The evaluation procedure included the following components:

Internal evaluation
  • Process evaluation (throughout the project): The Process Evaluation of the Students’ Workshops was conducted via a teacher’s Reporting Form that was specially developed for this purpose. In regards to the project’s process evaluation, the tool developed was mostly in the form of “checklists” that had to be completed by all project partners (Austria, Greece, Germany, Croatia). Each of the process evaluation checklists contained three distinct sections: the “General Evaluation” section that was unchanged and identical in all checklists, the “Detailed Evaluation: Expected Results per Individual Activity by your Organization” and “Detailed Evaluation: Expected Results per Individual Activity by the Coordinator”; the latter two of which were changeable among different checklists according to the work plan and timetable. These Checklists were completed, every trimester, for the first 9 months of the project’s life
  • Evaluation of the Master “GEAR against IPV” Package (4 Booklets) by 10 Experts. Four Questionnaires (Evaluation Sheets) and a sheet of Guidelines were developed on the basis of which the experts evaluated the 4 Booklets of the Master Package (one questionnaire/evaluation sheet per Booklet).
  • Evaluation of the “face validity” of the National Booklets III and IV via 1 focus group with teachers (in Greece) and 2 focus groups with students (in Greece and Germany). The tools developed for this type of evaluation were two Focus Groups Protocols and two Discussion Guides for moderators of the focus groups discussions (one for conducting Focus Groups with teachers and one for conducting Focus Groups with students) 
  • Effectiveness Evaluation of the Teachers’ Seminars (by the trainees) and the Students’ Workshops (by both the students that participated in the workshops and the workshops’ implementers) that were conducted in Austria, Germany and Greece. Four self-completed questionnaires were developed for conducting the effectiveness evaluation of Teachers’ Seminars: the Training Seminar Pre-Questionnaire [T-S(pre)], Training Seminar Post-Questionnaire [T-S(post)], Training Seminar 1st Follow-up Questionnaire [T-S(fol.1)], Training Seminar 2nd Follow-up Questionnaire [T-S(fol.2)]. For the effectiveness evaluation of the “GEAR against IPV” Students’ Workshops three self-completed questionnaires (pre-, post- and follow-up questionnaire) were developed to be completed by students; additionally, in order to evaluate the Workshops’ effectiveness from the teachers’ perspective, a brief questionnaire was developed and added in the teachers’ Reporting Form and in the T-S(fol.2).

Independent External evaluation

The independent External Evaluator, Professor Carol Hagemann-White, as an expert in the field, was responsible for the project’s quality evaluation and scientific supervision. More specifically, she had an advisory role during the entire duration and during all stages of the project which -on the basis of her expertise in the field of violence prevention and gender issues as well as in prior implementation of relevant projects- was not only invaluable but also inspirational during all stages of the project.
Apart from developing a Final External Evaluation Report, she was responsible for observing, assessing and reflecting on the process, the work progress and developments towards the achievement of the project’s goals as well as to provide consultation on the internal evaluation components. Furthermore, on the basis of the project’s managerial meetings and the Train-the-Trainers Seminar that she attended, the partners’ and coordinators’ process evaluation checklists and reports (for each individual activity and the interim report), as well as on the basis of the project’s outputs she drew up and provided to the Partnership a document including reflections and observations after each managerial meeting and one interim evaluation assessment and feedback report which, inter alia, aimed at suggesting possible ways to address difficulties and barriers that were faced during the project’s implementation.