The initial project activities are ongoing and we stick to the workplan as a partnership. As schedule in the application form, we organised 3 transnational meetings so far:
A minimum of 2 representatives of each partner is represented during the meetings, participating actively in the discussions and contributing to the meeting content. The coordinator took the decision to have a team of 4 people participating to each meeting (Director, a teacher involved in coordination activities at ISFCE and 2 administrative staff ; all being member of the Erasmus+ team in Belgium) and to cover the additional costs for these additional mobilities to better engage the staff into the project.
The methodology was organised in 3 phases. As scheduled, the 1st phase (collecting the data) is done. First the partners presented their context and the drop out situation of their target group, presenting figures to the group during the first transnational meeting. Based on the experience and the suggestion of our Hungarian partners, we decided to organise the discussion groups of learners and staff following the World Cafés methodology. It resulted in the organisation of several World Cafés sessions in the different partners, the finding being detailed and analysed in a country summary note each partner produced and shared on the Google Drive. These reports were the basis of the discussion of the 2d transnational meeting in Hungary were we shared our common findings and organised the issues identified by axis that were distributed among partners:
We decided to organise a feedback to the students and staff about these country reports to keep them informed about the progress of the project and involve them in the solutions process. To start the 2d phase of the project (looking for solutions and collecting practices) we decided to address each axis using the logical tree methodology:
Following this exercise, during the 3d meeting, we identify solutions/tools that prevent the drop out issue in favour of each partner’s target group, bearing in mind that each partner must be in capacity to test them in its own institution (feasibility). As it wasn't feasible to find solutions for all the issues identified, we decided to concentrate on some of them and to select the most shared ones. The methodology pursued was the following: starting from the solution trees presented on day 1 and 2, each country was given 5 votes for each axis. Each partner votes for its favourite elements. The tools/solutions receiving the votes of most of the partner’s vote is selected for testing. During the discussion to select the different elements to work on, the timing for testing and implementation is also discussed. At the end, 3 to 4 elements per axis were selected and validated by the whole group. By the next meeting, partners develop for each elements of each axis: existing situation, theoretical framework, recommendations, useful links/literature. Testing and identification of benefits/disadvantages will be the step for the meeting in October. Based on the proposal of the coordinator, the structure of the portfolio was also discussed and will follow the 4 axis identified during the 2d meeting.
As a conclusion, we can say that the project is from the point of view of the partnership well on track with no specific delays so far. But the Covid-19 crisis might force us the reschedule some activities (mainly the beginning of the testing phase of the solutions identified) as our organisations work only on distance learning mode so far since mid-March. This is something we will have to assess at the beginning of next academic year taking with the whole partnership.
As foreseen in the application form, the budget dedicated to the project management and implementation help us to cover several activities linked to the management of the project on one side and to transversal activities of the partnership on the other side; namely: