VALUE THE DIFFERENCE: Youth Subcultures

VALUE THE DIFFERENCE: Youth Subcultures 19th – 24th November 2012 Vilnius, Lithuania Organised by: Lithuanian National Agency (NA) for the Youth in A...
Author: Anne Neal
2 downloads 1 Views 1MB Size
VALUE THE DIFFERENCE: Youth Subcultures 19th – 24th November 2012 Vilnius, Lithuania

Organised by: Lithuanian National Agency (NA) for the Youth in Action Programme and SALTO Cultural Diversity

Evaluated and written by Ghizala Avan (an independent evaluator)

1

Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Aims & objectives of the course .............................................................................................................3 Participants .............................................................................................................................................3 The Team ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Training Methods Used........................................................................................................................... 4 Evaluation Methodology......................................................................................................................... 5 Methodology 1: Evaluation questionnaires....................................................................................... 5 Methodology 2: Daily ‘chats’ between the course evaluator and participants................................. 5 Methodology 3: Six month post course evaluation ........................................................................... 6 Methodology 4: Reflection groups .................................................................................................... 6 General feedback from participants .......................................................................................................6 Course content and evaluation outcomes.............................................................................................. 6 The arrival – Welcome Evening ..........................................................................................................7 Day one ...............................................................................................................................................7 Feedback about day one................................................................................................................. 8 Day two ...............................................................................................................................................9 Feedback from day two ................................................................................................................10 Day three...........................................................................................................................................14 Feedback from day three ..............................................................................................................15 Day Four ............................................................................................................................................16 Feedback from day four................................................................................................................16 Conclusion.............................................................................................................................................19 Good Practice – What worked ..............................................................................................................19 Recommendations ................................................................................................................................21

2

Introduction In November 2012, The Lithuanian National Agency for the Youth in Action programme and SALTO Cultural Diversity delivered a training course on Youth Subcultures in Vilnius, Lithuania. In partnership with SALTO Inclusion, ‘Value the Difference: Youth Subcultures’ brought together Youth Workers and Youth Leaders from across Europe specifically working with young people from subcultures to reflect, learn and explore more about the topic of Cultural Diversity. This was the 8th course based on the theme of “Value the difference”. The topic of Youth Subcultures was chosen as it represented a priority for the Lithuanian NA, specifically looking at some of the challenges young people from subcultures face in Lithuanian society. Aims & objectives of the course The main aim of the Value the Difference Training Course was to reflect, explore and learn more about the field of Cultural Diversity (with a focus on youth subcultures) in European youth work. The objectives of the course were:       

To reflect critically about personal and cultural identity To gain a greater understanding of cultural diversity in different local and national realities To gain awareness of Cultural Diversity in today’s Europe by learning about the wider geographical and historical perspectives To explore ways in which participants can generate and foster a more tolerant society To better understand concepts which relate to the themes/topics of Cultural Diversity, such as stereotyping, prejudice, manipulation and limits of culture etc. To develop intercultural skills and competences related to international youth projects, reflecting on learning using Youthpass To get inspired to carry out future international youth projects through YiA programme and other resource possibilities

Participants There were 22 participants on this course, representing sixteen countries.

3

The Team The two trainers were Mr Henk Persyn and Mr Donatas Petkauskas. Henk had already delivered ‘Value the Difference’ courses four times and Donatas was delivering this course for the first time though he had delivered many youth related courses and continues to be on the Lithuanian National Agency ‘trainers’ pool’ since 2004. Also, this was the first time that Henk and Donatas were working together (they had had the opportunity to discuss and plan the course together prior to its delivery). Loreta Eimontaite and Agne Kvikliene from the Lithuanian NA were involved throughout the training as well as prior to the course. They organised the visits in Lithuania for participants and identified relevant guest speakers as well as dealt with all the administration associated with the course including the participants, hotel and the training team. Jeremy Barnett from SALTO Cultural Diversity supported the work of the overall project as well as playing an advisory role. Jeremy also supported the work of the trainers by giving a presentation on SALTO’s definition of ‘Intercultural Competence and facilitating ‘reflection’ sessions (these sessions are briefly described below) with the participants and contributing to the course as and when required. Marija Kljajic from SALTO Inclusion Resource Centre in Brussels gave a presentation on “Tapping into the talents of urban youth” and supported the work of the trainers as well as facilitating ‘reflection’ sessions. The evaluator, 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. She was employed on a freelance basis.

Training Methods Used The main learning approach used by the facilitators was ‘non-formal’. The following definition of non-formal learning was obtained from the Youth in Action Programme’s website: [Non-formal learning]... is 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

4

subjects. They usually address specific target groups, but rarely document or assess learning outcomes or achievements in conventionally visible ways.1 The whole concept of the training course was based on the main principles of non-formal education. According to the trainers, the following principles were followed during the learning process: 1. Learner centred approach – personal needs and interests of each participant were taken into account, which led to personal and professional development of the participants. 2. Dealing with diversity – the trainers invested in safe learning environment in the group, so the group members could challenge themselves and others during the learning process. The diversity within a group was seen as the resource for sharing and learning. 3. Relevance to reality – the learning was organized to be as close as possible to the reality of the participants making the links to, and taking examples from real situations of the participants. 4. Learning from the experience – the personal experience of participants was the source for learning by reflecting on it and drawing conclusions for further application. 5. Active participation – space and conditions for active participation ensured active role and involvement of the participants during the learning process.

Evaluation Methodology Based on a successful model of evaluation used previously (with some adaptations) by the evaluator on a UK/French National Agency and SALTO Cultural Diversity course, the following evaluation processes were used: Methodology 1: Evaluation questionnaires All participants were encouraged to complete evaluation questionnaires (developed by SALTO Youth in Action) at the end of the course, and enough time was allocated in the programme for participants to do this (please refer to appendices section to see the evaluation questionnaire used). Methodology 2: 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.

1

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

5

As an evaluation method, this approach enhanced and added value to the overall evaluation process. The course evaluator was able to capture the learning from specific activities and exercises which is often a failure of generic evaluation questionnaires – the latter providing an overall ‘picture’ of what the participants thought and felt about the training as a whole. Methodology 3: Six month post course evaluation Building on a previous evaluation process, the team agreed to introduce another evaluation methodology this time. Between eight and eleven participants (33% to 50%) will be contacted via email and/or telephone six months after the course took place (in the month of May 2013) and using a short questionnaire, will be asked for their views, experiences and thoughts on how useful the course has been for them on a personal and professional level. Once this is done, the findings will be added to this report. Methodology 4: Reflection groups The purpose of the reflection groups was to give participants the opportunity to raise any issues or concerns they had at the end of each training day. Four groups were formed with Henk, Donatas, Marija and Jeremy facilitating a group each. This was quite a useful method of gathering information for evaluation purposes even though this wasn’t directly the aim of these groups. The course evaluator ‘rotated’ across most of the groups. The rest of the report presents the findings from these evaluation processes, and where relevant linking these findings to the various activities and sessions which constitute the training course.

General feedback from participants 22 evaluation forms were returned by participants. Some forms were more detailed than others and this may reflect participants’ varying levels of fluency in English. In terms of general feedback collated from the evaluation forms:  

55% (12) thought that almost all their expectations of the course were addressed, 41% (9) said some expectations were addressed and one person did not respond. 68% (15) said they were actively participating throughout most of the training course, 27% (6) said they were actively participating in some of the course.

Most participants self-reported as actively participating on the course and the comments and feedback from the participants below, reflect this.

Course content and evaluation outcomes This section will provide an overview of the activities covered during the course (looking at each day at a time) and where relevant some activities will be described in more detail. Participants’ comments and quantitative data (in the form of graphs) from the evaluation 6

forms have also been included in the appropriate sections below (though the course evaluator recognises that learning for each topic/subject took place throughout the course). Each day was split into morning and afternoon sessions (a two course lunch was provided). There were two coffee/tea breaks with light snacks (one during the morning session and one during the afternoon session) each day. The training session kicked off with a welcome evening, and this is described below along with the rest of the course.

The arrival – Welcome Evening On the evening of the day that participants arrived, a number of activities had been arranged by the trainers mainly around getting to know each other. One of the activities involved everybody drawing their country on the flipchart sheet, writing their names and introducing themselves. This was seen as a positive start to the course: Comments from course participants “There were good group dynamics, people got on well” “People are mixing well together” “We got to know each other, especially last night helped”

The trainers recognised that participants may be tired and therefore after these activities, the evening ended, giving participants the opportunity to rest or spend more time informally with other participants. Day one The next day participants continued to build on the previous evening and more time was spent enabling them to get to know each other, however the focus for day one was widened to include the following:     

building a positive group dynamic and learning environment setting a positive tone for the remainder of the course exploring the reality of young people today (in their own countries and globally) beginning to think about identity and its complexity exploring culture and how we may align ourselves to certain cultural ‘groups’

There were a number of ways the trainers encouraged the participants to build a productive group dynamic and the ‘rope’ activity is worth mentioning here. This activity involved all the participants standing on a rope which was placed on the floor in the shape of a rectangle. Participants were required to work as a team to move objects from one corner of the 7

rectangle to the opposite corner without taking their feet off the rope. Some of the objects included pencils, balls and eggs (uncooked!) and some of the rules were that each person on the rope had to touch the object before placing it in the other box and if anything was dropped then they had to start all over again. This activity was interesting because, as they failed to complete the task, some of the participants felt disappointed and thought they had ‘failed’ as a team (please refer to ‘Day two’ below for information on how the trainers managed to ‘turn this around’). Amongst other activities, participants were asked to carry out a short individual task which involved completing the following sentence ten times: “For me it is normal.................” This activity helped to introduce the topic of identity and this was followed by a presentation incorporating some of the theories (e.g. Ericson and Hofstede) around culture and identity. The session ended with a presentation on the ‘Mandala of identity’ and participants were encouraged to work on their own by using the Mandala of identity to look at themselves and explore areas of their lives in relation to their identity and identity formation. Once they had done this, they were asked to find a ‘partner’ and discuss this with them. The trainers made it clear to participants that they did not have to share anything they were uncomfortable with, with other participants. There was also a presentation organized by the SALTO Inclusion Resource Centre on “Tapping into the talents of urban youth”

Feedback about day one

Overall the feedback about day one was positive. This is demonstrated by the comments made during the course below. “The methods [used by the trainers] in the morning were very good because they gave me lots of ideas about how to engage with young people” “I’m so impressed so far and sharing the experiences with others gives me new ideas. These kinds of courses give me inspiration” “I feel quite well now.....I had the feeling I really enjoyed the methods and activities. I think it was good we started with the identity question and then we brought it to a personal level. It felt like a balanced day” “It [the training] is good so far but I didn’t get the logic in the order when the urban presentation followed the activity around what young people need today to live. The 8

connection wasn’t there for me but may be it will make sense later” “I really like the methods but I got frustrated with the rope exercise because I felt something was missing from it. Time can be an issue” One participant made an interesting point: “It felt like there were two teams [during the rope activity]” “It was a very good day and enriching. Some parts surprising for me because I am a researcher. I was a bit confused about some activities like the rope game and I didn’t get a summary from it. I liked the lecture about identity” The data in Figure one below were taken from the evaluation forms which participants completed at the end of the course, and this graph presents self-reported learning. The graph shows that before the course, most participants thought their knowledge of cultural diversity in different local, national and international realities was around level three. After the course however majority of the participants thought their knowledge improved to levels 4 & 5 (which are the highest levels). The various interactions between participants throughout the day in addition to the presentation from SALTO mostly contributed to the learning of this topic and this topic was revisited throughout the course too. Figure One: Knowledge of cultural diversity in different local, national and international realities (before and after the training)

Please Note: On the horizontal (x) axis, 0=LOW understanding and 5=HIGH. The vertical (y) axis represents number of participants

Day two The sessions arranged for day two were around the following topic areas:

9

    

Introduction to subcultures Stereotypes and inclusion and exclusion (e.g. train journey activity) Hidden and unhidden aspects of culture (e.g. iceberg model) Competencies for dealing with diversity (e.g. card game) Opportunity for participants to share information about their work in their countries

Day two started with the ‘chair’ activity. This was not part of the programme but the trainers decided to include this because they thought that it was important for participants to ‘experience success’ as a team (the ‘rope’ activity on day one, left some participants feeling they had failed as a group). The activity worked well as a motivator, energiser and for building trust and team spirit amongst the participants. Following this, there was a session on “what is culture”. Participants (working in small groups) were given the task of making a collage or picture of what culture means to them. Participants were also encouraged to explore “media” and the messages it gives society about ‘cultures’ e.g. biker culture signifies freedom. The trainers directed this into a discussion about culture (e.g. ‘iceberg model – hidden and unhidden aspects of culture) and various subcultures – more specifically youth subcultures. Prior to attending this course, participants had been briefed to bring information about their projects to share with each other. A room was allocated to the participants in which they all set up information, posters, leaflets about their organisations. Participants then had the opportunity to find out from their peers, what was happening in other countries and organisations. Feedback from day two

Comments from participants about day two (some comments relate specifically to the activities on day two): “Minorities are expected to obey rules and sometimes things are not explained [to them] at all” “If subcultures become part of mass culture, have to give up a part of it and this is about mutual relationships and creating harmony and not integration” “I really liked the part about cultures and subcultures and found it really interesting we don’t reach lower part of the iceberg. How do we reach this lower level of iceberg?” “There is always a group which decides who can be accepted and who can’t be accepted” “Adapting to a new environment requires both sides making changes” “If you make rules very strict then it becomes harder for newcomers and they have to give up 10

their identity to ‘fit’ in” “I realised something about myself. Before this course I avoided this question about stereotypes and I know I have them especially about the gypsies and this course enabled me to admit this. From now on, I will always start with a blank slate and give total respect when I meet people from these communities” “Even though I consider myself an open person, I really recognised for myself when I’m falling into stereotyping. This was really useful. In real life you do make choices and form opinions about people and it is about stopping yourself from doing that” “The sharing of information was very useful and inspires you to do the same. I can go to courses and not find out what people do and this session gave us that opportunity” “Can SALTO trainers also see our projects and understand and then they can take this into account”

Again, in addition to the above qualitative data, quantitative data are presented below. The increase in knowledge and understanding of the following areas was mostly linked to the work and activities undertaken on day two: -

Youth subcultures (figure two) Cultural diversity (figure three) Getting young people involved in activities (figure four) including socially excluded young people (figure five)

An improvement can be noted in figure two below – before the training most participants rated their knowledge and understanding of youth subcultures around levels 1, 2 and three. After the training, majority rated this at levels 4 & 5. Figure Two: Knowledge and understanding of youth subcultures in relation to youth work (before and after the training)

11

Please Note: on the horizontal (x) axis, 0=LOW understanding and 5=HIGH. The vertical (y) axis represents number of participants. One person did not respond.

Again in figure three below, improvements can be noted in participants’ perceptions of their understanding of topics relating to cultural diversity. Figure three: Understanding of concepts which relate to the topics of Cultural Diversity, such as stereotyping, prejudice, manipulation and limits of culture, inclusion/exclusion etc.

Please Note: on the horizontal (x) axis, 0=LOW understanding and 5=HIGH. The vertical (y) axis represents number of participants. Four did not respond to this question.

12

Figure four (below) shows a marked shift towards levels 4 & 5 after the course (from 9 people to 20 people). Additional information provided by the participants from the evaluation forms included: “Some methods we tried here will help me to better understand working with young people. I can now understand my values are not their values and I can work with them. I understand myself better” “Because I work with young people, the methods and the way they are using the training styles. I really like the Youth in Action style used by the trainers and I can use this in my work”

Figure Four: Participation of young people: Knowledge of getting young people involved in activities

Please Note: on the horizontal (x) axis, 0=LOW understanding and 5=HIGH. The vertical (y) axis represents number of participants. One person did not respond

Participants were asked to assess their knowledge of working with socially excluded young people. Again the graph below (figure five) indicates participants thought their knowledge had improved. Two participants shared: “We are going to do a lateral exchange programme and this [training course] is having an effect on my attitudes and I know now how to deal with people from different backgrounds. I will also go back and teach a few of the young people about this too so they can learn how to work with different communities”

13

“Subcultures feel like the root of other issues. This course feels like the foundation of all the other issues. In Finland young immigrants are stereotyped and seen as ‘not working and here to take our benefits’. I understand now that this is because how media portrays them”

Figure Five. Inclusion: Knowledge of new approaches of including young people with fewer opportunities

Please Note: on the horizontal (x) axis, 0=LOW understanding and 5=HIGH. The vertical (y) axis represents number of participants.

Day three Day three was mostly aimed at allowing participants the opportunity to link the theme of youth subcultures with the local reality in Vilnius. This was done through the organisation of a project visit that engaged young people through the teaching of graffiti skills and practices. Participants were also given some free time during day 3 in addition to an organised dinner together in a popular restaurant in Vilnius. In addition to this, day 3 covered the following key areas:  Intercultural competencies relating to working with young people  Working together and thinking as one ‘European society’ (graffiti activity including bus trip to community centre to participate in creating graffiti as a group)  Good practice models of working (presentation from the National Institute for Social Integration

14

The session on ‘intercultural competencies’ was followed by a presentation from the National Institute for Social Integration. The guest speaker from this organisation covered topics such as: o Their social taxi project developed to help disabled people o Their ‘All different All Equal’ campaign o Journalism Education programme – young journalists are invited and informed about fair and ethical portrayal of vulnerable groups After this session participants worked in smaller groups and were asked to think about the message they would like to give the rest of the world about youth subcultures. The idea was that the whole group would agree on something which would then be converted into graffiti during the project visit. Following a question and answer session at the local organisation to familiarise them with the work of the graffiti artist, participants were tasked with working together to produce their joint message in graffiti. This activity required the group to work together, share ideas and come to a consensus in order to agree on the message they would like to give. Further comments about this activity can be found below. Feedback from day three

The following comments provide an overview of how the participants felt after day three and what they thought about the activities and exercises. A selection of comments: “Different subcultures are coming together and there are similarities as well as differences” “The process of making new cultures, it is dynamic [cultures keep evolving and changing]” “Globalization is really important in the process of [forming] subcultures” “The process [graffiti] was very long, perhaps we could have just said two words each and then developed something together in a big group. [What happened was] one person said something and a few loud people in the group agreed with it.” “It is important to listen to and represent the full story, for example the importance of the circle [which was discussed prior to drawing the graffiti] got lost” “I realised how important it is to have trust in each other. There were some things that other people in the group were better at and it was important to trust them to get on with it” “We always think of an external power which excludes us but I found that with the graffiti 15

project I was really shy at the beginning because I know I don’t have the art ability and it was big challenge for me to contribute. And I did this” “I learnt we are from so many different countries and religions and we can work together and make a graffiti together” Please note: At the post course team meeting, the training team felt that the question and answer session with the graffiti artist didn’t link in with what the course was about and felt something was ‘lacking’. The participants had not spoken of this.

Day Four On the last day, the following areas were covered by the trainers:  evaluation and a review of the course (e.g. ‘my learning line.......’ was written on a flipchart sheet and participants were encouraged to share this with others in the group  Information about the Youth in Action (YiA) programme  Opportunity for participants to think of ideas for potential projects (e.g. the ‘dream room/S.M.A.R.T. room/discussion & ideas room)  Youth Pass  Final evaluation of course (using questionnaires) What is worth briefly discussing here is the method used by the trainers for giving information to participants about the YiA programme. The trainers asked everybody to stand in a line and asked participants to take a step forward each time they asked participants a question about the different aspects of YiA and if they knew the answer and had experience of it. Based on where participants placed themselves on this line after the trainers had asked all the questions, they were divided into small groups. Each member of the training team worked with each group, pitching the information at the right level for the participants. Some of the participants who had alot of knowledge were used as ‘human libraries’ and encouraged to share their experiences with other participants. Day four ended with a short film made from all the photos taken of the participants through the course of the training – capturing some intense, comical and interesting moments. Feedback from day four

Again in addition to comments from participants, graphs below depict visually: -

Increase in knowledge of the Youth in Action Programme (figure seven) Increase in commitment to developing an international project (figure eight) The likelihood of finding a partner to work with after being on the course (figure nine)

16

Comments from participants “Helping as a human library [for the YiA activity] helped me to refresh my memory, so it was useful for me too” “I have got some ideas, for example when I spoke to someone who talked to me about feminism, at first I thought I am not interested and now I’m talking to her about doing a project together” “I feel the course is good and topic is very interesting and I like sharing my opinions with other countries. I will make a project next summer and because I have participated on this course, I will make a good project. I also learnt alot of things about myself”

Participants felt they had learnt more about the Youth in Action Programme and were more likely to rate their knowledge about this subject at levels 4 & 5 after the course. Figure Seven: Knowledge of the Youth in Action programme

Please Note: on the horizontal (x) axis, 0=LOW knowledge and 5=HIGH. The vertical (y) axis represents number of participants. Two people did not respond.

Figure eight below shows that after the course, 14 people rated themselves at the highest levels 5 & 6, whereas before the course, only 7 people had. This shows that the motivation to develop an international project increased after participating on the course. Figure Eight: Commitment to developing an international project

17

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

According to figure nine below, more people felt they had found partners to work with on projects as a result of being on the course and were also more confident that they would find partners in the future. Figure Nine: If you have an idea for a future project...........

Please Note: One person did not respond and one person was still unsure about whether they would find a partner in the future.

Following the description of the training days, along with the evaluation feedback, it is worth adding that the breadth and depth of what was covered on the four training days has not been provided above. What has been provided is a run-through of the main areas covered in this course along with some detailed description of activities and sessions which had a stronger impact on participants and were areas of good practice. 18

Conclusion Based on the information presented above including comments received from participants, this course contributed significantly in terms of increasing knowledge of the issues covered, personal growth of participants (e.g. the opportunity to look ‘inward’ using the ‘Mandala of identity’) and providing learning tools for the participants to use in their own work settings, with young people they work with. It is difficult to gauge what impact this course will have on the work and personal lives of all those who attended, in the long run. Indeed, based on self-reported measures 95% (21) of the participants said that what they had learned on the course was applicable to their reality. The final part of this evaluation (methodology 3, as described above) is still to take place and it will be interesting to find out what the participants think they have gained from this course – six months later. This information is needed as it will enable the training providers and all other stakeholders to have a fuller picture of how courses such these impact in the ‘real’ world, outside the training room. For now, based on the information collated from the training course, examples of good practice as well as recommendations have been identified and presented below.

Good Practice – What worked Often evaluation reports may focus on areas which require further improvement. In this report, this section will focus on what worked well as part of the training process (including how it was organised). 

The course organisers made it clear in the pre-course material what the course covered/ what it did not cover, who the course was for/who it wasn’t for and the aims and objectives. This helped to clarify a number of important points to the participants who opted onto the course.



In terms of the venue, location, directions – this was well organised and planned. The venue was very good including the layout of the room and additional work space for the participants. The hotel service was rated positively



There seemed to be a good balance of ‘work/training’ time and ‘free’ time on this course. With the exception of one participant, no one complained about the ‘lack of free time’.



Good preparation in advance by the team in Lithuania ensured that the invited speakers for the course presented information at the right level and the ‘visits’ for

19

the participants to Lithuanian organisations were not only fun but also motivating and demonstrated innovative ways of working on issues around youth subcultures 

Participants were given support packs and encouraged to record their day to day learning. The evaluator noticed that these packs were used by quite a few of the participants and some of them would record and share information which was useful from an evaluation perspective.



Before each activity, the trainers not only explained to participants what the activity entailed but they also told the participants exactly how much time they will have for the activity and for the related discussion after each activity. They also explained that they may not be able to go into as much detail as the participants may want because of the inevitable time constraints attached to courses such as these. This was a useful way of working because it helped to avoid disappointments and moreover participants didn’t feel they were being ‘cut off’ mid conversation during the discussions



The trainers were also very flexible in the way they worked. For example, the participants took part in a group activity on day one of the course (‘rope’ activity) which was aimed to encourage participants to work together and think about working in a team situation. After this activity, some participants felt they had ‘failed’ as a team and the trainers recognised the potential impact this could have on the remainder of the course. They managed to build in another team building activity on the morning of day two. This helped participants ‘feel success’ together and was a very positive initiative. This did ‘eat’ into the time allocated for the rest of the programme a little but the trainers recognised this intervention was necessary to build the participants’ morale and motivation.



The approach used by the trainers to establish how much each participant knew about the Youth in Action (YiA) programme and pitching the information accordingly, worked really well. In addition to this, participants who were knowledgeable and had experience of YiA were encouraged to be ‘human libraries’ so that other participants could ask them questions too



Overall, the participants felt that the reflection periods at the end of each day were useful. A participant said: “The reflection period is really good and I’m glad you have this here” (This participant had attended other courses but had not experienced reflection periods before). The ‘reflection’ period however needs to be explored further by the training team (please refer to ‘recommendations’ below) 20



An ‘open door’ approach to evaluation was used during this course (whereby the evaluator made herself available to participants to talk about activities and other aspects of the course). This approach to evaluation worked really well. These are some of the advantages observed on this course: o Gives participants the opportunity to speak to someone who is part of the team in a way which respects their anonymity yet ‘listens’ to what they have to say whether it is positive or negative o End of course evaluation questionnaires often provide an overview of what the participants thought about the course and whilst this is useful, it doesn’t capture the day to day activity focused evaluation. This information adds value to the overall evaluation feedback and enables trainers to refine the course in a more detailed way o The evaluator can act as a ‘mediator’ between the course participants and the trainers (particularly in situations when participants want to convey something to the training team but want to remain anonymous). This is certainly not one of the key tasks of the evaluator but on some occasions this has been beneficial for the training course/team as a whole o Gives participants who may not be as confident in written English an opportunity to express their views verbally in a supportive manner (some evaluation questionnaires completed by participants lack the level of detail that is obtained when speaking to participants)



A two to three minute film was made by one of the trainers, using a ‘collage’ of photos taken of the participants during the course. This was shown to the participants at the end of the training. They were also given access to this film after the course. The participants enjoyed this very much and it gave them a ‘memory’ of their experiences together (The trainer said this was not a difficult task. It would be good practice to duplicate this on other courses)

Recommendations The following recommendations are based on what the participants mentioned during the training as well as what the training team discussed at the post-course meeting. 1. For each training course, the team involved in facilitating ‘reflection’ sessions should plan and discuss what participants would gain and benefit from this – particularly as 21

these take place at the end of the day and participants may be tired. Some suggestions include:  The training team could ask participants at the first ‘reflection’ group meeting what they would like to use this time for and therefore establish some ‘boundaries’ around these sessions  A maximum of half an hour or 45 minutes could be allocated. A five minute ‘quiet’ reflection could be included at the start of each reflection session to allow participants to really think about what they would like to share with the reflection group  Perhaps ‘reflection’ meetings could take place at the end of every second day rather than every day  Perhaps ‘reflection’ meetings could take place in the mornings as it may give participants some time to talk to their peers and think about what they would like to share as part of the reflection process 2. It is highly likely that on courses such as these, participants and training team members come from many diverse backgrounds with regard to nationality, ethnicity, religion, culture etc. This may bring a range of issues which need to be considered when delivering training courses - what some cultures may regard as ‘normal’ and acceptable, other cultures may regard as immodest or too personal/intimate. For example, in some activities (as part of icebreakers) participants felt uncomfortable about being asked to rub noses with each other. At least three participants commented on this: “I thought the nose to nose rubbing and bum to bum touching was too intrusive” Trainers need to take cognisance of this and plan their activities by taking these factors into account 3. The issue of gender equality was raised in this course. Whilst it is recognised that courses such as these have little scope to explore (any) equality issues in a meaningful way (e.g. due to time constraints), perhaps some space has to be made so that these issues are mentioned at the beginning or at another appropriate time.  Trainers could let participants know that they may not have the opportunity to cover these issues but they would like participants to think about issues such as: o How does a disabled youth fit in (or be excluded from) various youth subcultures o What about LGBT people and their presence in youth subcultures (e.g. would someone who is gay be forced to choose not to come ‘out’ to be accepted into a certain youth subculture) 22

o How do women fit into some of these subcultures e.g. how are they perceived, do they have to do anything different to fit in o What happens to the most ‘powerless’ or socially excluded young people in relation to youth subcultures 4. On this course, most of the training team was busy setting up the next activity for the participants and therefore were not able to be present to hear about what type of work and agencies the participants were involved with in their countries. The participants felt that they would have liked the training team to be there so they could have shared this information with them too. It seems that these were unusual circumstances and most often all the training team participate in this information sharing process 5. A few participants felt that the training could have included some good practice initiatives/examples, specifically looking at some organisations working on youth subculture issues (or whatever the Value the Difference training topic is) 



Perhaps a couple of participants’ projects could be chosen and either participants could be split into small groups to explore how the issues around youth subcultures (or whatever the Value the Difference course topic is) could be ‘mainstreamed’ and incorporated into the work of these projects Trainers could identify some projects prior to the training and work through an example with the participants on how information about youth subcultures (or whatever the Value the Difference course topic is) could be or has been incorporated into these projects

6. Keeping the energy levels of participants at a level which is conducive to learning is no doubt a challenging task for many trainers – no matter how stimulating the course material. Trainers could perhaps introduce short ‘energisers’ throughout the day (e.g. straight after a lunch break, or towards the end of the day). Another way of minimising energy level drops is by planning the programme with this in mind. For example, it may not be a good idea to have a presentation straight after lunch. Presentations may work better in the mornings 7. Whilst the input on Youth in Action Programmes was delivered effectively and worked really well, it was felt by the training team that perhaps one slide with bullet points about the structure of Youth in Action should be presented before this input 8. Each person responsible for evaluating training courses may have a different approach to undertaking this task and evaluation questionnaires are the main method of getting feedback from participants. What worked well on this course was 23

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.

24

VALUE THE DIFFERENCE: “YOUTH SUBCULTURES” (PROGRAMME AS DEVELOPED BY THE TRAINERS) NOV 19th, DAY 1

ARRIVAL Session 1

Coffee break Session 2

NOV 20th, DAY 2

Introductions Framework Course description break Getting to know each other Creating learning environment

Lunch

Lunch Research outcomes Of study on urban reality,

Session 3

NOV 21st, DAY 3

NOV 22nd, DAY 4

NOV 23rd, DAY 5

(SUB) Culture?

Guest speaker

Presentations and sharing critical views

Break

Break

break

Stereotypes And Prejudices + Inclusion and exclusion

Summing up of previous days+ Preparation for visits

Youth In Action + How can I use it?

Lunch

Lunch

lunch

Presentation of national realities

Visits 2 Change and SUBCULTURES influence in my reality: action planning

Reality of Young people today

Coffee break Session 4

Arrival before 18h

Reflection Approx. 19:00 20:30

Break

Break

Break

Identity and its complexity

Competencies for dealing with diversity

+ Free time

YOUTH PASS + Evaluation

Reflection group Dinner

Dinner out

Dinner

Free evening

Farewell evening

Reflection group Dinner

Dinner

Welcome Inter–subevening cultural evening

Free evening (optional movie evening)

25

NOV 24TH, DAY 6

DEPARTURE