Media (elite)rate
Intercultural evenings Bran and Brasov Debating
The participants from Spain.Macedonia,Croatia,Gre ece,Poland,Bulgaria and Latvia had the opportunity to present their countires in a very creative way
Beautiful visit to one of the most atractive destiantion in Romania. Participants from 8 countries enjoyed the small trip to Brasov and Bran, Read more... Read more...
Read more...
In this magazine you will read:
Description of the project
Energizers and Ice Breaker Games
Hopes, Fears and Rules
Media Literacy and Critical Thinking
City Bound
World Cafe
Trust Games and Land Art
Eggsercise
Role Play - How to protect against cyberbullying
Abigail
Hate speach
CRAAP Method
Rope Debate
Cultural Visit
Debate
Intercultural Nights
Romanian Night
Impressions at the end of the project
Facilitators
Description of the project Description of the project
BE MEDIA eliteRATE BY DEBATE
is a youth exchange that took place in Romania between 21 and 32 October with 42 participants from 8 countries.
The aim of the project is to provide to youngsters from small communities solutions to increase media literacy and critical thinking.
Energizers and Icebreaker Games Energizers and Icebreaker Games
Every morning and afternoon we had energetic tasks that cheered us up. Each country prepared its own special activity. We remembered the Greek and Latvian dances the most. A very interesting task was where we changed the names of familiar things and created a story. These energetic tasks really cheered us up.
To get to know each other better and break down any barriers right from the start, we played some icebreaker games. One of our favorites was a drawing game that helped us get to know each other's names, hobbies and dreams.
It was a fantastic way to start our project!
Let's not forget about The House Rules!
These guidelines were carefully explained and everyone signed an agreement acknowledging their understanding of them. By following them, we've been able to create an awesome, positive and productive team environment.
And... What are our hopes and fears for the project?
We also took some time to reflect on the project by considering our hopes and fears from a broader perspective. By sharing and listening to each other's thoughts, we were able to build stronger connections and create a good team dynamic.
This poster is speaking about the threats and the benefits of the social media and showing us the bothsidesofusinginternet,Sowe need to THINK CRITICAL too be aware of the danger of internet anduseitonlyinourbenefit.
ThisposterTeachusWhatisMedia Literacy and Critical thinking and alsoexplainingtouswhyarethey important and how they can be usedindaybydaylife.
This poster shows us what Media literacy and Critical thinking is, and some problems that people have when they are reading some information, but also shows us solutionfortheseproblems.
City Bound
World Cafe World Cafe
The afternoon of the second day of our project was dedicated to a world coffee method. The World Cafe is a method which makes use of an informal cafe setting for participants to explore an issue by discussing it in small table groups. Discussion is held in multiple rounds of 20-30 minutes, with the cafe ambiance intended to allow for more relaxed and open conversations to take place. We were discussing topics about social media ots advantages, risks, disadvantages and future. There were 4 tables with for permanent moderators. All other participants were changing the teams and the tables where they were discussing. We will start with the part social media opportunities. It was about what kind of advantages we take from social media and in which everyday life aspects we can use it. For example work, study, connection with friends and family, news and providing help , for ex. Charities. The topic of the last moderator was the future of social media and how it will develop. We were discussing bitcoin, studying programs, and marketing. We learned a lot from this activity. First of all to hear and give some feedback to the other people's opinion, to reconsider the good and bad aspects of something, that we are using every day.
Land Art
Land Art
TPC represents the spending of time (that represents life) from the prehistoric time until now in the modern days, and we use the time not in our favour and we only consume time from our lives, the mask that the clock is pointing to represents most things that are fake on the social media where we activate and can be desinformed by the not true content.
This artwork represents our dilemma entering the world of social media. The cone represents social media. The garbage inside the cone is all the bad stuff that pollutes the media, so there is a fungus on the top of the cone that develops from that rot. We also have gates of hell that separate us from all of that bad stuff and it is our choice to choose if we are going to enter it or not.
Our Land Art does not have a story, more a meaning. We tried to show the effects of Social Media for obsessed people. More specific, a man, tried to cross the street and was hit by a car because he was looking at his phone not at the cars.
The title of our project is “Borders” .
The main idea is to show that thanks to critical thinking and education you can be protected from fake news and all unnecessary information.
In the middle you can see the brain. It is strong and nicely shaped. All around it there is a line which represents education and media literacy. It is not letting the rubbish o come inside. It is protecting the brain from fake news and unnecessary information.
The bridge of wisdom: On the one side there is the chaotic information of social media, including fake news and everything. People who are crossing the bridge learn how to filter and critically examine the information. As a result, on the the other side they are meeting a structured and well-organized body, that represents social media information when literacy is applied on them. The artwork represents the fake /true information and content we are getting from the media. The bridge the way we are double-checking the info and seeing them from different angles to get the final confirmed knowledge we are keeping in our minds.
Our project was showing one very casual evening of a mature couple sitting in front of the Tv and watching News. Here, as you can see, we made a TV screen, and a couple which is watching the News on the screen. We were using leaves and sticks from the forest to create our piece of art.
Outdoor exercises were proactive and interesting, we had diverse ideas that fits the diverse atmosphere that's created in such Youth Exchanges, we saw some participants active some others are trying their best to compete with the lack of sleep, because the nights were long and participants were enjoying the free time, especially after the cultural nights, people built bonds and that was interesting.
Talking about the Egg protection creative exercise, we noticed a lot of capacity of ideas, especially that most of the participants were trying to be different in their own way, to be more creative and to show the others that they're better. Participants used different methods despite the limited resources, activated the scientific part, used maths & physical calculations to make sure that the egg protection device will be successful.
Finally the excitement is raising, moments of testing the devices is getting closer, so we saw a moment of truth there, the first egg fell and hoppa it broke, the fear raised in between the participants, some others showed attitude but in the end we continued and the good news are that most of the eggs survived. It was a good exercise and helpful.
How to protect against cyberbullying
We all know cyberbullying is never the answer, but some people enjoy being popular in front of others or just want to make others feel hurt. Bullies indulge into it because It helps them cope with their own low self-esteem, think it will help them fit in with their peers and don’t have a sense of empathy.
We distributed the roles from the script which was handed to us, containing an example, a situation which includes cyberbullying. While on a project, three friends Gemma, Anna and Maggie are sitting in a room, chatting when suddenly Gemma gets a message from Nick, her crush. Nick and Gemma had a crush on each other since the first day of the project and Nick finally decided to spend some time with her and reveal his feelings. Nick and his best friend Elijah were in their room and Nick was telling Elijah about Gemma. Elijah did not like the thought of Nick hanging out with Gemma so he tried to sabotage their meeting. While Nick went to get some coffee, Elijah sent a message to Gemma, calling her ugly names. Gemma being crushed, ran away from the room, leaving her phone behind and allowing Maggie to see the message. Afterwards, Maggie and Anna confronted Nick, who had no idea such a thing happened. The three of them found Gemma and told her what has happened, the true story and later on Nick confronted Elijah, beating him up in the bathroom.
Different perspectives of thinking The story of Abigail
The 5th day we talked about the story of Abigail. At the beginning we were told the story with an addition of a board with paper figures to help us understand it better. Then the instructors told us to rate the characters of the story, from the most evil to the most innocent and right them down in a list. We continued by discussing our perspectives which was very interesting seeing other people's perspectives. Later they divided us into teams of five and let us discuss and come up with a new list.
That was challenging because of the variety of the opinions that was on the table, but we managed to come up with a list that suited everyone. For the last part they connected our teams making them teams of ten and told us to keep discussing, coming up with another list. This was less challenging as we only had to compare tow lists this time instead of five. Then the instructors asked us about our lists and if they effected our original opinions everyone. That was the end of the workshop, it was very interesting debating seeing how other people think and maybe the way different cultures effect their results.
Hate Speech
Later, after a short coffee break we were introduced in the topic of HATE SPEECH. The coordinators invite us to do a brainstorming for our ideas and the first words that come up to our minds, when we are thinking about the subject of Hate Speech.
After a brief discussion we participated into a relevant activity, The Story of Olly. We were separated in teams and we were given a scenario about a hate speech victim named Olly and her/his advocator named Ale. The team members had to assume and write down some traits of the characters, that lead them to the position of the hate speech victim.
Last but not least we had to come up with a solution regarding the discussed problem. This activity was really helpful for exercising our critical thinking and understand that we end up in conclusions based on personal assumptions.
After lunch the Greek team proposed a second energiser. We wanted to see the skills of participants and how good reflexes they have in a funny way.
CRAAP Method - Fake News
At the evening of the 5th day we had a small introduction in the term of Fake News via a small quiz.
After, we used the CRAAP (Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose) Method to spot fake news. We were divided in 8 teams and in each team was given a news picture. Every team had to create a breaking news presentation using made-up or real facts related to the picture. The whole process was very creative because we all had to brainstorm and come with the ideas that would made our story believable.
Rope Debate
The last activity of the day was after the coffee break. We closed our day with an exercise called . First, we separated the room into two parts. The first one was representing the agreement and the second part, the disagreement. After that, we were given some topics and we had to go to the place that was compatible with our ideas. The coordinators were using a ‘’microphone’’ and they gave it to the participants that wanted to express their opinion.
That activity was wonderful for us because we had a first sight on the topic of the debate. We had the opportunity to listen to the other’s points of view and to think critically in order to reply to them, always with respect.
Be Media (E)literate forum took place in Busteni and we had a chance to visit other Romanian cities to get to knowRomaniabetterand to make our bounds stronger.
The 5th day of our project hasstarteddifferentlythan usually. We had external activity, a trip to Bran and Brasov. We not only explored the hosting country but also learned a piece of history from the castle in Bran and see interesting old city of Brasov.
1st part of the visit ‘Bran Castle’
Westartedourdayearlier than usual. The road was interesting because for most of us it is not commontodrivethrougha mountains.Therewasalot of switchbacks. And of course view on the mountains.
We arrived in Bran, most of us went inside and it was actually worth it. The castle is interesting not only outside but also inside. It was built in the 12th century and since then it has been renovated many times.
We could see how rooms looked like on that time. We could see the reference to Romanian culture, for example to the tradition of Dracula or the Lele.
We also could see a lot of pictures fromtheoldtimes.Therewereones showing princess Ileana from Romania. She was an important royal member, not only active in sports (sailing for example) but also involved in helping the society (organizingRedCross).
Bran castle’ s ‘’Birth’’ document issued on November 19th 1377 by the Hungarian King Ludovic I of Anjou at the Zvolen castle in Slovakia. (Handmade replica on special paper)
InfrontofthecastletherewasasmallLocalbazar,veryanimatedwhere wecanbuysouvenirs.
TherewasalsoTurkishcoffeeservedbyanoldman.
Brasov
Westoppedonaparkingandhad to walk to fountain in the city center. We visited the Black Church and talked about its history. Then we went through thenarroweststreetinthecity: StradaSforii.
Thenameofthecitycanbeseen inthetopofthehighestpointof the mountain (just like in Hollywood). Stefan and Emilia decided to go on the top, to see theviewandshowittotherest ofthegroup.Itwasn’teasybut they made it! Something worth seeing!
Other member of the group went straight to the enter to find a place for lunch. Part of us went to Beraria Pofta sau Foame but as it usually is, we didn’t eat together there. Everyone wanted different kind of food that’s why eating at different places and that is okay!
We still had time for exploring the city. It offers interesting buildings, city walls, towers, churches, cafes. Each of us could find something for herself/himself.
We enjoyed discovering the spectacular nature, charming medieval castles witch are absolutely worth to visit.
Debate World School Debating Format
World Schools Style debating (or WSS) is a combination of the British Parliamentary and AustraliaAsian debating formats, designed to meet the needs of the World Schools Debating Championships tournament.
In our intro-sessions we were informed and educated on how this method works: In World Schools format a team comprises of three to five people who prepare together, of which three speak in any given debate (though they can cycle who is speaking between debates). After the debate has begun only the three-team members speaking in that debate may communicate with each other. Each team is allocated to either “proposition” or “opposition” on a motion that will be given to them (see below for details). They are then required to either provide reasons for or against the motion according to the side they have been allocated.
The first three speeches from each team are eight minutes in length and alternate between proposition and opposition starting with the proposition. In our case, it was 5 minutes with teams of 4 members for practical reasons (multiculturality and the number of participants in the mobility). At the end of these initial speeches, each team then delivers a “reply” speech (see below for details) of four minutes in length. This is delivered by either the first or second speaker on their team. The “reply” speeches reverse order and begin with the opposition first. During the first three main speeches of each team, speakers from the opposing team may offer a “Point of Information” (POIs) between the first and seventh minute of the speech (these timings will be indicated by an audible signal from the judging table, normally a soft bang on the table or a clap). A POI is a short (up to 15 seconds) interjection in which one of the three members of the opposing teamspeaking in that debate objection ate can ask a question or make to the person currently delivering their main speech – it is up to the speaker to accept or decline a POI that is offered, but speakers are expected to accept two in their speech.
Speaker Roles
Each speaker in the debate has a different role. These rules are intended to facilitate as fair a debate as possible, both by ensuring that clarity in the topic up for debate is established and to ensure that both teams have a reasonable chance to engage with the other side’s arguments. The key thing to remember is that the speaker roles are intended to enrich the debate not to limit what a team can do.
FirstSpeakers
The first speaker of the proposition is responsible for: Similarly the first speaker of the opposition is responsible for:
defining the motion (see below), outlining the arguments that proposition will bring (their team’s case), explaining which speakers will present which of those arguments, presenting part of the case for their side.
challenging the definition and providing a new one (but only if they think that definition is unfair, see below), outlining the arguments that proposition will bring (their team’s case), explaining which speakers will present which of those arguments, responding to the arguments of first proposition (this is called rebuttal), presenting part of that case for their side.
Defining the motion is about giving a clear explanation of what the motion means to ensure that all speakers and judges are clear on the topic being debated. If the two teams argue about very different things, then it becomes hard to pin down what exactly the disagreements between the teams are.
Second Speakers
The second speakers in the debate are responsible for:
continuing to defend their definition (if required) continuing the argumentation presented by their team. This will include defending their previous speaker’s points from the rebuttal the other team has made offering rebuttal to the other team’ s case making new arguments to support your case
The emphasis of these speeches should be on the new material presented, rather than the responses. As a rough guideline proposition should spend 2-3 minutes responding, whilst the opposition should spend 3-4 minutes responding to the other team with the rest of the speech dedicated to new substantive material building on the case.
Third Speakers
The third speaker’s role is to respond to the other team. The bulk of the speech should be dedicated to defeating the arguments brought by the other team in detail, whilst also defending the case that your teammates have brought from the attacks that the other team has already made (think of this as rebutting their rebuttal!). It is technically permissible to dedicate1-2 minutes of time to additional arguments in support of your case, however, this must be flagged in the first speech and the emphasis should still be placed on rebuttal.
Reply Speeches
The reply speech must be delivered by either the first or second speaker of your team; it cannot be delivered by the same person that delivered the third speech. It is also worth remembering that the order switches after the first three speeches of each team, so the opposition reply speaker gives their speech straight after the opposition's third speaker and the proposition reply speech is the final one of the debate (see “Speaking Order” above). Both of these speeches are four minutes in length (in our case it was 3 minutes for technical reasons we explained earlier) as opposed to the eight of all other speeches in the debate and no POIs can be offered during them.
The reply speech is intended to explain why their side has already won the debate. They do this by boiling the debate down to two or three overarching points of contention (often called the clashes of the debate) and presenting why their team’s side won those points. They are not expected (and will not have time) to go into detail in explaining why they won each individual argument and point made or deal with every example brought up in the debate.
Motions & Preparation Time - Prepared vs. impromptu (un-prepared)
In Worlds’ Schools’ format, you can either receive a prepared or impromptu (unprepared) motion.
A prepared motion is one in which you have been given the motion and side you are debating on in advance of the day. These will typically be released several weeks in advance of the tournament in order to allow time for competitors to research the topics and prepare their ideas on the important issues within the debate. The side of the debate you are on is released after the motion is in order to encourage wider thinking about both sides of the debate.
An impromptu (un-prepared) motion is a motion that you receive prior to the round at the same time as you are given the side of the debate. In this instance, you will only have your preparation time to think of arguments and examples for your side. In impromptu debates, you will have one hour to prepare for the debate once the motion has been released. ( we applied this model, but also a bit modified). Whilst only three speak in each debate, all four members of the team could contribute in the preparation time with ideas and development of argumentation for their team-mates.
Judging
At the end of the debate, the judges will total the scores allocated to each speaker for the following elements: content, style and strategy, without conferring and decide whether they believe the Proposition or the Opposition team has won. The winning team is the team that wins a majority of the judges (usually 3 judges). Teams will then receive both the result and an explanation of why the team in question won the debate. Our panel of judges was comprised of 3 team leaders (5 for the semi-finals and 9 for the finals).
Content
is the strength of the argumentation presented. This also covers the quality of the rebuttal and the ability to defeat opposing arguments. It marks the extent to which the strength of the arguments compels you to support or oppose the motion. It is intended to be thought of as divorced from the style with which the argument is delivered. A speaker with a high content mark will present arguments that are highly relevant, with clear explanations and logic, and be succinct in flagging the impacts of their arguments. They will be consistent and thorough in their explanation of why their set of beliefs are the strongest arguments in the debate.
Style is the ability to deliver your arguments persuasively. There is no one particular style that will be appropriate for all speakers and all debates just as there is no one set of arguments that will win all debates. It does however encompass a number of general elements that improve the impact of a speech. These include how a speaker uses their voice, their use of gestures, their use of rhetorical techniques and their engagement with the audience. What is being considered is the extent to which these things are used to augment or hinder the persuasiveness of the speaker.
The strategy encompasses two things. The first is their structure and timing, the second is their understanding of the issues of the debate. Structure and timing mean a speaker who fills their time and does not under or over-speak. It also means having a clear progression of points within the speech which shows a clear sense of priorities in their argumentation. Understanding the issues of the debate follows from this clear sense of understanding what the key issues in any given debate are. Thus if a speaker is clearly attempting to do the correct things in terms of argumentation but not proving the things they set out, they may receive a high strategy mark and a lower content mark. All things considered: whether we were interested in simply learning how debating works for the first time or honing our skills for this format, we all had a great time and enjoyed it a lot.
Motion 1
The debate was divided into two main motions to discuss:
MOTION 1: This house bans beauty contests
MOTION 2: Is it justified to have parental control in a child's social media?
In every debate round there was a government team, an opposition team and an adjudicator team who judged objectively (according to the elements explained before) and after having actively listened to both sides. Government teams proposed the motion, explained their reasons and supported their proposal with examples, while the opposition gave their best to find arguments against the motion.
The first motion was: "This house will ban the beauty contests". Every team brought a variety of good arguments and examples to the table. There were many interesting points and arguments. Unhealthy lifestyle, discrimination and hate speech, fake beauty standards etc., are only a few points which occurred on debates within the government team. On the other side, the opposition team had arguments like competitors' self-development, better post-contest life, better exchange of goods between the organisations etc. This motion was selected to be the main subject in the finals of the debate competition. The two teams who qualified for the finals and clashed in a dynamic and productive debate were "Balkan negotiators" on the government side, and "Goal diggers" on the opposition side.
In the end, the winners of the competition were Goal diggers.
Motion 2
Focusing on the second issue, we have discussed whether the presence of parents in their children's social networks is correct or justifiable in some way. With each group divided and properly organized, there were 3 discussions on this topic.
On the one hand, the government had to defend parental control apps. Some of the best statements that came out in debate were:
Parental control is justifiable in order to protect minors. There are many examples where this behavior is shown to have saved lives. It is a way to prevent cyberbullying as parents are able to see suspicious behavior. Mobile addiction in minors can be avoided.
On the other hand, the opposition presented very strong statements in several cases, effectively backed up with examples:
Individual freedom is a fundamental right.
The use of critical thinking in children is promoted, so that they develop their own online presence.
Without parental control, social accounts are hidden from children, avoiding secrecy and behavior that may be more harmful.
The debates were of great interest and were organized following the pre-established method of the world debate, in its simplest version (given that many people had never carried out an activity of this type). This method was based on alternating government and opposition speeches at 5minute intervals with a 2-minute break between each one. During the speeches, the opposing group could make interventions to the speakers (which could be accepted or rejected depending on the speaker's strategy). After the 3 speakers from each group, the opposition presented a 3-minute reply where they had to summarize their ideas. Finally, the government did the same.
Once the debate was over, the judges individually voted on the performance of each individual and added the points individually and collectively to decide the winning team.
We all really enjoyed this activity and learned a lot about how to properly debate. The winning team was Balkan negotiators! Well-deserved victory.
International Nights
During this exchange we have had the pleasure to attend three intercultural nights in which each country presented its own culture: gastronomy, traditions, music and dances.
In the first intercultural night Croatia, Poland and North Macedonia presented. Each country showed a nice presentation about their traditional festivities, landscapes and food; and had a well looking table with everything typical on it.
Croatia brought the typical meat of their country. They had three types of cold meat, as well as a person cutting it at that same moment.
Croatia’s table with their typical meat
Poland offered typical sausages, some candy, and showed common national soups.
Poland while doing the explanation about their country
On the other hand, North Macedonia presented rakia and loukoum. The alcoholic drink was the main attraction of the night as it was extremely strong.
The second international night was dedicated to Bulgaria, Latvia, Greece and Spain.
Bulgaria started presenting their country with a nice story and some traditional candies and chocolates.
North Macedonia’s table with superb hand-made decoration
Bulgaria explaining their food
Later, Latvia showed a powerpoint about the characteristics of their country: places, food, and traditions. On the table, they had fish toast and other food.
Greece offered a funny presentation explaining the mythological explanation of Athens and Thessaloniki (their cities). Later, we had the chance to try some tzatziki and other traditional meals.
Latvia posing after their presentation
Greece posing after their presentation
To end, Spain divided their presentation in two parts: Spain and Mexico (as there was one Mexican participant). Spain prepared a geography game, in which the other countries had to point where their cities were located. They also presented an explanation about the country and offered typical cold meat, cheese, some sweets, and alcohol (rebujillo). In the Mexican part, they had nachos!
After the traditional dinner, we danced to some typical songs together. Every country showed us their festival dances.
Spain posing after their presentation
Traditional Greece dance
On the other hand, two days later, Romania presented their country with a barbecue serving typical meat and drinks. We had a very fun night!
Romanian Night
What would we like to say about the evening parties? That events brought together those who were shy to speak before. We were talking about everything. We came up with our own entertainments that everyone liked. On cold evenings, we warmed each other with funny stories and a cosy atmosphere. It was very friendly environment which we enjoyed together.
Secret Friend
Secret Friend Game... The person you have randomly chosen is your secret friend for the project. The challenge is to do at least do some kind things for this person without him or her knowing it. Acts of kindness could include anything. Every day we received cute notes, various sweets, drinks, interesting things, such as a suitcase, cards, whistles and bracelets. This task caused great emotions not only for those who received presents, but also for those who gave it.
Impressions at the end of the project
Emilia
This was very interesting experience. At the beginning I didn’t know what to expect. But we make a lot. In my opinion it is better not to expect to much because in that situation you are more open mined. And I was. I have learnt a lot about myself, about my role in a group and my attitude to others. I learnt that it is important to listen more than talk but still I have work to do here.
The whole project opened my eyes for debates. I have never participated in any and I discovered that’s it’s useful skill to know how to do it. Especially that sometimes you need to defend the statement which is not yours.
Stefan
I really love this place and is one of my best projects I’ve ever had. This organization know how to keep us entertained and the facilitators are amazing, the activities are so interesting and I really loved the Debate competition, I will surely suggest to everybody to go in this kind of projects and I will really tell them about Oden Organization because they are one of the best!
Arthur
The project I amazing, organisation and events are interesting and enjoying and mountains are beautiful, I will miss all of you but gabbi the most <3
Liga
It was a very exciting and at the same time difficult adventure for all of us. Personally for me, the most difficult thing was speaking in English, and I was just trying the best for get out of my comfort zone. The best thing was meet a lot of cool people. For me, this project was not for education, but for improving communication skills. I am happy that I participated in this event and I really hope to meet all the guys again.
Rihards
It was my first erasmus. It was very amazing. I increased speaking skills in english language, got new friends. Together we had a lot of fun. It was wonderfull time and i will miss this projects participants.
Facilitators
Much appreciation for our facilitators who made this project happen and were there for us every step of the way!
Fabi
Bogdan Tolea
ODEN Association
ODEN association (acronym for the Organization for Democracy and Non-formal Education) it’s an experienced organization, founded in may 2011. The number of members is over 20 and there are many sympathizers.
The activities of ODEN association are focused especially toward non-formal education and promoting the values of democracy among youth of the local community. Taking advantage on the fact that most of the association members are working in the national education field, workshops of non-formal education are organized very often with youngsters from Nehoiu area. The main subjects are media, culture and arts, ecology and environment. The main activities were the ecologization of the Buzau valley and Nehoiu valley, land art workshops, mountain ecology and ecotourism. The association’s members participated to a visual campaign about the responsible attitudes, healthy food and protection of the environment.
Another aim, which is desired to have a growing up dimension, is the involvement of an important number of youth in international exchanges of any kind, especially thorough the Youth in Action program. The ODEN association desire to be a facilitator of the accessing of those programs by young people.
A special current activity is the debate club DACII (acronym from Academic Debates and Intelligent Ideas Confrontations) held in partnership with Nehoiu’s High School. There are more that 20 permanent members and the regular activities consist in weekly meetings with trainings, games and occasional participations in national tournaments.
The association’s members were involved in many trainings, seminars and were leaders in some Youth Exchanges, activities made under the Youth in Action Program, especially thorough the Youth Foundation Buzau, with which they have tight relationship.
Starting from 2020 until 2027, ODEN Association is accredited for Erasmus+ projects, that make the possibility to plan many interconnected international mobilities following the Erasmus+ priorities and enhancing the international partnerships.
https://www.facebook.com/Asociatia.ODEN/ https://www.instagram.com/asociatia.oden/
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.
‘This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [communication] reflects the views onlyoftheauthor,andtheCommissioncannotbeheldresponsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.’
