Knowledge acquisition
The participants were asked about which topics and themes they learned something new about – choosing a maximum of three topics from the list of topics used in the YiA applications.
The themes directly related to the YiA objectives and priorities which show the highest percentages are (see Table 139, Table 140):
‘Europe’ (47% of the participants indicate that they learned something new about this topic, with the highest percentages for TCP activities and EVS projects);
inclusion (‘integrating disadvantaged or marginalised people into society’; 27%, with the highest percentages for EVS, TCP and T&N projects);
youth and youth policies (31%; highest percentages for SD, TCP and T&N projects).
A relatively high percentage can also be reported for ‘art and culture’ (37%), but it is not quite clear how ‘culture’ is interpreted – in a more narrow sense linked to arts or in a broader sense linked to cultures in general or ethnicity – this would need to be explored with qualitative research methods.
The outcomes above indicate that EVS, TCP and T&N projects contribute most to knowledge acquisition related to YiA objectives and that SD projects are very effective with respect to the specific objective of this sub-Action.
Relatively low values can be observed in the themes of issues related to discrimination and minorities which are directly linked to YiA objectives and priorities: ‘non-discrimination based on sexual orientation’ (3%), ‘Roma people’ (4%), ‘minorities’ (7%), ‘gender equality’ (7%), ‘people living with a disability’ (8%), ‘discrimination’ (11%). Also relatively low values are observed in the learning on interfaith understanding (10%) – relating to tolerance, respect of others with different beliefs – which can also be seen as being part of YiA objectives/priorities (see Table 139).
Relatively minimal learning is also reported on ‘health’ (6%) which might not be perceived as an interesting or relevant topic for YiA projects – maybe this requires initiatives in other sectors of youth work or education. Nevertheless, this could also point towards a lack of consciousness of young people/youth workers of the importance of a healthy life-style.
Of course, it is possible that the participants already had prior to the project a high level of knowledge about those topics and themes which they report not to have learned much about.
Nevertheless, the differences in learning something new about YiA related topics are remarkable and the reasons should be further explored with qualitative research methods – maybe more support and steering is required with respect to these themes.
48 It needs to be noted that this section refers to perceptions of effects by participants and project leaders. These perceptions do not necessarily reflect actual effects. In this respect, whenever the term ‘effects’ (of Youth in Action projects) is used in this study, it refers to perceptions by participants and project leaders. At the same time, these perceptions are relevant since they are shared by large proportions of participants, since perceptions of participants are confirmed by perceptions of project leaders (and vice-versa), and since these perceptions are confirmed by responses to other questions. E.g., it is very unlikely that participants would encourage other young people to participate in YiA projects if their projects had no positive effects on them.
The outcomes above are largely in line with what project leaders indicated to be main themes of their projects (see Table 141, Table 142) – thus one can assume that the main themes were successfully implemented and that the projects had the intended effects on the participants (see Table 143). Nevertheless, some differences can be observed49:
Themes about which participants learned considerably more than the project leaders saw as main themes are ‘youth and youth policy’ and ‘urban/rural development’ – participants probably learned about these themes more implicitly; this reflects unintended learning that took place.
Themes about which participants learned less than the project leaders saw as main themes are discrimination, environment and European awareness. This indicates that with respect to these topics the projects were not as successful as intended by the organisers.
Concluding, the following strengths of different project types compared to others can be noted with respect to knowledge acquisition:
YE projects: ‘Europe’ (50%) and ‘art and culture’ (46%;
YI: ‘art and culture’ (50%)
YD: ‘media and communications’ (29% )
EVS: ‘Europe’ (54%); inclusion (39%) and ‘people living with a disability’ (25%)
TCP: ‘Europe’ (55%), ‘youth and youth policies’ (51%)
T&N: similar to TCP, but a bit lower
SD: ‘youth and youth policies’ (65%), ‘urban/rural development’ (35%)
Again, most strengths of project types as indicated by the participant responses are in line with the project intentions, but not continuously. However, overall the strengths of project types as described above are largely in line with the specific objectives of the different Actions of the YiA Programme.
Skills development
In order to explore the effects of participating in YiA projects on the development of the eight key competences for lifelong learning (see European Commission, 2004; European Parliament and Council, 2006b), 21 skills were defined as respective indicators (see Table 144). At least two skills referred to different aspects of each key competence. As for ‘interpersonal, social, intercultural and civic competence’ – a key competence related closely to YiA objectives and priorities – five skills were defined as indicators. Additionally, two skills refer to ‘media literacy’ as defined in a resolution of the European Parliament (see European Parliament, 2008). Participants were asked about their assessment of the development of these skills as an effect from their participation in the project. Additionally, the project leaders were asked about their assessment of the development of these skills by the participants as an effect of the project. Finally, project leaders were also asked about their assessment of the participants’ development of the eight key competences for lifelong learning as defined in the European reference framework (see European Commission, 2004) plus ‘media literacy’ – see above – resulting from their project participation.
Due to the broad scope of these, key competences were split into two or three items in order to retrieve more differentiated data (see Table 156). These different perspectives and approaches provided for a triangulation of the data in the analysis.
49 It needs to be noted that participants could tick up to three themes and the project leaders up to two themes;
In their self-assessment, participants report the most distinct development for skills related to
foreign language competence;
interpersonal/social competence;
intercultural competence;
sense of entrepreneurship;
civic competence;
cultural awareness and expression;
learning competence (‘learning to learn’).
For these competences the development of the respective skills was indicated by between 70%
and 90% of the respondents (sum of ‘definitely’ and ‘to some extent’). For some skills related to foreign language, interpersonal/social and intercultural competence more than half of the participants indicated ‘definitely’ a development (see Table 144, Table 145).
However, a distinct development (but with smaller percentages for ‘definitely') is indicated for
‘communication in the first language (mother tongue)’, ‘mathematical competence’ and ‘sense of initiative’. Only 6% of the project leaders indicated that they did not observe any skills development on the part of the participants (see Table 150).
Partly this is in line with the YiA objectives and priorities, but partly this outcome is surprising since competences are distinctly being developed which are not directly linked to YiA objectives and priorities, for example learning competence (learning to learn) or mathematical competence.
A similar picture appears when analysing the assessment by the project leaders (see Table 146) – in fact, the responses of the participants and of the project leaders show a highly significant correlation (see Table 151, Figure 2). Across all skills, the assessment by the project leaders shows a more distinct skills development than the self-assessment of participants. The major differences in this respect are on digital and media literacy skills (where the participants might even have better skills than the project leaders). The different assessments could be caused by ‘wishful thinking’ of the project leaders who want their intentions and efforts to be confirmed, but it might also be that project leaders do not know the participants so well and underestimate their skills and competences. Furthermore, the survey was done some months after the project end, when the participants could have arrived at a more reflected assessment of the effects of the project, while the project leaders might not have been in such frequent contact with them.
It needs to be noted that there is quite a difference between the responses to the two skills referring to civic competence: learning ‘how to achieve something in the interest of the community’ – relating to a more affective dimension of civic competence – shows significantly more distinct effects (39% ‘definitely’ and 44% ‘to some extent’) than ‘to discuss political topics seriously’ – relating more to a cognitive dimension of civic competence (22% ‘definitely’ and 32%
‘to some extent’). Similarly, the skill ‘to critically analyse media’ – also relating more to a cognitive dimension of civic competence – shows a relatively lower development (17% ‘definitely’ and 31%
‘to some extent’). This means that some skills relating to ‘civic competence’ – relating to core objectives of the YiA Programme – are less developed than skills relating to competences which are not at the core of YiA objectives and priorities (e.g. learning competence or cultural awareness). On the other hand, this suggests that YiA projects contribute to learning ‘non-formal’ participation skills rather than ‘‘non-formal’/political participation skills.
A similar pattern can be observed for the project leaders’ assessment of the development of the participants’ key competences for lifelong learning as defined in the respective reference framework (see European Commission, 2004), but in some cases the responses to the
development of a specific competence does not correlate with the responses to the related skills.
In particular, such deviations can be found for digital and mathematical competence (where the competence development is assessed lower by project leaders than the related skills development) and for civic competence (where the competence development is assessed higher than the related skills development). This might be caused by a diverse understanding by project leaders concerning the key competences if they are asked about them in official terminology than when being asked about specifics related to them. It also might be that the project leaders’ assessment refers to aspects of the key competences which are not reflected in the related skills: this would need to be explored further through qualitative research methods.
When differentiating between ‘sending’ and ‘hosting’ participants, highly significant differences appear with respect to the development of skills and competences (see Table 149):
the ‘hosting’ experience contributes more strongly (highly significant) to the development of skills related to communication in the first language, sense of entrepreneurship, cultural awareness and expression, media literacy as well as to mathematical, digital, social and civic competence;
the ‘sending ’ experience contributes more strongly (highly significant) to the development of skills related to foreign language, intercultural and learning competence.
Remarkably there appears to be more skills and competence development for the hosting side – contrary to the popular assumption that going to another country provides for more (intensive) learning experiences. In fact, the skills developed by ‘sending’ participants are mostly – as expected – related to foreign language and intercultural competence – and interestingly also to learning competence. For the ‘hosting’ participants, the preparation and organisation of the project seems to be more demanding and imply more participation, entrepreneurship, project management, interaction and communication, this resulting in the development of the respective skills through experiential learning.
When differentiating the responses by project types, the following conclusions can be drawn (see Table 147, Table 148):
overall, the skills development competence development by project types is in line with the objectives and requirements for the different Actions;
partially the assessment by participants and project leaders are similar, but partially diverse – this would need to be explored further with qualitative research methods;
in particular, for EVS projects the self-assessment by participants is more critical than by the project leaders – it might be that EVS participants reflect more about their learning since their experience is normally relatively lengthy;
YE projects contribute on or above average to the development of a broad spectrum of competences/skills, with high score in foreign language and intercultural competence development; the development of civic competence and sense of initiative is relatively lower;
YI projects show a distinct development of skills which are necessary for developing and implementing a project – social competence, sense of entrepreneurship, digital competence, media literacy, communication in the first language/mother tongue, mathematical competence – and cultural awareness, which is probably linked to the content of the projects;
YD projects are relatively specialised – they contribute strongly to the development of civic competence, but relatively little to all other skills (note: to be considered with caution because the sample of YI participants and project leaders was relatively small);
EVS projects provide a two-fold picture – contributing strongly to the development of foreign language competence, intercultural competence, sense of initiative, mathematical
competence and learning competence (learning to learn), but relatively little to most other competences, including civic competence;
T&N projects contribute on average to a broad spectrum of competences/skills, with special strengths on learning competence and communication in the first language/communication skills;
TCP activities are more specialised in developing learning competence (which is a specific objective of most of these activities) and contributes strongly to the development of communication in the first language/mother tongue and sense of initiative (in particular identifying opportunities for one’s personal and professional future), but rather little to the development of most other skills, including skills related to civic competence (for TCP activities, only a self-assessment of participants was available, because TCP project leaders were not surveyed);
SD projects are – similar to YD projects – rather specialised, contributing strongly to civic competence and communication in the first language/mother tongue, but relatively little to most other skills (note: to be considered with caution because the sample of SD project leaders was relatively small).
In conclusion, it can be reported that among the different project types
there are ‘all-rounders’ (YE and T&N projects) which contribute on average (or above) to the development of most key competences;
there are ‘specialists’ (YD and SD projects as well as TCP activities) which contribute strongly to a the development of few competences which are in line with the specific objectives of the respective (sub-)Actions but relatively little to the development of all other competences;
there are some project types ‘in-between’ which contribute to the development of some competences above average and to others below average (EVS and YI projects);
there is no indication that the project duration has an effect on the responses on the development of key competences – but there is (yet) no data on the degree of competence development (meaning the difference of the competence levels before and after the project) – this would require further studies using other research instruments, assessing also the competence levels.
Values and attitudes
Participants indicate that a number of values have become more important for them as a result of participating in the project (see Table 155), in particular values related to citizenship: for more than half of the participants ‘respect for other cultures’ (64%), ‘tolerance’ (59%), ‘solidarity’
(58%) as well as ‘equality and individual freedom’ – which are all values related to citizenship – have become more important, but also ‘self-fulfilment’ (57%) – which represents a value related to individualism. ‘Human rights’, ‘democracy’ and ‘peace’ (all related to citizenship) have also become more important for a considerable proportion of participants (40% to 45%), but it could also well be that these values were given high importance already prior to the project. ‘Rule of law’ and ‘religion’ show limited importance: the first is perhaps too abstract for or not fully understood by many participants (maybe also misunderstood as ‘rule of the police’), but it could also well be that this issue is not comprehensively addressed in YiA projects; the latter reflects that ‘religion’ (which might not be considered to be a value per se) is not a very popular theme in YiA projects (see also ‘main themes of the project’ – Table 143), but it is interesting that ‘religion’
is the item which has become less important for the largest proportion of participants (7%; see Table 155).