Presentation on theme: "Booklet II Kiki Petroulaki, Ph.D.. Guidelines for Conducting a “GEAR against IPV” Teachers’ Seminar Booklet’s II aims Direct Aim: Guide ~ uniform."— Presentation transcript:
Guidelines for Conducting a “GEAR against IPV” Teachers’ Seminar Booklet’s II aims Direct Aim: Guide ~ uniform training of “GEAR against IPV” Workshop implementers in the same country/among countries Indirect Aim: primary prevention of IPV via Gender Awareness Raising in Teachers high school students Seminar’s aims build teachers’ capacity to implement and evaluate the GEAR Workshops in classrooms, which includes: identify modify gender stereotypical attitudes and behaviors + any tolerant to violence attitudes skills (& info) to “handle” any revealed abuse cases prompt teachers to implement “GEAR against IPV” Workshops
Guidelines for Conducting a “GEAR against IPV” Teachers’ Seminar Target Group: Organizations wishing to train implementers Direct Beneficiaries: Implementers (+ future implementers) High school teachers Other education-related professionals Policy makers Indirect Beneficiaries: High school students Participating in the “GEAR against IPV” Workshops future adults Booklet‘s II structure & content depents heavily on the content and process of the “GEAR against IPV” Workshop Country-specific modifications
Learning Methods Active learning techniques (same as in student’s Workshops) through which future implementers will be modeled on how to quit the “authoritarian” style of teaching Brainstorming (in pairs - small groups - plenary) Discussion (in pairs - small groups - plenary) Working with realistic scenarios Role-playing Group’s feedback (especially when the facilitator wants to guide the group towards a “correct” answer/response) Games as icebreakers and energizers interactive learning experiences/ exercises informal evaluation
Games as Interactive Exercises Leading and guiding* Participants split into pairs. One participant puts on a blindfold. Their partner then leads them carefully around the area making sure they don’t trip or bump into anything. After some time, the facilitator asks the pairs to swap roles. At the end, participants discuss how they felt when they had to trust someone else to keep them safe. *International HIV/AIDS Alliance. (2002). 100 Ways to Energise Groups: Games to Use in Workshops, Meetings and the Community. Brighton, U.K.:International HIV/AIDS Alliance.
Games Reflecting on the day: To help people to reflect on the activities of the day, make a ball out of paper and ask the group to throw the ball to each other in turn. When they have the ball, participants can say one thing they thought about the day. Writing on backs: At the end of a workshop, ask participants to stick a piece of paper on their backs. Each participant then writes something they like, admire or appreciate about that person on the paper on their backs. When they have all finished, participants can take their papers home with them as a reminder.
How to Organize a “GEAR against IPV” Teachers’ Seminar
Facilitator(s) Creates a safe environment enabling active learning of ALL participants from each other via sharing and exchanging their own experiences, opinions and attitudes Establishment of ground rules by the group Tries to facilitate in a way that don’t allow monopolization of the discussion equal involvement But without pressing (personal space and pace is to be respected) Open-minded & flexible: ready (and able) to accept (or invent) many “correct” answers/solutions follow different paths to guide the group to the desired “destination” changing route following the group’s pace, interests, likes and dislikes
ONLY the 1 st RULE is set by the facilitator … Touch the group with your magic stick and transform them into … ???? a class of the 2 nd grade high school students Ask them to freely decide if they would like to be a boy or a girl to keep their name or not to write the chosen name in a self-sticking label
Qualifications and scientific adequacy of facilitators very well familiarized to work using only methods of active learning very familiar with all of the material of their National Package of the “GEAR against IPV” implementation of activities in classrooms expert/very well aware about issues related to intimate partner violence (IPV), dating violence and child abuse and neglect (CAN) available support services related laws and issues related to the Code of Ethics (e.g. mandatory reporting of CAN) other ethical and safety issues
Participants’ Identity Teachers teaching in schools attended by children 14-16 years old, of both sexes willing to conduct Workshops (now or in future) not willing opportunity to deconstruct own stereotypes reduce resistance during implementation Other education-related professionals (e.g. guidance teachers, social workers, school psychologists or nurses) Other stakeholders of educational policy making multipliers to increase sustainability and viability of the “GEAR against IPV” Health Education Coordinators and School Chancellors (GR) Appropriate groups of participants to be described for each country
Participants’ Recruitment Depends on the requirements set by each country’s Educational System Train more professionals than the implementers needed If candidates overcome the available resources (time, space, budget), select the most highly motivated having higher possibility to implement Workshop(s) Best –or most appropriate- way(s) of recruiting candidate implementers to the training to be described for each country
Group Size Small group due to the use of interactive methods of learning not smaller than the size of a typical classroom in country Large group divided in sub-groups working in parallel with different facilitators the facilitating method must be harmonized as much as possible
Setting & Timing Seminar room decent room, noise-free comfortable seats enough space for all participants AND anticipated activities located in a convenient place Period of time: the most convenient for participants appropriate distribution of breaks learning opportunities (join the group)
Budgeting Decide upon: location travel and accommodation cost (for participants and/or facilitators) number of participants and of sub-groups no of facilitators duration of the Seminar rental cost for the Seminar room (if applicable) facilitator(s)’ fees cost for coffee-breaks and lunch/dinners offered trainees’ fees (if financial motive is applicable) cost of all materials needed
Selecting Activities from all entities of the four Modules (how many depends upon duration) Introductory Module 1 Module 2: Gender stereotypes and gender equality, Module 3: Healthy and unhealthy relationships Module 4: Intimate partner violence preserve the sequence of the Modules Facilitator must select specific activities on the basis of her/his needs Activities s/he feels comfortable with shares the attitudes conveyed students’ needs (needs assessment can be use to guide selection)
Additional Outside School Activities a way to prolong a very limited implementation developed and organize by students at a great extent poster contests artwork (collage, drawing, photograph, music/video development) calendars with pictures theatrical productions student’s groups/ networks… … exhibition of students’ creations
Short Introduction + Pre-Seminar questionnaire completion Module 1. Introductory Section (through teachers’ eyes) Self-presentation of facilitators & participants Expectations as compared with the aims of the Seminar Simulation of the “GEAR against IPV” Workshop (through students’ eyes) Name game Expectations as compared with the aims of the Seminar Set the Ground Rules (as students) Module 2. Gender Stereotypes and Gender Equality Module 3. Healthy and Unhealthy Relationships Module 4. Intimate Partner Violence Seminar’s Content (1)
Use again your magic stick to break the spells: teachers will became teachers again in order to raise questions in regards to their role as facilitators provide feedback and suggestions for improvement for the Teachers’ Seminar for the Students’ Workshop it is expected that “through the students’ eyes” stereotypical attitudes and/or behaviors of teachers of students the use of sexist language in school material (official & unofficial) will be more effectively identified, reported and modified through the students’ eyes…
IPV - dating violence – child abuse and neglect (CAN) How to handle cases of abuse and other ethical issues National laws Obligation and process to report CAN (mandatorily or optionally) Sources for further assistance/support Ethical issues (e.g. confidentiality, safety) Seminar’s Content (2) – Reacting to abuse
Organizing a “GEAR against IPV” Workshop Selecting the most appropriate activities for your classroom for yourself Conducting your “GEAR against IPV” Workshop activities in classroom activities outside the classroom Evaluating your “GEAR against IPV” Workshop Reporting your “GEAR against IPV” experience How to use the “GEAR against IPV” Teachers’ Manual Post-Seminar questionnaire completion - Closure Seminar’s Content (3) - Implementing
Additional ?? Content (4) for policy makers + teachers’ coordinators Ways to reassure wide training of teachers Ways to motivate wide implementation How to coordinate & evaluate a collective effort (e.g. implementation by many teachers in a city or prefecture) How to disseminate the results of the implementation, in order to: inform about the existence of the program, its material & results raising awareness among teachers and other education-related professionals, students, parents and the general public Lobbying for “GEAR against IPV” to be officially adopted
Seminar’s Evaluation - Aims Did the Seminar achieve its objectives? increase in teachers’ knowledge modification of held attitudes and self-reported behavior build capacity of teachers as implementers implementation of “GEAR against IPV” Workshops How comfortable teachers feel to implement activities targeting such type of topics (assessment of students’ comfort?) How permanent are the effects observed? follow-up measures Quality of the Seminar facilitator(s) adequacy personal satisfaction (content, processes, self assessed usefulness) Identification of potential facilitators/barriers for the Workshops
Seminar’s Evaluation All trained professionals (implementers and non-implementers) 4 Measures?
Evaluation Process 1.Pre-Seminar questionnaire at the beginning of the Seminar 2.Post-Seminar questionnaire at the end of the Seminar obtain consent for follow-ups, contact info, preferred way-format 3.First follow-up Seminar questionnaire non-implementers: to be sent implementers: along with the post-Workshop evaluation 4.Second follow-up Seminar questionnaire send to all who consented (even if they missed 1 st follow-up) but implementers complete it along with the follow-up Workshop
Matching Codes A person assigned as the “Coder” develops secret list pairing names-codes assign unique code to each pair of pre-post questionnaires includes pre-questionnaire in each participant’s folder while receiving the completed pre-questionnaire s/he delivers the post-questionnaire with the identical code endorse in her/his secret list the information needed for the follow-up contact (recorded in post-questionnaires) completes each person’s code before sending the follow-up questionnaires
Open issues (country-specific) Direct Beneficiaries: Implementers (+ future implementers) High school teachers Other education-related professionals Policy makers Best –or most appropriate- way(s) of recruiting candidate implementers to the training Other country specific issues need to be described?
Ideas to be Consensually Agreed through the students’ eyes approach? If yes, teachers to “became” teachers again in order to raise questions in regards to their role as facilitators provide feedback and suggestions for improvement for the Teachers’ Seminar for the Students’ Workshop when is best for teachers to “became” teachers again? at the end of each day? (e.g. ½ hour) at the end of the simulated Workshop? Feedback and suggestions: written or oral?
Ideas to be Consensually Agreed Training of implementers and policy makers+teachers’ coordinators Common? Additional part only for policy makers? Active learning techniques during the entire Seminar? Other Ideas?
Seminar’s Evaluation One or two follow-up measures? Do we need to ask teachers to also assess how comfortable they believe their students will feel with the activities? Other Issues?