Erasmus + 2022-1-RO01-KA220-SCH-000085964

GIS for Gist of Europe

Kick off meeting in Riga, Latvia

Meetings’ Minutes

Meeting details:

Meeting Notes

1. Various questions on the starting of the project

During this meeting, the partners went through the approved project once again, pondering on how to begin working on each Work Package and setting action points and where relevant deadlines.

The coordinator, the Romanian team was asked to produce an implementation plan template for each partner to fill according to the Gantt chart previously established.

EUROGEO and IEA will work on setting up the basis and structure of the LMS Platform „GIS for the future”. IEA and EUROGEO will meet in the next weeks to review the platform and prepare for LTT-1

EUROGEO advised to use a single Google Drive for the project which would be structured in the following categories: Admin / Contracts, Evaluation and Quality Assurance, LTTs, Reporting, Sharing and promotion, WP1 Management, WP2 LMS, WP3 case studies, WP3 eLearning.

2. Review of the Evaluation made by the Romanian NA on our project

The Romanian coordinator presented the Evaluation sheet provided by the Romanian NA after the approval of the project, focusing on suggestions for a better implementation.

The Romanian and the Turkish partners previously tried to adjust the already drafted project according to the NA suggestions, so as to better guide the work of the project. Both the Evaluation sheet and the re-drafted project were put on the drive of the project.

The Eurogeo coordinator considered that these amendments are not helpful. Much more practical it would be to focus directly on the  work products and the target group. This was because the original proposal forms part of the contract between the coordinating organisation and the NA

Nonetheless partners considered the comments made in evaluation and addressed them in discussion.

3. Reflections on the suggestions from the training session for Erasmus+ project coordinators

The approved projects Training Session in Romania took place in Bucharest and was attended by the legal representative of the coordinating school. This session focussed on several aspects:

1.Reports. Documents

2.IT tools

3.Team activities

4.Communication

5.Dissemination

6.Security measures, encryption

7.Financial

8.Control

9.Project evaluation

10.Project coordination         

11.Project monitoring

These instructions were presented by the Romanian coordinator and consulted with each partner as follows:

 As for the first aspect, the progress report will need to be submitted after one-year, on November 30, 2023.

Working methods were discussed and would include the following elements:

• Implementation planning, including partners and project details (the coordinator already drafted a Gantt chart and an implementation plan template for each partner to use),
• Self-evaluation and partner/project evaluation planning (the Latvian host will come up with a feedback survey, that would stand as a reference for the rest of the meetings surveys),
• Communication plan for partners and the project (Eurogeo coordinator suggested to use the Admin Project tool, rather thab the Whatsapp group. A gmail group and Google Drive should be implemented),  EUROGEO would provide the tool to the project partners
• Dissemination plan for visibility and partners (Latvian and Romanian partners will start an eTwinning project and the Estonian partner will manage the instagram and facebook accounts, the rest of the partners having the responsibility of periodically publishing relevant news of the project),
• Monitoring approach with indicators for each partner and work package (the indicators were already drafted in the beginning of the project but they will be adjusted to the project needs as things progress),
• Risk management plan with prevention measures and risk management strategies (the Romanian and Turkish partners already drafted a plan, but asked for a more propositions from the rest of the partners),
• Periodic financial reports detailing spending by each partner (the Romanian financial adviser will provide a template),
• Partnership agreements with each partner (they will need to also be signed by the legal representative in person),
• Project header information should be used - according to the new regulations,
• Meeting minutes and Attendance lists - will be written by the end of each meeting, Certificates will also be provided,
• Privacy statements and evaluation questionnaires need to be drafted for each meeting, Meeting agendas will be prepared for physical and online mobilities, Press releases will be done when relevant info is shared while Network postings will be kept to date, as well as Dissemination presentations.

The reports to the NA are to be made in the Romanian language and should include information on each partner, work package, and activity. The reports for each partner should detail costs, activities, results, and indicators. The reporting should be narrative and may include links to web pages that support the activity. Additionally, reporting on beneficiary tools should be included.

English versions of the reports should be prepared by the coordinator for the partners, for transparency.

Regarding the IT tools, the reporting tools that are available for beneficiaries include the following:

Beneficiary module: This is the main reporting tool that will be used by beneficiaries to report on their progress and activities.

EPRP (Electronic Platform for Research and Professional Development): This tool can be used for dissemination purposes and does not require a separate project website. Partners and stakeholders can be directed to the EPRP, where links to relevant information can be shared.

ESEP (European School Education Platform): This tool is used in eTwinning and can be used for both physical and online mobility activities. It can also be used in hybrid formats, where both pupils and teachers participate. The ESEP requires double identification and can be accessed using EU Login or a Gmail account from the contract.

EURYDICE (European Unit for Statistics, Analysis, and Documentation on Education): This tool provides information on education policies. The description of the Romanian education system must include information on the integration of emigrants and the implementation of digital education.

The Eurogeo coordinator argued that better visibility is offered by social media so we should focus on those and the site of the project. And of course the AdminProject app will most definitely help us in keeping everything together.

4. Proposals for the 1st online LTT in Romania (LTT-1)

The Romanian coordinator presented the draft for the 1st online LTT in Romania and each partner was asked to come up with suggestions. The document was uploaded to Google drive so that comments and suggestions can be made. During the LTT each partner is expected to contribute. All partners were tasked to  come up with proposals of activities for it by February 10th.

At the LTT, the schools are expected to be present with at least 3 members, IEA with at least 2 members and Eurogeo and Unizar with 1 member each.

The partners agreed that the meeting should be from the 20th to the 24th of February 2023 (just as specified in the submitted project), 2h availability online a day from 19.00 EET to 21.00 EET.

5. Debate on the videos content

The Turkish and the Romanian team proposed tutorial-like videos, whilst the Eurogeo coordinator mentioned that these types of videos are not useful as the GIS tools are updasted every 6 months. The software company alrteady has very productive multi-lingual training resources, so encouraged every partner to rethink the content of the videos and come up with new, more fruitful ideas to present atthe next meeting. The project concerns teaching climate change using GIS and this should be the focus of any resources produced. How GIS can be used and the learning and teaching that should take place.

6. eLearning module methodology

The Eurogeo coordinator proposed each school partner should run a focus group of their teachers, the purpose would be to discuss their issues and the actual situation concerning teaching climate change in the classroom and with GIS.

EUROGEO prepared a written methodology shared on the Google Drive. Each school partner was asked to review the methodology, carry out the focus group in their schools and report back on what the teachers said, on how they see the challenge of teaching about climate in LTT-1. The focus group should have 4 to 10 teachers, a moderator and there should be 5 to 6 main questions asked.

After the discussions, the partners were asked  to create a powerpoint presentation (2 slides maximum) with the main conclusions of the focus group that will be exposed at the 1st online LTT in Romania. These would form the basis of discussion for the eLearning modules and further LMS development.

7. Presentation of Admin project app

The Eurogeo coordinator presented the Admin project app that is a great tool for managing Erasmus+ projects. He suggested we use it to keep good track of our project since it has a user-friendly interface, and it is easy to use.

Moreover, it has a lot of features that make it ideal for managing projects. These features include the possibility to view and edit all project details in one place, to add team members and assign tasks to them, and to keep track of the project budget. The app can be used for both the management and the monitoring of projects. The benefits of using the Admin project app include saving time as everything is well organized in one place, having an easy way to assign tasks to team members, having an overview of all the activities in the project at all times, and being able to keep track of the budget for the project.

The Eurogeo coordinator proposed to share his paid version with the project, the only inconvenience being that large files cannot be hosted and collaborative work on documents is not possible, thus the use of Google Drive was a necessity.

8. Debate on case studies content

Several ideas were shared on creating the LMS and on how to start the eLearning Module.

A debate on case studies content regarding using GIS to fight climate change issued, focusing on: effectiveness (Eurogeo argued that the approaches need to be more effective) and data accuracy (Eurogeo also mentioned that the project cannot provide for more robust data collection methods, especially due to cost and time consuming processes).

Thus we decided to rethink the content of the case studies to fit the aim and limitations of our project.

An example of teacher case studies using Storymapping was presented (https://www.geocapabilities.org/geocapabilities-3/case-studies/). It was agreed that teacher case studies would enable the project to examine and evaluate its outcomes. The teachers would be trained to use the storymapping tool and the results would offer great potential for dissemination.

9. Consultation on eTwinning project start

The Romanian coordinator asked the Latvian coordinator to share eTwinning account details in order to set up the eTwinning project together, just as mentioned in the submitted project. The Romanian coordinator also asked for the rest of the partners to offer suggestions on the proposal to be drafted of the eTwinning project.

10.  Review on the meeting feedback survey items

The Romanian staff gave a few suggestions on what might constitute survey items that could easily be used also in the next meetings:

1. Name and surname

2. Email

3. Institution and country

4. How useful were this kick off meeting's discussions?

5. How interesting were this kick off meeting's activities?

6. Name one idea/ tool you discovered and will most surely use during this project.

7. How was your exchange  experience with the teachers/ partners from the other countries?

8. How do you feel at the end of this kick off meeting?

9. Suggestions for the next mobilities/ meetings.

11. Contractual issues

All partners remained very concerned about the lack of correct contractual arrangements which had so far been implemented by the coordinating partner. These would be easy to solve but needed the presence of the legal representative of the coordinating partner.

EUROGEO was asked to write as soon as possible to the legal representative, who had not not available to participate in the meeting, asking her for an online meeting in the following week to clarify these issues. EUROGEO would create a Doodle poll for all partners to complete.

Action plan

Conclusion

The overall impression was that this meeting was a success and a positive development in the progress of the Erasmus+ project. The discussions led during our project’s kick-off meeting were perceived positively by those in attendance since they were seen as a productive and valuable step forward in the Erasmus+ project. The attendees felt that the meeting helped to further clarify goals, establish plans, and build momentum towards achieving the objectives of the project.