1 / 21

Lelia Kiš-Glavaš Tempus EduQuality project coordinator

Croatian example of good practice in coordination of Tempus projects or Why to apply Tempus project?. Lelia Kiš-Glavaš Tempus EduQuality project coordinator. What will I talk about : briefly about Tempus project EduQuality from the idea onwards… what was good, what was bad…

yvette-fitzpatrick
Télécharger la présentation

Lelia Kiš-Glavaš Tempus EduQuality project coordinator

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Croatian example of good practice incoordination of Tempus projectsor Why to apply Tempus project? Lelia Kiš-Glavaš Tempus EduQuality project coordinator

  2. What will I talk about: • briefly about Tempus project EduQuality • from the idea onwards… • what was good, what was bad… • where did we make mistakes • what did we learn • what did they tell us and we didn´t believe • what did they “lie” to us

  3. EduQuality – Education for Equal Opportunities at Croatian Univerities Duration of the project: 15th of January 2010 – 15th of January 2013 The total project budget amounted 868,053.00EUR, of which the European Commission funded 90%, and the Ministry of Science, Education and Sport of the Republic of Croatia 10% of the budget

  4. The purpose and objective of the Project: Equalization of opportunities for students with disabilities in higher education in the Republic of Croatia Students with disabilities (and within this project) are: All the students that due to illness or disorder (regardless of determined percentage of physical disability) have difficulties in realization of everyday academic activities (students with visual and hearing impairments, motor impairments, chronic illness, mental disorders and illness, specific learning impairments as dyslexia, dysgraphia, ADHD and other health conditions that may affect the course of study)

  5. Direct beneficiaries of the project activities: Teaching, professional and administrative staff of Croatian universities Project was realized through: Development of new and improvement of existing forms of support for students with disabilities at the universities involved in the project (person, commission, office ...) and EDUCATION Methodology: The implementation of planned activities, mentoring and supervision (site visits), evaluation, sustainability

  6. Project partners: • University of Zagreb • University of Split • University of Rijeka • University of Dubrovnik • Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek • University of Zadar • Institute for the Development of Education • Croatian Student Council • University of Strathclyde, Glasgow (United Kingdom) • University of Gothenburg (Sweden) • Masaryk University, Brno (Czech Republic) • University of Aarhus (Denmark)

  7. Main project activities: • Initiation and implementation of the university elective course “Peer Support to Students with Disabilities” at the University of Zagreb and at least one other Croatian university; • Creation and distribution of Educational materials (manuals) about possibilities for adapting of the academic environment for students with disabilities; • Development and implementation of workshops for university teachers and administrative staff, and • Creation of the National Document proposal

  8. Other project activities: • purchase of equipment • developing of web portal (library) / fully accessible • round tables and international conference • development of Support Network - a network of individuals, organizations and institutions that will ensure sustainability and further development of support services for students with disabilities in Croatia

  9. From the idea onwards… • Tempus DUCAS project – Developing university counselling and advisory services (professor Vlasta Vizek Vidović, PhD) – 2007 - 2009 • Johans Ladies • February 16th - Tempus Info day • March 26th - AZVO Tempus workshop • April 2nd - start of project proposal preparation (preparation + 8 half/all-day meetings) • April 28th - 4 p.m. - deadline • “Hallo Kinez”

  10. Difficulties in preparing of the project proposal • chronic lack of time (administrative support nowhere to be found) • bad (administrative) English • cancellation of sure potential partner • a phobia called: LOGICAL FRAMEWORK MATRIX and HOW TO CALCULATE NECESSARY ASSETS? • nobody actually believed in us…

  11. But: • What does a child know about what 100 kilos is, it takes it and carries it! However: • It was necessary to fit into the priority areas • Your chances are great if you build on actual detected needs • It is useful to have a backup version • It is good to accept any help And how it continued…

  12. And when it starts it is important: • to participate in the EU Tempus meeting • there is still a chronic lack of time, so it´s good to be a geek! • to be economical • to clearly assign tasks, but always be on top of the assignment • to arrange internal rules, make it easier

  13. ask, ask, ask! • plan far ahead • be clear in demands • making friendships • praise and reward colleagues, give them credit • enjoy the results • be proud

  14. What went well: • we were lucky with co-financing • we had a strong support and confidence from the university management • we met many wonderful people • we created a positive working atmosphere • we did a lot more than we had planned • we had enough money

  15. What went wrong: • high fluctuation of staff members • losing a lot of energy on administration (“O shit timesheet!”) • rigidity of some of the associates and need for organizing a lot of additional activities • it was not always possible to reward everyone for their results

  16. What was the best: • making friendships • identifying highly competent current (and future) associates • learning (together and from each other) • being together

  17. Where did we make mistakes (and then „paid” for them): • we forgot to predict some (logic) costs • we counted on high professionalism and responsibility in the academic community • we hoped for a greater support from some partner institutions´ managements

  18. What did we learn: • to have a firm grip on finances and to reimburse the costs when all the work was completed • to make our “own” rules (within allowed framework) • very clearly and on time (ahead of time) announce what and when it is expected and constantly remind and remind… • give assignments and responsibilities, but from time to time (quietly) check

  19. that the EC is our 13th partner • that it is possible to gather a large number of people around one task (over 60) • that it is possible to do a lot without too much effort • that it is possible to strongly motivate people • that it is possible to change attitudes • that it is possible to gather an excellent team

  20. What they told us and we didn´t believe them: • it will be difficult to spend money What did they lie to us: • that the most important thing is to have a good idea • that excellent English is required • that it’s best when the project leader is only the coordinator of expert activities

  21. And finally: • This is only our specific experience, experience of outsider • Definitely apply to tender GOOD LUCK!!!

More Related