thanked the tutors of the study group. Group E wished some kind of continuation to this activity.
Group F said that the project has been well planned and managed. Travelling arrangements have been reliable.
Group F said that the project has been well planned and managed. Travelling arrangements have been reliable.
The groups:
A: Helvi, Jaana, Miikka and Ulla
B: Arja, Eira, Marja and Terttu
C: Irma, Maire, Risto and Teuvo
D: Eero, Meeri, Mervi and Pirkko
E: Marjatta, Sirpa, Tauno, Tuulikki I. and Tuulikki S.
F: Maini, Pirjo and Sirkka-Liisa
Comments: Seppo
