Evaluation questionnaire by Anja Šerc

International Summer Debate Academy – questionnaire analysis

Venue: Hotel Kompas Kranjska Gora Number of participants: 65 Number of respondents: 52

Participant evaluation phase of the project ‘Simulation for action Stimulation’ was conducted through the distribution of the questionnaires at the international event in Kranjska Gora, prepared by the project coordinator. Questionnaires were distributed to the young participants on the last day of the international event, which was at the same time the last event of the whole project. The project acted as a follow up of the international project ‘Think-Meet-Debate-IncludeEurope’ that happened in November 2010 and was also supported by the European Commission, Europe for Citizens Programme. Partner organizations pursued four main aims in the preparation of the follow up: i) to strengthen the network of partner organizations already established through the first event; ii) to multiply the effects of exchange of best practices to a wider network of partners; iii) to upgrade methodological framework of the first event (inclusion of simulation of European Parliament as a an active method of learning and iv) to continue the debate about the current dilemmas of Europe through a participatory and democratic approach. The questionnaire analysis aims at offering a more concrete answer to the question of how successful we actually were in transmitting the values of the project on participants and where the suggestions for the future of trans-European debate might lie. We do so through the analysis of the participants attitude towards the selected and discussed topics, analysis of their evaluation of selected methods at the event (debates and Simulation of the European Parliament that were both used as methods of informal learning at the event) and through their analysis of the general logistics and quality of the event implementation in all phases. In the last part the analysis we offer a short overview of the ways in which the young participants would re-shape the emerging trans-European participatory educational landscape.

Demographics The international youth meeting that took place in Kranjska Gora from 29.6.-5.7.2012 had two tracks. The main track was designed for the participants covered by the European Commission, Europe for Citizens grant, while the complementary track involved highschool students from 7 additional countries around the globe.

There were altogether 120 participants from 13 countries attending both tracks of the event. This questionnaire analysis represents only the views of young participants covered by the grant. Total number of respondents from 7 countries was 52, of these 24 men and 28 women. The majority of the participants were in the age group from 16â&#x20AC;&#x201C;18 (41), followed by 11 participants in the age group 14â&#x20AC;&#x201C;16. The majority of the respondents were from Slovenia (21), followed by other partner countries with delegation of 5â&#x20AC;&#x201C;6 members. The adults of the event were not included in the evaluation and had a separate evaluation session after the event. Project partners took into consideration the need for gender balance in the selection process. Altogether the event had a solid gender representation, although some countries did struggle to attract boys in the activities of the event (i.e. Germany and Estonia). All partner countries had designed a participatory approach to selecting event participants in order to activate their members. These activities were essay competitions, research contests and participation in the implementation of national activities of the project (i.e. round table discussions).

Activities in general and topics overview Activities of the project were generally very well assessed. There were altogether 4 broader categories of methods used at the event, namely: i) electives (each student was free to choose which lecture on debate and content she wishes to attend. There were altogether 60 different lectures on debate and 60 different lectures on the topics of the project offered on four days of the event); ii) lectures (main topics of the project were covered by a large audience lecture given by a senior faculty member. There were only three such lectures throughout the duration of the event: argumentation, public speaking and overview of the debate format); iii) Simulation of the European Parliament (the process of the Simulation was comprised of preparatory phase and the Simulation itself. Different aspect of the implementation are assessed below) and iv) formal debates (each day of the event had one round of practice debates, meaning that these debates were not of a competitive nature, but intend for educational purposes only).

Best assessed categories were the lectures on public speaking (N=4.7) and lecture on argumentation (N=4.6). There was only one category that fell below the N=3.5 and that was the ‘opening ceremony / get to know each other session’. All other categories fell between the 3.7 and 4.4 mark, which means that the great majority of the educational activities were on the spectrum from a weak ‘very good’ to a weak ‘excellent’ mark. The only concern in this regard is the relatively lower mark average attributed to the method of Simulation of the European Parliament in comparison with other debate related

activities. Part of the problem in this regard was outlined by the participants themselves, who expected this to be a completely debate oriented event. In this regard we have to take into consideration that in preparation for activities that aim to change some aspects of methods used we need to clearly establish expectations in advance and/or adapt the methods of the event to better suit the expectations of the participants.

The topics for the practice debates and for the tournament were chosen via an electronic questionnaire distributed to all the partner countries and the selected participants two months prior to the beginning of the event. They were divided in five broader categories: i) social and economic policy in the EU; ii) EU politics; iii) Internet Today and iv) Society Today. The questionnaire also had a ‘suggestion box’ via which the respondents could place their topics suggestions. Following the analysis of the questionnaires we chose 4 topics for the practice debates and 4 topics for the tournament.1 The average grade attributed to the topics for practice debates was N=3.7, and for the tournament topics N=3.8. Best assessed topics for the practice debates were ‘THBT online activism is counterproductive’ and ‘THBT the EU should sanction member state countries that do not ensure the protection of sexual minorities’. It is a bit surprising that these two topics received higher ranking than the topics connected directly to youth issues and their experiences, i.e. university tuitions fees and employment. It also goes against some of the suggestions for future topics in which the participants revealed that they would like to debate more ‘youth topics’. 1

The tournament happened as a separate event (5.–7.7.2012). The majority of the participants decided to stay and compete at the tournament, but did so on their own expenses. The only two delegations that decided not to participate were Estonia and Slovakia (which later regreted the decision, as evidenced from the evaluation forms).

Best assessed topics for the tournament were ‘THBT we should tax products according to their environmental and social footprint’ (N=4.1) and ‘THBT there cannot be any equal opportunities without a strong welfare state’ (N=4). One of the explanations for the highest marks given to the first topic could be that the participants already had more knowledge and factual background on the topic, since they have engaged with it during the Simulation of the European Parliament and at the discussion with the invited experts on the topic at the round table discussion. Following the discussion on the selection process for the topics the project partners believe that it is a good idea that the participants actively participate in the selection of the topics that they are going to debate. We believe that this creates ownership of the issues that they debate and it also develops responsibility for participation, which was also one of the horizontal goals of the project. In the last section the participants had the opportunity to express what they believe would be good topics to debate in future similar events. The analysis of questionnaires was a bit disappointing in this regard, since there were only few concrete suggestions. Below is a table of the summary of greater thematic areas that young participants believe are important. current affairs

Alternatives to capitalism

BRIC countries

THBT state capitalism is a viable option to liberal capitalism

School

Environmental

Internet

Human rights topics

Sexual minorities New technologies and genetics

More value motions

‘Debaters rule the world’

Less EU matters

Methodological upgrade – Simulation of the European Parliament Simulation of the European Parliament took place on the last two days of the event and lasted a day and a half (the participants had a free afternoon scheduled for the first day of the Simulation). The schedule was formed with the aim of building up expectations leading to the implementation of the parliamentary sessions on the second day. On the first day we organized a round table discussion on the thematic areas with relevant representatives from public life,2 organized a teambuilding game for political party identification and prepared reports on the selected themes from the ‘rapporteurs’ on the two Resolutions, i.e. ‘A resolution calling for a no vote on ACTA’ and ‘A resolution calling for a new EU wide consumption tax’. The aim of the pre-pared activities and documents was to establish more in-depth analysis of the issues in the discussion itself since the participants were not actively engaged in the preparatory phases of the event. The adult participants therefore had to prepare the supporting materials and lectures that would serve as a starting point for the discussion. In general the Simulation received a clear ‘very good’ mark in the category of ‘overall assessment’ (N=4). The great majority of the participants thought it was either ‘very good’ or ‘excellent’.

Mojca Kleva (Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament), Simon Delakorda (director of Institute for e-participation), Domen Savič (member of the Slovene NGO E-democracy) and Mojca Markizeti (activist and member of the TRS party).

The absolutely worst assessed category of the Simulation implementation was the round table discussion on the first day of the event (N=3.2). This category was also the most commented on in the ‘suggestions for future Simulation events’. The participants felt that the guests were avoiding giving concrete answers, that they didn’t have enough information and that they were not interesting in general. While there were some answers that indicated that participants had mixed feelings about different guests, the overall assessment shows that they didn’t really enjoy it in comparison to other activities connected to the Simulation. Experiences also show, that participants enjoy the activities in which they are active more than only listening (event though they participated in activities with questions). Best assessed categories were the ‘level of engagement of adult participants in the activity’ and the ‘quality of the supporting materials’ (both N=4.3). We are really pleased with this result since it shows that the participants had a good supporting environment in which they could engage with the learning process. One of the aspects in which we need to put more stress on is communication with the participants prior to the event with the aim of settling expectations and preparing a platform for the event, especially, when planning a group dynamic transcending national boundaries. While the overall assessment of the engagement of national youth leaders shows that the young participants were generally satisfied, there are a high percentage of ‘not so good’ answers in this category (12%). There were few suggestions that the young participants believe would improve future implementations of the Simulation at similar events: 

better guests at the round table discussion (which was also the worst assessed category of the Simulation implementation, i.e. N=3.2)



more days (at least two)



more specific instructions



building Resolutions alone from scratch (due to time restraints the trainers decided to build the Resolutions for the participants to modify)



more concentration on the results of the Simulation - what does it mean?

The main recommendation following the implementation of the Simulation is therefore to motivate participants to engage in activities leading up the event itself, prepare good supporting environment that engages both the participants and leaders of the event and to clearly establish the rules and procedure prior to the event the implementation of activities.

Socials and logistics Social activities were generally very well assessed, although the qualitative analysis show that the participants felt that there was a general lack in this area. Overall assessment was N=4.3, with the worst assessed category ‘public debate’ (which nevertheless received a straight N=4 mark).

They participant offered the most suggestions and concrete examples of what they believe would be good examples of free time activities. Some of the examples are listed below.

Some of the suggestions for social activities included: 

more parties (Pool Party, 60's Pary)



more sightseeing



Karaoke



fun debates



Theater nights and Comedy night



Sports (team sports competitions,



Movie night



interactive experimental games (like Mafia and different name games)

rock climbing, canoeing) 