MULTIVERSUM - Multimedia as an epistemological resource: towards multifaceted rather than linear knowledge

Within the framework of

Socrates - Comenius 3.1

Second transnational meeting – 20-24 June 2001

Canal Court Hotel, Newry, Northern Ireland, UK

 

Summary of the Second Transnational Meeting

The first transnational meeting of the Multiversum project was attended by the following representatives of the partner organisations:

IRRE Toscana – Firenze (IT)

Anna Fochi

Bernardo Draghi

Southern Education and Library Board – Armagh (UK)

Sheelagh Dean

Mary Yaer

Ciaran McCrumlish

Directorate of Secondary Education – Achaia Prefecture – Patras (GR)

Sandy Vamvaka

Johanna Chardaloupa

Heleni Vojiatzaki

Cambridgeshire County Council, Centre for Information Technology in Education (CITE) – Cambridge (UK)

Paul Springford

Centro Formacao Concelho – Alcacer do Sal (PT)

Manuela Silva

Centro Formacao de Santiago do Caccém, Sines e Grandola – Santo André (PT)

Laura Miranda

Ana Nunes

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Institute for Mathematics and Informatics – Sofia (BG)

Avram Eskenazi

Ludmila Ivanova

Ministry for Education and Science – National Institute for Education (NIE) – Sofia (BG)

Evgenia Ilieva

The meeting proceedings followed the attached agenda, with some smallgroup sessions of the coordinator’s staff to prepare the work sessions.

All the sessions were chaired by the project co-ordinators. This summary is drawn from the notes taken by Ana Nunes.

The main points discussed during the meeting and the decisions unanimously taken by the partners were as follows:

June 20, 2001

Canal Court Hotel, Newry

Points

Decisions/Notes

Handshake session

Introduction of new participants by their colleagues.

June 21, 2001

Craigavon Teachers Centre, Tullygally

Points

Decisions/Notes

General greetings.

Introduction by the Co-ordinator

Presentation and discussion of the meeting agenda. The proposed agenda was approved (see ANNEX 1).

Presentation of the Interim Report

The co-ordinators presented the official version of first Interim Report, prepared on the basis of communication and sharing of information within the partnership during the month of May. They confirmed that it was sent to the EC before the formal deadline (June 1). It was also pointed out that as the contract and the first instalment of the EC subvention arrived only in January and the second partners’ meeting was still to come, when writing the interim report a note was added saying that after the meeting an integration would follow concerning the financial plan and the concrete development of the project.

The co-ordinators added that for reasons to be further explained later on during this meeting, they will be bound to submit a contract amendment request especially concerning the financial plan and minor changes in the workplan and perhaps in the nature of the products. Such a request would have to be approved by the partnership.

Feedback from the partners concerning past, on-going and planned activities

Each partner reported on the actions undertaken with regards to the selection of schools, identification of the needs of teachers, planned support/training actions. All partners showed to have performed what was expected of them according to the workplan. The presentations highlighted a great variety of situations and approaches, depending on geographical, cultural, institutional and organisational factors.

The presentations were discussed and analysed, and in the end all partners agreed that the above-mentioned differences represent a potential resource, as each partner can reflect on, and learn from the others’ experiences, provided we succeed in finding a common way to describe them and in identifying some key issues, so that to present to the <<outside world>> this richness of experiences in a common framework, and a possible European perspective in exploring this still undiscovered field.

An important issue was identified in the importance to ensure an approximate balance in the number of schools/teachers involved in the project by the partners so as to guarantee the development of 4-10 hypertext modules per partner organisation, according to different contexts and resources.

The group went on to discuss and identify the following common key issues for teacher training in ICT for education:

  • Emphasising the purposes and the rationale for developing and using multimedia with learners (with special emphasis on the cognitive and educational aspects as opposed to a purely <<technical>> notion of ICT teaching/learning)
  • Identification of teachers’ needs – knowledge, understanding and support – for effective work on hypertexts
  • Competencies needed by teachers and by students to be able to carry out such an effective work: similarities and differences between these two groups, and within the teachers’ group/team (e.g. where there is technical support, the teacher doesn’t need to be an ICT expert, whereas what he/she really needs is a wide cultural perspective, a firm grasp of basic hypertext design principles, etc.)
  • Impact of the project on three aspects: organisation, communication/networking and pedagogy (comparison of before and after)
  • Implications for the different sectors and types of schools (age/type of students)
  • Comparing different approaches to evaluation.

Anna Fochi presented a draft template for the description of teachers’ training actions, which had already been circulated within the Multiversum discussion group; however, the discussion is put off to the following day.

Financial guideline

To give a general financial framework to the discussion of the project workplan and to all proposals which could involve drawing on the project’s cash resources, Bernardo Draghi gave a presentation of the basic aspects of the new financial plan proposed by the co-ordinator, including the total budget, a breakdown of the budget heads, total <<transnational expenses>> for about EUR 70.000, and an estimate of about EUR 5500-6000 for each partner (except the co-ordinator whose share would be about 3 times that of each of the partners) to be spent on local activities connected to the project workplan.

Administration

Catriona Hugues gave a short presentation of her experience as a Socrates project coordinator, pointing out the necessity of good expense documentation and precise expense recording and reporting, and the importance of a high sense of responsibility on the part of each partner.

June 22, 2001

June Counagh Tecnnology Centre, Portadown

Points

Decisions/Notes

Presentation of the structure of the Multiversum SELB web page

Ciaran McCrumlish gave a presentation of the Multiversum SELB Page. He explained that in order to build the school Web pages (=simple pages presenting the schools participating in the project, with background information about the school, contacts, links and photos) he organized a short training course (1 day plus distance support) for the teachers, focussed on basic principles of Web page design and on the use of common software (Word) for page building. He also showed the Power Point slides he used for teachers’ training.

The partners greatly appreciated Ciaran’s presentation, and agreed that wherever possible it would be advisable to follow this example, with regards both to the production of a series of Web pages by the networked schools, and to the type of training course which was carried out by SELB.

Sandy Vamvaka proposed to add a link to a page presenting the teachers and the students.

Clarifying the general process

While discussing the draft template, part of the group – who was partly composed of new participants - expressed the need to define in a better way the required workload and the financial support which might or might not be available for each partner according to the new financial plan.

The co-ordinators agreed that this was a critical issue which probably was to be addressed before the group went on to the remaining topics of the agenda. Some participants also expressed feeling of uneasiness due to their incomplete comprehension of the overall workplan, the types of products expected, etc.

This discussion went on for some time without any specific decision, but proving to be useful and even necessary to clarify each partner’s position and views.

First publication

The co-ordinator presented a proposal for the first paper publication, meant to document and circulate the partners’ teacher training experiences and the resulting key issues, according to the following index:

  1. Introduction (in English)
  2. Short presentation of training courses/modules (in English)
  3. Documentary materials (in national languages) + abstracts (in English)

Draft template for describing of experience

As an important tool for the description of teacher training experiences (point 2 above), the partnership discussed and approved the draft template presented the day before, with slight changes aimed to render it more flexible (See ANNEX 2)

For the first publication as mentioned above, the partners agree to produce:

  • 2-3 templates in English describing as many teacher training courses (or modules);
  • relevant course material – 13/15 pages (2400 chr. per page) in the national language
  • 1-2 pages of English abstracts of the course material (the number of pages depends on the number of different materials included in the 13-15 pages).

Moreover the partners re-examined the opportunity of producing a paper publication when the same material would be also on a CD-Rom and on the project webpage; thus they arrived at the conclusion that it would be more appropriate to publish this kind of documentation only as a CD-Rom, webpage, and as pdf files, which would be easily available for downloading and printing. Such a solution would better reflect the specific focus of the project.

The same principle seemed appropriate for the final publication as well, also to be made in Website and CD-Rom form, and as pdf files, with the addition of a multilingual project brochure to be used for dissemination.

Dissemination

The partners identified two levels for dissemination:

  • local level – each partner will disseminate the experience on magazines, newspapers and through local conferences
  • higher level – the above-mentioned brochure including a general profile of the project, information about the partners, flashes from participants…

Financial plan

Bernardo Draghi presented the new financial plan proposal, which was discussed and approved (see ANNEX 3) as well as the following main guidelines:

  • the available financial resources of the new budget allow the partnership to stay with the original principle of 2 participants per partner per meeting, with the possibility for a partner to make up for the presence of only one participant in a meeting by sending one more participant to the next one, provided that

  • the presence of the person is considered necessary for the management of the project, and as such communicated to the partnership;
  • there are no more than 3 participants from the same partner;
  • the person has already participated in the previous meeting(s) and/or has been fully informed about the progress of the project, the discussions that were made and the decisions that were taken.

  • The partner institutions in charge of the organisation of each of the remaining meetings are to take care to limit the total cost of the meeting to no more than EUR 5000 all-included (accommodation, subsistence, internal transport, rental of equipment and/or premises etc), and if possible even less, while ensuring the effectiveness of the proceedings.
  • Each partner guarantees to provide at least the amount of in-kind resources (personnel workdays and general administration costs), duly documented according to the Socrates rules, as indicated in the organisation chart approved in Montecatini and stated in the new financial plan
  • Also, each partner guarantees to provide the co-ordinator within one week after the end of the Newry meeting with updated information concerning personnel costs, general administration costs, and estimated local cash costs (equipment, software, consultancy, travel…) to be sustained for actions related to the project.
  • All money transfers will be carried out by the co-ordinator only

  • after receipt of complete expense documentation (originals or certified photocopies) including both receipts and invoices for cash expenses, and personnel signed timesheets and general administrative cost statements, according to the Socrates rules.
  • after receipt of proof (reports, products, documentary material etc) that the actions outlined in the workplan have been actually performed.

The guidelines above will be included in the partnership agreement that the co-ordinator will submit to each partner for formal approval.

June 23, 2001

Canal Court Hotel, Newry

Points

Decisions/Notes

School network

After discussion of this point, the partners agreed

  • to provide the co-ordinator with the e-mail address of the contact person responsible for each school of the network (when ready to communicate)
  • to set up an e-group for the teachers' network - to be accomplished by the co-ordinator (by the beginning of September)
  • to get feed-back from the teachers (before the meeting in Bulgaria) on

  • the opportunity of grouping the schools so in smaller discussion forums
  • the opportunity of establishing two levels of communication, respectively for teachers and students
  • how to co-ordinate the forums/mail-groups (options: no co-ordination, self-co-ordination, co-ordination by the steering group)
  • which tools are most suited for communication

Evaluation

The co-ordinator presented a draft outline which had been circulated in advance as a starting point for discussion, and the document was approved by the partnership (see ANNEX 4)

  • evaluation of the partnership: it was decided that the co-ordinator would prepare and present a proposal for an appropriate evaluation tool to be circulated before the meeting in Bulgaria
  • evaluation of the process: Paul Springford presented a detailed evaluation tool to foster self-evaluation in the teachers involved in the project; the partners were very favourably impressed and found Paul's proposal both clear and pedagogically well-grounded. Thus it was agreed to present the evaluation tool to the teachers and then circulate their feed-back trough the yahoo-group forum (see ANNEX 5)
  • Evaluation for the teacher training courses/modules: the partners decided to share already existing and tested evaluation tools.
  • Evaluation for the students/pupils: the issue will be dealt with and discussed by the teachers at the local level, before the summer holidays or anyway as soon as possible; the feed-back will be circulated so as to promote debate in all the countries and to collect proposals for an adequate evaluation tool ready for the beginning of activities with the classes.

Workplan

After confirming the overall workplan for the whole project as agreed in Montecatini, the partnership defined the detailed workplan for the next months until December 2001 (See ANNEX 6)

Final remarks

All partners expressed their gratitude to the host institution and particularly to Ms. Sheleagh Dean for the kindness and hard work necessary for the successful organisation of the meeting.

As a kind of immediate self-evaluation of the meeting, the Greek partner proposed each participant to write two positive comments and two negative ones, and one suggestion for the next meeting, to be collected as documentation (See ANNEX 7).

Anna Fochi

_________________

Bernardo Draghi

_________________

ANNEX 1 - Meeting agenda

Socrates – Comenius 3.1 – Multiversum

II project meeting

Newry, Northern Ireland (UK)

 

Premises for the meeting

The Canal Court Hotel
29 Merchant Quay
Newry
Co. Down

tel: 12830251234


(21st June) Craigavon Teachers Centre, Tullygally
(22nd June) June Clounagh Technology Centre, Portadown
(23rd June) Canal Court Hotel Newry.

Technical facilities
(21st June) - data projector, laptop, overhead,
(22nd June) - data projector, laptop, internet access

Wednesday 20th June

Arrival of all participants in Canal Court Hotel Newry

18.30/20.00 handshake session – introduction of new participants by their colleagues

20.00 dinner

Thursday 21th June

9.30/1.00p.m. planning session:

- introduction by the co-ordinator

- feedback from all partners (actions undertaken: selection of schools, identification of the needs of teachers, planned actions of support / training)

1.00/2.00 p.m. lunch in St.Patrick’s Trian Armagh

2.00/5.00 p.m. ICT in education: training strategies

after dinner "Multiversum party": national specialities, wine, spirits, cookies, chocolates… from the partnership

Friday 22nd June

9.30/1.00 p.m. update on

strategies for implementing an effective communication framework within the partnership (levels of teachers and students)

1.00/2.00 p.m. lunch

2.00/5.00 p.m. (two groups)

group 1: administrative and finance – one representative per partner institution (or country)

group 2: evaluation: identification of levels, targets, strategies and tools for adequate evaluation of the project itself and of the educational process developed

Saturday 23rd June

9.30/12.30 a.m. planning the way forward:

12.30/2.00 p.m. lunch

2.00/8.00 p.m. social/cultural visit to….

Sunday 24th June

Departure of participants

 

 

NOTE - What should be prepared for the meeting

feedback from all partners - actions undertaken:

and… what should be brought ;-))) – optional, of course!

 

ANNEX 2 - Template for teachers' training module description

other ):

n. of hours/days/half days:

organised as follows:

ANNEX 3 – Financial plan proposal

NOTE: Before we send the EC our contract amendment request, these figures may change a little as not all financial data from the partners have been updated yet (included Personnel costs and the final detailed costs for Newry meeting participation, except for IRRE and DSE Achaia). But the general guidelines are there.

General administration costs have been decreased a little and might be distributed in a different way across the partnership, but in any case this will not influence each partner’s share of the Socrates grant (we agreed on this during the Newry meeting). We might still enter some small figure in the "Other" category, e.g. to cover any documented bank charges connected with the management of the project funds; please let us know if you foresee any such costs for your institution.

Table 1: Summary of project costs

Revised project

Revised project

Revised project

Revised project

Original project

Original project

First Year

Second Year

Third Year

Three Years

First Year

Three Years

>20%

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

Total cost

A

Personnel ("in kind")

89.708,49

89.628,01

89.628,01

268.964,51

41.960,00

119.440,00

YES

B

Travel, accommodation, subsistence (cash)

18.429,47

19.550,00

18.600,00

56.579,47

32.036,00

100.576,00

YES

C

Technology, equipment (cash)

3.459,94

934,46

934,46

5.328,86

0,00

0,00

YES

D

General administrative costs ("in kind")

7.500,00

7.500,00

7.500,00

22.500,00

OK

7.200,00

21.600,00

NO

General administrative costs (cash)

388,74

400,00

400,00

1.188,74

YES

E

Consultancy (cash)

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

6.400,00

15.700,00

YES

F

Documentation (cash)

2.510,00

8.100,00

3.350,00

13.960,00

9.400,00

27.000,00

YES

G

Other (cash)

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

8.800,00

35.040,00

YES

H

Total costs

121.996,63

126.112,47

120.412,47

368.521,58

105.796,00

319.356,00

NO

Cash project costs

24.788,14

28.984,46

23.284,46

77.057,06

178.316,00

Socrates grant

130.000,00

130.000,00

% on total costs (>=40,71)

35,28

40,71

In kind costs (approx.)

291.464,51

141.040,00

Cash co-financing by Coordinator (approx.)

10.329,14

Balance (+ or -)

63.272,07

-48.316,00

 

 

ESTIMATED DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL SOCRATES GRANT

Total Personnel (for 3 yrs.)

268.964,51

Total Workdays (for 3 yrs.)

2.031,00

Average Daily Cost per Person

132,43

IRRE (IT)

SELB (UK)

DSE (GR)

CITE (UK)

CFC (PT)

CFS (PT)

NIE (BG)

IMI (BG)

TOTAL

TOTAL WORKDAYS

561,00

210,00

210,00

210,00

210,00

210,00

210,00

210,00

2.031,00

TOTAL PERSONNEL CONV. INKIND COST

74.293,00

27.810,22

27.810,22

27.810,22

27.810,22

27.810,22

27.810,22

27.810,22

268.964,51

TOTAL GAC COST (in kind + cash)

7.055,35

2.450,00

2.533,39

2.250,00

2.350,00

2.350,00

2.350,00

2.350,00

23.688,74

TOTAL CONVENTIONAL COFINANCING

81.348,35

30.260,22

30.343,61

30.060,22

30.160,22

30.160,22

30.160,22

30.160,22

292.653,25

PROPORTION

2,69

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

CASH COFINANCING BY IRRE

10.329,14

10.329,14

MAXIMUM SOCRATES GRANT

130.000,00

130.000,00

TOTAL AVAILABLE CASH (SG + Cash Cof.)

140.329,14

ESTIMATED CASH GENERAL PROJECT COSTS

77.057,06

77.057,06

ESTIMATED REMAINING CASH

63.272,07

63.272,07

OF WHICH FROM SOCRATES GRANT

52.942,94

52.942,94

PROPORTIONAL CASH FUND DISTR.

17.587,64

6.542,30

6.560,33

6.499,06

6.520,68

6.520,68

6.520,68

6.520,68

63.272,07

Note: the cash cofinancing by IRRE has been accounted for in the budget for local documentation and technology expenses connected to the Multiversum project, including site design – this has lead to an increase in each partner’s final estimated cash balance.

 

ESTIMATED TRANSFERS OF SOCRATES GRANT

Total Socrates Grant

130.000,00

I EC transfer (30%) - ARRIVED in Feb. 2001

39.000,00

IRRE (IT)

SELB (UK)

DSE (GR)

CITE (UK)

CFC (PT)

CFS (PT)

NIE (BG)

IMI (BG)

TOTAL

Sustained/expected transnational cash expenses to be charged on Socrates grant until 30 June 2001

9.191,05

2.296,49

1.752,79

426,40

782,40

1.256,70

835,00

2.077,38

18.618,21

Transferred on June 2001

10.102,34

2.782,50

1.902,68

465,68

782,40

1.256,70

835,00

2.077,38

10.102,34

Cash balance

19.706,61

486,01

149,89

39,28

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

20.381,79

Estimated gross distribution of grant balance (30%)

5.276,29

1.962,69

1.968,10

1.949,72

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

18.981,62

Theoretical net balance to be transferred

5.276,29

1.476,68

1.818,21

1.910,44

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

18.306,44

Available cash balance

19.706,61

Available for transfer to the partners

5.276,29

1.476,68

1.818,21

1.910,44

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

18.306,44

Actual transfer on …

0,00

Remaining to be transferred

5.276,29

1.476,68

1.818,21

1.910,44

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

18.306,44

II EC transfer (30%) - EXPECTED in Sep. 2001

39.000,00

Estimated distribution of grant balance (30%)

5.276,29

1.962,69

1.968,10

1.949,72

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

1.956,21

18.981,62

III EC transfer (20%) - EXPECTED in Sep. 2002

26.000,00

Estimated distribution of grant balance (20%)

3.517,53

1.308,46

1.312,07

1.299,81

1.304,14

1.304,14

1.304,14

1.304,14

14.720,24

IV EC transfer (20%) - EXPECTED in Jan. 2004

26.000,00

Estimated distribution of grant balance (20%)

3.517,53

1.308,46

1.312,07

1.299,81

1.304,14

1.304,14

1.304,14

1.304,14

14.720,24

 

ANNEX 4 - Outline for evaluation

"measuring the impact of projects is not easy. It is much more straightforward to measure the outputs" (A Survival Kit)

Evaluation – an outline

OBJECTIVE: planning for real implementation of an effective evaluation strategy

LEVELS

process

national level

output

partnership


international level process

output

 

TARGETS (what to evaluate)

project ownership (objectives, workplan, distribution of tasks and responsibilities, decision taking…)

partnership management (transparency, efficiency…)

communication

 

training


teachers network (local/international)

experience in the class

process

experience in the class

students

network (local/international)

 

 

class/school hypertext

output

open collaborative hypertext

TEACHERS

Training:

experience in the class

network (local/international levels)

co-operative learning

STUDENTS

experience in the class

student as a reader/user of Internet hypermedia

student as an author or co-author

 

network (local/international levels)

…….

OUTPUT (class/school hypertexts; open and collaborative hypertext on time)

EVALUATION AGENDA

Target

What

How

Who

Whom

When

         
         
         

Different tables so as to correspond to the identified targets

ANNEX 5 - Evaluation grid for teachers

Collecting

Experiences

from Teachers

Teacher’s Journal – during the module

Date of session

Length of session

 

What happened during the session?

Any comments, problems, surprises….

Synthesis – at end of module

1. Summary of Activity

Time spent (hours)

Time spent (weeks)

Age of students

Subject context

What did the students do?

What did the teacher do?

2. Commentary on Activity

How appropriate was your preparation/training?

How did the work compare with your expectations?

What would you change next time?

3. Impact of Activity

on students’ learning

on students’ standards

on teacher’s methodology

 

Did the Multiversum network make a difference?

ANNEX 6 - Detailed workplan June 2001-December 2001

NOTE: For the general three-year workplan, see the Montecatini meeting summary

DATE/DEADLINE

ACTIVITY/OUTPUT

WHO

End of June 2001

All partners

End of June 2001

 

 

  • certified photocopies (by post to the attention of BD and AF) of receipts for the meeting in Northern Ireland
  • personnel time-sheets with information about yearly cost, number of workdays in a year, number of workdays in a week and number of hours per day, of each staff member involved in Multiversum, and possibly updated until May, 31 (by email)
  • expense sheet (by email to BD and AF) updated until today
  • statement (by email to BD and AF) concerning how many people work in your organisation and yearly general administrative costs of your organisation (i.e. referring to the same number of people), broken down into
  • communication (telephone, post, Internet use)
  • office supplies (paper, stationery, cartridges…)
  • photocopies
  • estimate (by email to BD and AF) of your expenses up to EUR 5500-6000 spread over 3 years) for planned local actions of teacher’s training, support to schools, production of material, purchase of equipment… to this effect:
  • please be as detailed and precise as you can concerning both the nature and the amount of such costs, because in the financial plan we have to distinguish among different budget heads
  • you don’t need to engage the total amount indicated, as (part of) it can also be considered as a refund for inkind costs such as personnel and general administration

All partners

July 7

  • Newry meeting summary and work materials to be circulated among the partners

Coordinator

July

  • Preparation and last check by the partners of contract amendment request
  • Preparation of partnership agreement draft, approval by the partners and signature of formal agreement
  • Submittal of contract amendment request to the TAO Bruxelles

Coordinator

Partners

March/November 2001

Training/support for the schools involved in the project

(I phase)

All partners

September 15 2001

Confirmation of names and email addresses of participating teachers

All partners

September 20 2001

Set-up of virtual forum for teachers

Coordinator

(moderators: coordinator + all partners)

End of September 2001

Developing and circulating a proposal about technical scenario of communication for school network

Coordinator

June-October 2001

Collecting and circulating feedback, ideas and material

  • from teachers concerning student’s evaluation of experience
  • from partners concerning evaluation of teacher’s training

 

 

 

 

  • from coordinator concerning evaluation of partnership

All partners, except the Greek partner for the part concerning evaluation of training

 

Coordinator

September- 10 October 2001

Choice of topics by the teachers/schools

Partners

Teachers/ schools

Oct. 10-14 2001

Sofia meeting

  • Identification of the themes chosen by teachers for the projects in the schools
  • Discussion and organization of themes
  • Discussion of, and agreement on, feedback from teachers concerning evaluation tools \ process
  • Feedback from teachers about network development
  • Communication tool and strategy for schools…
  • Workplan for 2001-2002

All partners

October 14 2001 - >

Fostering communication and networking among schools

All partners

November 30, 2001

Description of teacher training experience (2-3 ex. - template) collecting relevant materials (local language) + abstract (English)

All partners

15 December

Publication on the webpage

Co-ordinator

???

Publication on CD

  • As in the original paper version structure
  • Plus optional support material in Word / PDF / PPT /
  • HTML files

Co-ordinator

 

ANNEX 7 - Meeting evaluation

COMMENTS ON THE NEWRY MEETING

Positive points

Negative points

Proposals