Organised by: French and UK NAs (National Agency) Co … Dialogue... · Co-organizer(s): SALTO...

Organised by: French and UK NAs (National Agency) Co-organizer(s): SALTO Cultural Diversity (SALTO)

Interfaith DialogueTraining Course8‐13 May 2012 | Lyon, France

Evaluation Report

Ghizala Avan(Independent Evaluator)

2

ContentsIntroduction ............................................................................................................................................3

Background Information .........................................................................................................................4

Training ...................................................................................................................................................5

The Team ................................................................................................................................................5

Training Methods Used........................................................................................................................... 5

The Participants ......................................................................................................................................6

Evaluation Methodology.........................................................................................................................7

Methodology 1: Evaluation questionnaires ...........................................................................................7

Methodology 2: ‘Evaluation flipchart sheet’ .........................................................................................7

Methodology 3: Daily ‘chats’ between the course evaluator and participants.....................................7

Self ‐Reported Outcomes from the Training Course Experience............................................................8

Participant Learning (knowledge, skills and confidence)........................................................................8

Interfaith awareness and confidence .....................................................................................................8

Knowledge of the Youth in Action Programme ....................................................................................10

Involving Young People in Activities and Working with Marginalised Young People...........................11

Impact of Learning at a Personal Level – Taking Action .......................................................................13

Action ‐ Application of learning ............................................................................................................14

Finding partners ....................................................................................................................................14

Commitment to developing future interfaith projects.........................................................................15

Feelings of being a European Citizen ....................................................................................................16

Participants’ morale and motivation at the end of the course.............................................................17

Learning from activities and exercises..................................................................................................17

Feedback about how the course was structured and practical issues .................................................19

Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................22

Recommendations ................................................................................................................................22

Evaluation form.....................................................................................................................................25

Training course programme..................................................................................................................26

3

IntroductionThis report provides an evaluation of the four day Interfaith Dialogue training course in Lyon France, organised by the French and UK National Agencies for the Youth in Action programme and SALTO Cultural Diversity.

The report focuses on the main outcomes from the training course and is based on what the participants articulated throughout and at the end of the course. It is perhaps worth very briefly mentioning a number of key points about ‘training evaluation’.

The question is not, "How can we prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that a given training program produced a given result?" but rather, "What will we accept as persuasive evidence that the program produced the result?" 1

The ‘evidence’ which is presented in this report is based on the evaluation questionnaires (appendix 2) as well as the informal feedback obtained from participants by the evaluator throughout the course. All the information obtained from the participants is based on participants’ self perception and self evaluation of their learning and not on observations.

As such, ‘results’ or outcomes from the training course have been left to participants to define for themselves as each participant on this course had a unique starting point, learning style and personal ‘journey’. Evaluating training is a matter of determining its value, and that's a matter of people's perceptions2

‘Results’ can also be viewed as how willing or prepared course participants are to transfer training to their workplaces. In addition to factors such as participant’s motivation levels and autonomy at work, whether participants consider the training to be relevant in terms of improving their abilities to perform better in a work environment is also a good predictor of transfer of training3 – these types of questions were included in the evaluation questionnaires as well as in the other methods of collecting information during this course.

Finally, no course participant gave low or negative reaction scores to any aspect of the training course. This is significant because whilst high/positive participant reaction scores do not imply that the training outcomes have been fully met, low/negative reaction scores can indicate a potential problem in the effectiveness of the training4.

1 Fitz‐enz, Jac. (1994) Yes ... you can weigh training's value. Training Jul, 31. 7: 54.2 Abernathy, D.J. (1999). Thinking outside the evaluation box. Training and Development. Vol.53, Iss. 2; pg.18.3 Baldwin, T. and Ford, J.K. (1988), Transfer of training: a review and directions for future research. PersonnelPsychology, Vol. 41, pp. 63‐1054 Tannenbaum, S.I., Woods, S.B., (1992). Determining a Strategy for Evaluating Training: Operating WithinOrganizational Constraints. HR. Human Resource Planning. New York. Vol.15, Iss.2, pg.63

4

Background InformationThis training course was the second in a series of events around the topic of Interfaith Dialogue organised and delivered in partnership by the UK and French National Agencies for the Youth in Action programme (YiA) and SALTO Cultural Diversity. As such, this course built on the learning and feedback from the delivery of the first course.

This course targeted youth workers and youth leaders who worked directly with young people and wished to explore how to engage young people in interfaith dialogue activities (especially through Youth in Action projects). The course was primarily open to participants from YiA Programme countries and neighbouring partner countries who fulfilled the following criteria:

youth workers, youth leaders working directly with young people

experienced in youth work projects / youth projects (YiA or not)

engaged in interfaith activities or engaged in their own community and willing to develop interfaith activities

over 18 and who can express themselves in English

The objectives for the four day course were:

1. to reflect and discuss on the need for interfaith dialogue in youth work and its challenges

2. to exchange best practices through project examples on how to engage young people in interfaith dialogue

3. to consider the role of youth workers with diverse groups of young people in a changing world

4. to equip participants to implement future YiA projects dealing with interfaith dialogue taking into account the current situation across Europe.

In summary, the format of the four day training course was as follows:

Day 1: Introduction, team building, looking at conceptsDay 2: challenges for youth workDay 3: good practices, participants' projects & project visitDay 4: YiA possibilities, partnerships, future projects, resources, evaluation

The course started at 9am every day and finished around 8pm with dinner, giving participants and trainers the opportunity to discuss issues informally if they so wished. For a full programme schedule, please see appendix 1.

5

Training

The TeamThe trainers were Ms Farkhanda Chaudhry and Mr Areg Tadevosyan, both of whom are regular trainers of Youth in Action activities, and experienced in the area of Interfaith Dialogue.

Ms Salima Boudoukha from the French National Agency was responsible for the overall co‐ ordination of the course/project and Mr Jeremy Barnett from SALTO Cultural Diversity supported the work of the overall project as well as playing an advisory role. Salima and Jeremy also supported the work of the trainers by facilitating ‘reflection’ groups with the participants and contributing to the course as and when required.

Ms Sakina Bakha helped to provide the local context for the course and organised guest speakers from organisations working in Lyon. Sakina also helped to identify places of worship for the participants to visit and actively participated on the course.

The evaluator, Ms Ghizala Avan, was independent and external to the Youth in Action programme and any of the partners involved, and therefore was able to bring a fresh and objective approach. However it is worth mentioning that she was employed on a freelancebasis by the French National Agency. Ghizala had just completed year one of the MSc in Occupational Psychology with a specific interest in training and development.

Training Methods UsedThe main learning approach used by the facilitators was ‘non‐formal’ in line with the guiding principles of the Youth in Action programme. Youth in Action defines non‐formal learning as:

[Non‐formal learning]... purposive but voluntary learning that takes place in a diverse range of environments and situations for which teaching/training and learning is not necessarily their sole or main activity. These environments and situations may be temporary, and the activities or courses that take place may be staffed by professional learning facilitators (such as youth trainers) or by volunteers (such as youth leaders). The activities and courses are planned, but are seldom structured by conventional rhythms or curriculum subjects. They usually address specific target groups, but rarely document or assess learning outcomes or

achievements in conventionally visible ways.5

The trainers used a wide range of ‘tools’ to enrich the learning experience of the participants including quizzes, ‘friendly dragons’ den’, group discussions, PowerPoint presentations, DVDs, reflection groups, arts & crafts, role play/drama, one to one work (as and when required), visits to places of worship, visits to NGOs in Lyon, question & answer

5 https://www.youthpass.eu/en/youthpass/for/youth‐initiatives/learn/information/non‐formal‐learning/

6

sessions with invited speakers, and by offering more informal/optional ‘chats’ during or after dinner.

Please refer to appendix 1 for a breakdown of the training course program.

The ParticipantsThe participants were from many different Programme Countries and Neighbouring PartnerCountries of the Youth in Action Programme. There were 20 participants from 16 countries.

Participants creatively present their perceptions of faith

7

Evaluation MethodologyThe team agreed a multi‐pronged approach to evaluation.

At the outset the participants were informed that the quality of the training delivered was paramount to the organisers and facilitators in order to learn lessons and contribute to the development and planning of the next Interfaith Dialogue event However, how they ultimately used this training ‘beyond’ the training course was equally as important – i.e. throughout the course they were reminded to focus on outcomes for them as individuals, as youth workers, for their organisations and also for their communities. The various evaluation processes are outlined below.

Methodology 1: Evaluation questionnairesAll participants were encouraged to complete evaluation questionnaires (developed by SALTO‐Youth) at the end of the course, and enough time was allocated in the programme for participants to do this. 18 completed evaluation forms were returned. The level offeedback in these forms varied and may be linked to how confident participants were in expressing themselves in written English.

Methodology 2: ‘Evaluation flipchart sheet’A piece of flipchart paper was placed on the wall of the training room throughout the duration of the course and participants were encouraged to add to the paper anything they perceived as an outcome or thought that they had learnt which they could use in the future. Unfortunately this evaluation method was not utilised to its full potential, only two people adding to the paper and this only after the course evaluator encouraged them to do so.

Methodology 3: Daily ‘chats’ between the course evaluator and participants Participants were informed at the outset that they could approach the course evaluator at any time during lunch/coffee/dinner breaks to discuss any issues they wanted to raise regarding the course and any perceived outcomes for them. The course evaluator also took the opportunity to approach participants during breaks to speak to them informally about how the course was impacting on them and their ideas about their work etc. This had to be done very sensitively, taking into account the need for participants to rest, reflect and spend time with other participants during the breaks.

As an evaluation method, this approach enhanced and added value to the overall evaluation process and ultimately outcome of the research. The course evaluator was able to capture the learning from specific activities and exercises which is often a failure of a generic evaluation form – the latter providing an overall ‘picture’ of how the training was perceived by participants.

8

Self Reported Outcomes from the Training Course ExperienceThe data collected from these evaluation processes were both qualitative and quantitative; the quantitative data (obtained from the questionnaires only) has been summarised below in graphical form and qualitative data has been used to enrich the interpretation of this data. For the purposes of this report, the data obtained from the participants has been loosely categorised under two key headings – ‘Participant Learning’ and ‘Action’. However, there is inevitably a crossover between the two, as participants make the link between gaining knowledge, skills etc. and thereby increasing the potential for them to take action.

Participant Learning (knowledge, skills and confidence)From the participants’ responses, it was clear that the outcomes fell into two categories of learning; ‘theoretical’ learning describing a general raising of awareness around the topic of Interfaith Dialogue, and ‘practical’ learning focusing more on the skills and confidence which would allow them to put theory into practice. From an outcome perspective this is very positive as the participants clearly made the link between theory and information and their work/practice.

Interfaith awareness and confidenceFigure 1 below presents the perceived increase in the understanding of interfaith dialogue amongst participants. It can be seen that there has been a marked increase – with 11 participants rating themselves at level 5 and three participants at the highest level (6) after the training course. Participants made various comments about interfaith work (after the course and during the course):

‘[Before the course] Was more theoretical before, [after the course] much more broader perspective and context’

‘Interfaith Dialogue can be within faiths as well as between faiths’

‘Coming to this event has made me realise what we are doing in the UK is good [Interfaith work] and we are possibly leading the way in some of the work we are doing here’

9

FIGURE 1: Understanding of interfaith dialogue in youth work and its challenges

Please Note: on the horizontal (x) axis, 1=LOW understanding and 6=HIGH. The vertical (y) axis represents number of participants

Almost all participants felt there was some improvement in their knowledge, and for the few that thought there was little improvement, these participants’ comments perhaps helps to see why:

‘[The course] Missed a program element which addressed this in‐depth............What actually happens in dialogue? How to facilitate this, an exercise with input from the experts on what can go wrong, challenges, and how these can be addressed would be really useful.....’

‘I wanted an authorised definition of ‘Interfaith Dialogue’, how do the organisations involved in this training define this term? It is also very important that the key competencies and language/words around Interfaith Dialogue are discussed at this course’

10

FIGURE 2: Your knowledge and confidence to engage young people in Interfaith Dialogue activities


Figure 2 also demonstrates a perceived increase in knowledge and confidence in engaging with young people around interfaith dialogue. After the course, 13 participants rated themselves at the highest levels (5&6).

‘[After the course] much more confident plus have the tools’

‘It will be easier for me to engage people in Interfaith Dialogue project. If I am to carry out such kind of YiA project, I will be more motivated, more sure to have a project with thiscontent [Interfaith Dialogue]’

Knowledge of the Youth in Action ProgrammeMoving away from knowledge around the topic, Figure 3 illustrates a significant increase in knowledge of the YiA programme. 17 participants reported their knowledge to be at levels4, 5 & 6 after the training, whereas before the training only 9 participants had.

‘[I learnt] The case of Lyon and France in terms of Interfaith Dialogue, practical tools for YiAprojects and lots of personal backgrounds and opinions (which is very important for me)’

11

FIGURE 3: What is your knowledge of the Youth in Action programme

Please Note: on the horizontal (x) axis, 1=LOW understanding and 6=HIGH. The vertical (y) axis representsnumber of participants

Involving Young People in Activities and Working with Marginalised Young PeopleIn addition to knowledge around the topic and programme, participants also highlighted learning new processes, skills and competencies as having a positive impact on their future work with young people:

‘I have included young people in my own project before but I’m not too much experienced at all. I was still needing some development. This training course contributed to my skills, competencies....’

‘I learnt new processes that had an impact on me so they will have impact on other young people too [that I work with]’

Personal Faith objects showcased by participants

12

FIGURE 4: How much do you know about getting young people involved in activities?


Figure 4 illustrates there has been a clear self‐reported ‘shift’ in participants’ knowledge about how to involve young people in activities (related to interfaith issues/dialogue). Again this shift is towards an increase in knowledge – 17 participants rating themselves as 4 and above after the course compared to 8 participants rating themselves at these levels beforethe course.

Participants during the ‘build a village’ exercise

13

FIGURE 5: How much do you know about new approaches of including young people with fewer opportunities


Participants also reported an increase in knowledge about new approaches of including young people with fewer opportunities (Figure 5). The difference between ‘before’ and‘after’ the course was most striking at levels 5 and 6. Before the course only two participants had said their knowledge was at these levels whereas after the course another nine participants said it was.

Although this was the case, one participant who felt they hadn’t increased their knowledge said:

I know about YiA but I am interested to find out how to involve exactly those young people that you want to reach out to (find them, motivate them). The course did not address this’[for me]

Impact of Learning at a Personal Level – Taking ActionA number of open questions were also included in the questionnaire to give participants the opportunity to express themselves fully regarding the training. Using this, and the opportunity to discuss with the evaluator, many participants expressed how the learning had also benefited them at a personal level. Some participants made links between how their future work could change and/or develop as a direct result of this learning:

‘In a multi‐cultural [setting], I have learnt to listen to, respect each other, I learnt how to learn from each other, the exchange of ideas. I discovered new knowledge. I learnt about

14

different countries, what is being done in other countries, in other organisations in terms of inclusion, inclusion of people with less advantages’

‘I learnt that we should never judge a person/culture/religion only with our own criteria, but instead we should first understand what his background is’

‘I did like it a lot, was useful both for personal experience and tools for development of home country situations....’

‘I truly think that a part of my ideology towards interaction between different cultures has dramatically changed in a very positive way. Thanks to the Interfaith Dialogue course’

‘I learnt that some minority communities are more vocal than others and we need to make more of an effort to include those that are less vocal. It is so easy to exclude the minority of minorities’

Action Application of learningIn addition to reported participant learning (knowledge, skills and confidence) described in the previous section, some of the outcomes of the course concentrated on application of this learning. Enough time was built into the course to enable participants to discuss future project ideas with each other. This resulted in participants finding potential partners as well as having more clarity around how these projects could be developed.

‘It is difficult to apply [the learning] totally but any work will be influenced by this week and the results of ‘exchanges’ [with other participants]’

Finding partnersIn terms of having a partner to implement an idea for a future ‘interfaith’ project, prior to the course 89% of participants said they had no partners. After the course, 83% said they found a partner and 83% were confident that they would also find a partner in the future too.

15

Figure 6: Did you find a partner on this training course?

Commitment to developing future interfaith projectsPerhaps due to finding partners on the course to collaborate with and/or the content of the course material, participants were much more committed to developing an international project ‐ 16 participants rated their commitment at the highest levels at the end of the course (See Figure 6).

FIGURE 6: Commitment to developing an international project


16

Feelings of being a European CitizenIn line with one of the principles of the Youth in Action programme, the evaluation questionnaire included a question asking to what extent participants felt they were European citizens. Whilst this question is not about taking ‘action’ or ‘learning’, it provides an interesting insight regarding participants’ frame of mind after the course.

In comparison to all the areas examined above, to what extent participants felt they wereEuropean citizens was one area which demonstrated the least change when ‘before’ and‘after’ were compared (Figure 7).

Although this was the case, it is worth noting that some participants felt there was a sharing of the same values amongst the group after the event. – another characteristic that participants identified which stems from being part of YiA programme and transcends‘feeling European.’

‘My country is a candidate for E.U. Even if we are not EU member yet I feel myself European citizen to some extent as I’m actively taking part in YiA programs, youth projects’.

‘I visit many European cities and I have had the chance to taste the European dimension of education and cultures. After this training I felt myself more and more like European citizen. It was a helpful training course.’

‘Well, European citizen might mean ‘EU citizen’ so I’m not. Sharing the same values with others makes it a bit better’

FIGURE 7: How much do you feel a European citizen?

Please Note: on the horizontal (x) axis, 1=LOW understanding and 6=HIGH. The vertical (y) axis represents number of participants. Two people did not respond to this question

17

Participants’ morale and motivation at the end of the courseInevitably on courses like this, participants generally experience an increase in motivation, drive and confidence. This is indeed another outcome, although whether it is long‐lived or short‐lived will vary amongst the participants and can depend on a number of factors such as their personality traits, their work environments and commitments, and the wider political context they live/work in.

At the end of the course, the facilitators gave participants the opportunity to ‘reflect’ on how they were feeling. The following are some examples of what was said:

‘I once had a dream to change the world and I gave up on this but you guys have inspired me’

‘I changed a lot of personal views and without knowing we can be discriminating in little ways. Meeting people who want to be the change they want to see in the world. We know have to figure out what we do. You have all had an effect on me and what I’ll be in the future’

‘I think this work is very difficult and sensitive and it is very important to draw energy from where you can get it. I also got a lot of inspiration and positivity from the course and the people’

Participants discussing elements of various faiths.

18

Learning from activities and exercisesOn courses like this, it is also important to understand which activities and exercises work particularly well and helped lead to some of the outcomes outlined above. This section highlights any references to certain exercises and activities which were particularly important to participants. There was a lot of useful information obtained by the course evaluator by speaking to participants directly, particularly around what activities were working really well and others that could improved:

‘The method and activities are great to translate into own work. We see the results in our learning and they [trainers] are doing this is in such an interesting way. We can use this with other young people’

‘Before I didn’t know what I would do if someone came to my country and now I have a better understanding because of the village activity [building villages from clay]’

Another activity (which facilitators described as the ‘active listening’ exercise) involved participant one directing participant two to draw a picture which only participant one could see. This was viewed as very helpful:

‘Drawing a picture simply by following instructions from someone was a good metaphor for‘our picture of our religion’ and it is important that the other person listens very carefully so they understand the ideas and feelings behind our religion’

‘Conflict stems from different narratives and views, if you focus on a project together [like on this course] then you have a common aim and you are not even aware of differences. Personally this gave me a tool to work with young people’

An interesting but unplanned situation arose during the training – one participant who expressed his religious views was ‘bombarded’ with many direct questions from some of the participants, particularly in relation to his values on gender equality. Whilst this was uncomfortable and provoked some anxiety amongst some of the participants, in hindsight people perceived this as a great learning experience. – ironically on ‘how not to conduct interfaith dialogue.’

‘Myth of Interfaith is that you try to ‘convert’ people or get them round to your way of thinking. We have to be able to engage in Interfaith Dialogues without bombarding people with questions’

‘To be an active peacemaker and to engage in peaceful Interfaith conversations, it is really important to know your communities really well’

19

Feedback about how the course was structured and practical issuesThe evaluation of this course also provided some very valuable practical information and feedback from participants which will be used during the organisation and development of the next instalment in the Interfaith Dialogue project partnership. These responses raise important points and can also be used more generally by organisations / individuals who are intending to become involved in / deliver interfaith projects.

Many participants felt that the programme was too ‘full’ and they would have benefited from having more free time for personal/individual reflection. They also felt this affected the quality of some of their discussions as these had to be cut back due to lack of time – this is articulated well by one of the participants:

‘......In fact, in my opinion there were too many activities for just 4 days and that meant that we hadn’t time to meet each other outside the scheduled activities and also that in some cases interesting discussions that arose spontaneously around a topic had to be cut due to the lack of time and it is a pity! So to sum up, I dare to suggest to rethink about that for the next course: maybe it is better to do less activities than trying to tackle many issues rapidly and sometimes superficially’

Whilst the trainers did include an activity which gave participants the chance to talk briefly about an item that had some significance for them (and this could include a religious item) many participants felt that this didn’t present enough of an opportunity to present themselves and their beliefs:

‘I would have liked to share my religious experience and hear about others. The current session was very short. .....’

‘The only thing could have been done is that we could have presented our presentations about our religion, types of worshipping’

All of the participants reported that they thought:‐

The training course was held in an environment where they felt comfortable to learn They learned from other participants during the training course There were appropriate resources available to use and refer to after the training It was possible to apply what they learned on the course ‘back home’

The majority of the participants felt their experiences of youth work and training was taken into consideration in the training course, however some felt that this didn’t happen enough:‐

20

Figure 8: Were your expectations of the training course addressed?

No one said their expectations had not been met by the training. Of those participants (53%) who said that ‘some’ of their training needs were met, they mostly said they would have liked more opportunity to engage in interfaith dialogue with the other participants/trainers. One participant said:

‘Yes [my needs were met around]: intercultural experiences, meeting people from different religions, receiving tools for Interfaith Dialogue.

No [my needs were not met because]: I expected Interfaith Dialogue, more sharing of good practice, reducing of conflicts, more reflection on the troubles that can arise in Interfaith Dialogue and how to solve it etc.’

Some participants suggested following improvements:

‘We could brainstorm different ideas about good examples of Interfaith Dialogue and work and explore how they can be used to develop work in our own countries’

‘Why have people come on this course? Perhaps it is important to ask this at registration’

21

FIGURE 9: Were you actively participating in the training course?

All the participants felt they contributed to the training and those who said they contributed slightly less, some of the reasons included:

‘I personally don’t feel comfortable sometimes reflecting amongst a lot of people so prefer small groups so probably didn’t participate actively all the time’

‘My English level is not enough’

Participants reflecting on Day 3’s activities

22

Conclusion

In summary, there are many aspects of the course that worked really well and one only has to look at the outcomes described by the participants as well as those measured by the course evaluation questionnaires (quantitative data) to endorse this. Whilst the content of the course may essentially be consistent across all the courses, it is inevitable that there are variables. Each course brings its own challenges as different dynamics are created due to variations in types of participants and trainers on the course, differences in countries and venues where the courses take place and also to some extent the political climate etc.

The next section presents recommendations based on participant feedback and the issues issues raised on this course.

Recommendations

1. From the feedback received from the participants, the activities throughout the course were rated very highly and most participants were keen to use these in their own work in their countries. However, there appeared to be some lack of clarity about the purpose of the course – many participants thought that the course was specifically about them engaging in interfaith dialogue with each other and not exploring Interfaith Dialogue and its challenges, and engaging young people in Interfaith activities. The following suggestions may help for future courses:

Publicity, pre‐course material and trainers’ introduction to the course needs to reinforce the aims and objectives of the course more than is already being done

More time could be spent at the introduction stage to establish what participants’ expectations are

The course could be developed further and or extended to include space for interfaith dialogue to occur through role play or use of case studies

A short film could be produced (e.g. bad practice and good practice in engaging in interfaith dialogue) as a learning tool

2. The time constraints (as perhaps with most courses of this nature) meant that a few activities had to be dropped from the programme (after much careful consideration by the trainers). It is always hard to predict which issues will come up on these courses which may ‘eat’ into the time – and this course was no exception. However, participants felt that the programme was ‘intense’ and they didn’t have any ‘free’ time.

23

Some ‘free’ time should be built into future training programmes to allow some flexibility for the participants (and trainers)

The duration of the course could be extended by half a day or one day without the addition of any more activities

3. During this training course an unplanned debate / exchange between participants occurred. This issue primarily arose after a participant shared with the group what their religion permitted in relation to differences in ‘rules’ for men and women. Some participants found this went against their personal values and belief systems (and possibly their faiths), causing tension amongst the participants. With such a sensitive topic as Interfaith, this is a situation which is very real and possible, It may therefore help to consider some of the following should something similar occur on another course:

An activity or exercise could be introduced around equality e.g. how do different religions and faiths perceive disability, gender, LGBT, class issues

During the introduction session, more time could be spent on sharing beliefs and raising understanding about participants faiths in a safe and structured way.

How these equality issues ‘fit in’ with the participants’ values and belief systems How Interfaith Dialogue can be conducted in these circumstances in a positive

and constructive way and how conflict can be avoided

4. Whilst recognising the amount of time and effort involved in planning and running these courses, participants believed there are perhaps some areas which require extra consideration, specifically in relation to guest speakers. The following suggestions are made:

More information about guest speakers could be made available to the team prior to inviting them as guest speakers to the course

If possible, the course facilitators should meet or have a telephone conversation with the speakers before they are invited and ensure their speeches are in line with the course aims and objectives

If interpreters are being used for any part of the course, it is important to ‘test’ their skills in some way and ensure they have the relevant translating skills to translate concepts around interfaith dialogue which can be quite complex and profound.

24

5. Each person brought in to evaluate training courses may have a different approach to undertaking this task. While evaluation questionnaires were the main method of getting feedback from participants, what worked well on this course was the proactive approach taken by the evaluator in speaking to participants during various breaks and when other opportunities presented themselves. This may be happening on other courses too and it is worth reiterating:

Participants should be reminded at the beginning of the course that they should actively think about what they are learning and how they can apply this learning to their work etc.

Course evaluators should establish a rapport with the participants at the beginning of the course and then sensitively approach them for information throughout the training course (important to get the right balance)

An ‘open door’ set up is necessary so that participants feel comfortable about approaching the course evaluator with any comments, information etc.

6. A lot of work goes into organising the logistics and practicalities for training courses such as these. Following a team evaluation after to the course, the trainers and organisers suggested the following:

A one hour lunch break was too short and perhaps this can be extended to 1.5 hours next time (allowing participants more time with each other too). Also to speed things up during lunch time, a buffet would be better

The team also discussed the possibility of having dinner earlier at 7pm (rather than 8pm) giving participants more free time in the evenings

The hotel at which the training course was held was good and staff were very supportive, however the conference room caused some difficulties due to its shape, size and temperature control system.

This time participants had two half days outside (half a day for visits to various places of worship and another day for visits to various NGOs and the farewell dinner). Perhaps outside visits could be shortened for future courses giving more opportunity to deliver course content

The Youth in Action presentation was too long and far too detailed. Perhaps for future courses, it may be worth getting a ‘level check’ about participants’ knowledge about ‘Youth in Action’ so the presentation can be pitched at the right level. The other suggestion was to have two presentations run simultaneously – one targeted at people who know little about YiA and another for participants who are more informed about YiA

Appendix 1 – Training Schedule

Appendix 2 – Evaluation Questionnaire

TRAINING COURSE QUESTIONNAIRE

Interfaith Dialogue

To explore the impact of the training course it is important for us to know your ability to carry out international Youth inAction Programme projects

This information will be processed anonymously and will not be used for any other purpose than to improve and evaluate the quality and the impact of the training course.

Please keep your answers brief and concise.

For the question with a scale, please put a cross X on the number that suits you. .Remember that 1 is low and 6 is high.

If you have any questions, please ask your facilitator.

The questionnaire begins on the next page….

Training Course

Yes No Comment

1) Was the training course held in an environment where you felt comfortable to learn?

2) Were your experiences in youth work and training taken into consideration in the training course?

3) Did you learn from other participants during the training course?

4) Were there appropriate resources available to use and refer to after the training?

5) Is it possible to apply what you have learned on this course back home in your reality?

28

Almostall

Some Notreally

Comment

7) Were your expectations of the training course addressed?

Which ones in particular?

8) Were you actively participating in the training course?

Explain

9) What is your opinion of the trainers’ work? Do you have any feedback to give them?

29

Learning

10) How would you rate your knowledge/ability in the following areas (main parts approached in the training course):

LOW HIGH

Your understanding of interfaith dialogue in youth workand its challenges

1 2 3 4 5 6 Comments

Before the course

After the course

LOW HIGH

Your knowledge and confidence to engage young people ininterfaith dialogue activities

1 2 3 4 5 6 Comments

Before the course

After the course

30

11a) What else did you learn from the training course?

11b) What was the highlight of the course for you? Why?

11c) Do you have needs that were not addressed in the training course? If yes explain.

32

Creating Projects

12a) What is your commitment to developing a Youth in Action project now you have completed the Training Course?

LOW HIGH

Commitment to develop an international project 1 2 3 4 5 6

Before the course

After the course

If you have an idea for a future project… Yes No

Did you have a partner to implement your project before the course?

Did you find a partner on this course?

Are you confident you will find a partner in the future?

33

Fundamental prioritiesThe following questions are asked across all SALTO Cultural Diversity training courses, so over a longer term we can measure how far we are serving theneeds/priorities of the Youth in Action programme.

YOUTH IN ACTION PROGRAMMELow Detailed

What is your knowledge of the Youth in Actionprogramme?

1 2 3 4 5 6 Please briefly describe your ability, andwhich areas you need to develop:

Before the course

After the course

PARTICIPATION OF YOUNG PEOPLENot much A lot

How much do you know about getting young peopleinvolved in activities?


Before the course

After the course

34

INCLUSIONDon’t know many Many

How much do you know about new approaches ofincluding young people with fewer opportunities?


Before the course

After the course

EUROPEAN CITIZENSHIPA little A lot

How much do you feel a European citizen? 1 2 3 4 5 6 Please briefly describe your ability, andwhich areas you need to develop:

Before the course

After the course

35

Any other comment about the course you wish to add:

Many thanks for taking time to complete this form.

In 4 to 6 months time you will be receiving a follow‐up questionnaire in a similar format to the application form (online form by email). You will be asked to complete and return it, so we can see how much impact the course will have back in your own reality.

Organised by: French and UK NAs (National Agency) Co … Dialogue... · Co-organizer(s): SALTO...

Documents

Transcript of Organised by: French and UK NAs (National Agency) Co … Dialogue... · Co-organizer(s): SALTO...