1. Taken from survey monkey Grundtvig Project Summery of the Evaluations of meetings Ireland and Poland

2. Ireland Nano Nagle Centre 29 th Nov – 1 st Dec 2012 10 Participants competed survey monkey evaluation Positive outcomes Partners felt it is important to build relationships so that the project aims and objectives can be fulfilled. Plans put into place for the schedule of the project over the course of the next 2 years with the future activities and outcomes being prioritised. Sharing different methods of teaching both language and IT. Majority of participants were happy with the progress made in the first meeting.

3. Ireland Negative outcomes Time wasted on discussions that were not always relevant and also the uncertainty of the aims and objectives was frustrating. Partners found the language barrier with the Turkish partners frustrating making communication difficult at times. There was some tension due to the lack of clarity to some of the guidelines in the manual. Partners need to contribute equally and communication needs to flow liberally between all partners. Moving forward we need a clear agenda and for partners to come to each meeting prepared and have all necessary research and procedures put into place.

4. Ireland Conclusion A target schedule of objectives was put in place to be completed within the time frame of the project. Outcomes for the project were prioritised. Methodologies to be used for teaching language and IT were agreed by partners. Communication tools agreed by partners. http://www.grundtvig.czeladz.pl/en/ (website & Blog) http://www.grundtvig.czeladz.pl/en/ https://www.facebook.com/groups/463239893737432/https://www.facebook.com/groups/463239893737432/ (keeping pace) http://lnx.training2000.it/moodle/login/index.phphttp://lnx.training2000.it/moodle/login/index.php (language communication) Schedule for future visits were agreed.

5. Poland Czeladz 9 th – 10 th May 2013 10 of 12 Participants competed survey monkey evaluation Positive Outcomes Overall the partners were happy with the presentations by each institution. The majority felt that the content of the meetings were informative and appropriate. The majority of partners were happy with the content. The outcome and goals set out from the agenda were reached. Partners had a clearer prospective of project outcome.

6. Poland Negative outcomes Some partners were not happy with the meeting facilities and they also felt that the meeting sessions were too long. Disagreement on some subjects between partners had a negative impact on the meeting. There was sometimes a lack of communication and information sharing on some subjects which could have a negative effect on the progression of the project. There were a number of communication difficulties and differences in opinion between the partners.

7. Poland Conclusion Initially communications between partners was problematic but ultimately this was resolved by the end of the meeting. Inter- relations between partners and seniors was very valuable to the project aims and objectives. The agenda of the meeting was clearly defined by the Polish partners. Schedule for the meeting in Turkey was confirmed by the Turkish partners.