Portugal: C2 Training activity
evaluation report
Saving water in livestock
The European Commission support for the production of this publication does not constitute an endorsement of the contents which reflects the views only of the authors, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
Background
The hereby C2 Training Activity Evaluation Report is part of the Quality Management Activity for conducting check-ups of project activities with the aim at receiving honest feedback on the fulfillment and impact of the activities, as well as building on what’s working well and improving next actions.
The C2 Training Activity took place in Braga, Portugal in the period 18-24 July, 2021. The main objective of the Training were:
-
to provide participants with the appropriate knowledge to save water in livestock production,
-
to present the newest technology on water accumulation in the area of livestock production,
-
to provide participants with effective water conservation skills, and
-
to equip participants with the necessary skills to transfer and apply the acquired knowledge in their own countries.
The objective of the Training evaluation was to collect the participants’ feedback on the training; more specifically, to:
-
ensure that the training conducted meet all qualitative and quantitative indicators set by the consortium;
-
measure the level of satisfaction with the planning, organization and implementation of the Training Course, as well as participants’ involvement;
-
assess the extent to which the Training Course meets participants’ needs and allows transfer of knowledge;
-
collect suggestions for improvement of the organization and implementation of the next training activities.
A total of 12 representatives from three countries (Chech Republic, Spain, and Bulgaria) attended the Training Course.
After the Training Course participants were asked to complete an evaluation form on paper regarding overall training quality, achievement of training goals and outcomes, and the effectiveness of training activities. 12 evaluation forms were returned filled in to the Activity Leader – ECQ which form a 100% response rate. (See Table 1)
Detailed quantitative and qualitative results are described in the next few sections of the report.
Personal Information of Participants
The first question in the evaluation form asked about the profile of participants in the Training
Course. According to the results, the responses are distributed evenly among the participating
countries. There are 4 responses submitted by each of the participating countries – Bulgaria, the
Czech Republic, and Spain.
The representation of respondents per country is as follows:
According to their gender, there were 8 female and 4 male respondents who took part in the training course evaluation. 25% of all respondents were at the age category “18 – 25 years”, 25% fell in the category “26-40 years”, 17% are in the group “41-55 years”, and 33% were in the age range over 55 years”. This distribution allows the dissemination of the project results among different age groups, which will facilitate the further spreading of the knowledge acquired and supports the main idea of the project.
Preparation of the Training Course
On the question “How satisfied are you with the preparation before the Training Course concerning:
-
Initial information about the Training
-
Agenda of the Training
-
Logistic information about the Training”
most of the respondents were quite happy with the initial information (10), agenda (10), and logistic information (10) provided for the Training Course, which indicates a good level of preparation of the training and providing the needed initial information.
The preliminary efforts in the organization the activities were a good prerequisite for the successful
implementation of the training.
Implementation of the Training Course
Taking into consideration the fact that Training was structured into modules/ themes and participants had to undertake a variety of activities depending on the specific module/ theme of the day, the below evaluation provides a breakdown of implemented activities compared to the aims and objectives of the training.
The answers were used to define the level of participant's satisfaction with the aspects of the training. The responses “ relevant” and “quite relevant” are considered as positive feedback, while “irrelevant” and “absolutely irrelevant” can be defined as negative. The option “neutral” is assessed as neutral feedback. Receiving negative feedback should lead to recommendations for improvement outlined at the end of the current report.
The respondents had to evaluate the following aspects of the training:
-
Day 1 Introduction to the project “Saving water” and initial presentations, Ice-breakers ❑ Challenges in water conservation in livestock production
-
Solutions in capturing, storing water and forms of recycling it
-
Water management, rainfall storage and impact on local habitat
-
Technology in water management - rinsing and washing
-
Fixing leaks, dripping faucets and prevention of water loss
-
Divert wash water from a clean-in-place (CIP) system
-
Agricultural education and consultancy
-
Portuguese and EU health and environmental protection standards
-
Animal washing systems and strategies
-
Interactive exercises and brainstorming
-
Company Visits: Prados de Melgaço
-
Company Visits: Quinta de Pregal
-
Company Visits:Carnes Landeiro
As it is clear from Figure 5, most of the participants clearly state their positive evaluation of the relevance of thematic blocks included in the training. The rates for each topic are listed in the chart below:
The average satisfaction with the relevance of the training thematic blocks is 88,09%. Most of the participants share the topics are “absolutely relevant” or “relevant”. These persentages show that the program of the training in Portugal was very well structured and the topics were important according to the participants. The indicator with the lowest rate is “Agricultural education and consultancy”. Although the positive rate (75%) is high enough maybe the time dedicated to this topic could be considered in the future pieces of training implemented under the project.
Participant's Satisfaction with the Training Course
Participants' satisfaction with the Training was assessed in several major areas:
-
Duration of the Training Course
-
Venue
-
Quality of presentations
-
Facilitation, training methodology
-
Quality of discussions, group exercises
-
Contribution of participants
As can be seen in Figure 6, the majority of the respondents have positively evaluated all six areas. One neutral vote was given to the Quality of presentation, and respectively 2 and three for the “Quality of discussions, group exercises” and “Contribution of participants of the training”. There are 2 negative votes for the “Facilitation, training methodology” and “Quality of discussions, group exercises”. However, this doesn’t change the overall ranking but shows some variance in the level of respondents’ satisfaction as regards that area of evaluation compared to the others.
Further, respondents were asked to give their level of agreement with the following statements:
-
The implementation of the Training Course met my expectations.
-
The content of the Training Course was suitable to my needs.
-
The activities of the Training Course provided me with sufficient knowledge and practice.
-
I will be able to use and/or transfer what I learned during the Training Course.
The answers “absolutely agree” and “agree” were considered positive responses.
As visible from figure 7, most of the respondents (9 out of 12) agreed with the statements that the implementation of the Training Course has met their expectations and the activities have provided them with sufficient knowledge and practice (8 out of 12). 9 respondents state that the activities of the Training Course provided them with sufficient knowledge and practice and 10 of the 12 participants share that they will be able to use and/or transfer further what they learned during the Training Course.
One of the participants found that the content of the Training content does not suit his/her needs, and there are two negative answers each to the questions if the activities of the Training Course provided the participants with sufficient knowledge and practice and if they will be able to use and/or transfer what I learned during the Training Course.
Suggestions and Recommendations
At the end of the evaluation, respondents were asked to reflect on the most important learning outcome for them due to the Training Course. Below are some citations:
-
“The most important learning outcome was the practical knowledge that was shared in a form supporting further dissemination”
-
“The most important outcome was that I systematized and enriched my knowledge of water saving in stock production.”
-
“I appreciate the communication and exchange of experience and good practices between different countries and continuous exchange of information”
-
“Gaining knowledge and comparing good practices between project participants. I believe that much of the knowledge can be disseminated and used in our country”
-
“For me, it was interesting to compare the different water management with my country” ▪ “Other way of water management that could be used in the Czech Republic” ▪ “Comparison with my country. Agriculture condition of Portugal”
-
“For me, it is interesting and different water management to compare with my country” ▪ “Other way of water management which can be used in the Czech Republic” ▪ “Comparison with my country. Agricultural condition of Portugal”
-
“How to save water”
-
“During these training days, the most important thing was the local companies”
-
“I found very interesting the debates after the visits and the training of the management of the water.”
-
“The visits were very interesting, informative and involving, as well as the discussions about them. Comparing them and their different aspects was also very interesting.”
-
As can be seen from the abovementioned citations, the feedback about the Portugal Training Course was very positive and expressed the respondents’ satisfaction and acknowledgment of the trainers’ efforts and the training itself.
On the question “What suggestions would you make for additions or improvement?” respondents expressed the following recommendations:
-
“Everything was perfect”
-
“I really liked the Google forms as a way of assessment of participants’ knowledge, so I would propose their further use in the next pieces of training.”
-
“Everything in the project is very well planned as activities and implementation”
-
“The program was extremely comprehensive. The lecturers were competent and fascinating. The managers took care of the convenience of participants.”
-
“Everything was perfect”
-
“Group activities”
-
“I believe that the training has been of great interest to all that attended. Getting to know local companies was a bonus but the theoretical part could have been a bit more useful. Within the European Union, gender equality is promoted, therefore I would ask that the gender of the participants should be left out or that a third box for other genders should be put in.”
-
“The training has very interesting and important topics. The Portuguese team has done a great job, especially Luis who gave us very meaningful presentations and explications. But in my opinion, the duration of the training was very short. The schedule of the theoretical training in my opinion was not very appropriate, I think that those theoretical sessions would be more productive, efficient, and more brainstorming if they were in the morning.”
-
“For future trainings, I would like to dedicate more time to training and going through all items of the agenda, especially since Luis had already investigated and prepared them. Another aspect I would like to be improved in future training – and that is not in the hands of facilitators entirely – is the engagement of participants. At times, it seemed like some people did not want to be attending – it was disrupting and affecting the atmosphere of the group. In the same line: the group was very diverse, which could have turned out in very interesting discussions and perspectives but these discussions never really materialized.”
Conclusions
The overall evaluation of the Training clearly shows respondents’ satisfaction with the planning, organization, and implementation of the training activities. The majority of respondents consider the topics included in the training as relevant and well-chosen.
The initial information and agenda provided for the Training Course were positively evaluated by respondents. They found trainers’ efforts and activities undertaken quite appropriate for getting sufficient knowledge and subsequently adopting it in their work.
Furthermore, respondents stated that teamwork and collaboration among the participants and the fruitful discussions additionally helped for the successful conducting of the Training.
At the same time, some respondents expressed their desire and recommendation for more efforts in the fields of facilitation and training methodology and quality of discussions and group exercises. The hereby given evaluation results will be considered by all the partners and the project coordinator to contribute to the quality of the remaining trainings activities that will be implemented in the Czech Republic, Bulgaria, and Spain.