Latvian Sample Project

Peer reflection

The Peer reflection of Sample Projects had a dual role within our MusInc project.

  • To help evaluate the effectiveness of the example sample project as promoting musical inclusion
  • To help develop a Quality Framework exemplifying Best Practice across the partnership

This has resulted in some inconsistency in the actual headings partners have used to evaluate the sample projects as we have been using different categories from other suggested Quality Frameworks. Please see the section ‘Quality Framework’ for more information on developing a quality framework

We are presenting here a summary of the feedback from all partners (including self evaluation from the deliverers of the featured Sample Project)

The short version of peer feedback can be summarised by three questions:

  1. What was good?
  2. What was best?
  3. What could have been improved?
    1. With existing resources?
    2. With additional preparation/resources?

What was good?

The participants were obviously at the centre of the organisation, they had helped organise the event and dictated the programme. Inviting the partner musicians to teach them new dances was part of their own learning, as well as being inclusive for the visitors.

What was best?

The blurring of roles between the ‘expert’ teacher and the participants. There seemed to be a very collective attitude to teaching and learning dances so the whole group was ‘in it together’.

What could have been improved?

With existing resources?

The venue was ideally suited to this activity, with good rehearsal rooms and lovely outdoor space for ancillary activities over the weekend camp

With additional preparation/resources?

With more preparation before the dance camp perhaps some dancers/musicians could have visited the village to engage local people, maybe older people or children, to join in with the evening dance.

Partners feedback

This selection was suitable for learning process due to the fact that were considered all the aspects to make attractive- each dance- for learners:

  • a “warming” quarter of hour, explaining tune, the meaning and basic steps.
  • a “gaming” quarter of hour, while explaining steps’ sequences and making teams for interpreting music
  • a “performing” half hour , while linking steps’ sequences on music. (Romania)

House of Culture-Lielvarde with modern facilities . . . in the middle of a park, with a neighbour museum – a Wooden Fortress. The good weather of beginning autumn was an additional help; in this conditions was possible even an outdoor workshop in the available external theatre facilities. (Romania)

These people seemed to be “folk” musicians in the true sense of the world, they seem to be motivated to play by their love of music and for the joy of it. They picked up instruments and played, even when they didn’t have strong instrumental knowledge, they were very enthusiastic. (Hungary)

During the dance evening, it was very interesting to see that musicians and participants went up to one another and asked one another to dance, so they made an effort to directly involve everyone. After a dance was over, they even escorted their partner back to his/her original place, which was a nice gesture. (Hungary)

All facilitators who took turns showed the ability and the sensibility to make this happen, although it looked like there was no specific intention in this direction. . . . Atmosphere was very pleasant and there was a strong sense of reciprocity, also thanks to the rotation of different leaders and to the type of activity. (Italy)

Back to Latvian Sample Project index.

Last modified: Thursday, 11 October 2018, 6:35 AM