1.1. Hamburg (GER)

1.2. Kaunas (LIT)

1.3. Reykjavik (ISL)

1.4. Rovaniemi (FIN)

1.5. Rzeszow (POL)

2.1. summary

2.2. joint activity reports

2.3. evaluation

3.1. feedback

3.2. peer evaluation

3.3. diary

3.4. photo evaluation

3.5. diverse

4.1. SEFES meetings 1-6

4.2. individual visits

Projekt-Nr. / Project ID

VG-C1 SE-K-HH-03-00134-1

Projekt-Titel / Project Title

Self-Evaluation for European Schools

Koordinierungsschule / Coordinating School

Staatliche Handelsschule mit Wirtschaftsgymnasium Am Lämmermarkt

1. What activities have been carried out by the partnership in the past school year? Briefly describe the project activities which have taken place jointly and locally within the participating institutions, as well as the transnational mobility activities of staff and pupils. Explain what went well or less well and why.

I.      Project activities that have taken place jointly

1. First project meeting in Hamburg (Oct. 2003) We developed a project vision for 2006. SEFES was created as the new title of the Project. We developed the action plan for the first year and decided on specific methods starting with teacher`s diaries and „smart“ evaluation tools.
2. Second project meeting in Kaunas (Mar 31 to Apr 3 2004 ).New participants in the project Ruta ( Kaunas ) and Solveig ( Reykjavik ). Evaluation of teacher`s diaries and the instruments used before. Focussing on four aspects: student`s activity, attention, disciplin problems, success factors. New topic: student`s feedback. Action plan for the next period. International pairs for peer evaluation.
3. Rima`s (Kaunas) visit in Reykajvik (Mar 03).Visiting lessons and preparation of the Kaunas meeting.
4. Ralph`s (Hamburg) visit in Reykjyvik (May 2004). Meeting with the SEFES team. Structures of school organisation. Conditions of evaluation culture.
5. Asta`s and Rima`s visit in Rzeszow (May 2004). Peer evaluation.
6. Sabine`s (Hamburg) visit in Rzeszow (May 2004). Teaching at the partner school and peer evaluation.

All partners wrote articles for the common website throughout the whole year

II.     Local Activities

1. Hamburg : Ralph was involved as a new participant. Diaries and short-evaluation-methods have been tested. the SEFES participants. A new position in our staff has to care about self-evaluation as an impartant topic.
2. Kaunas : Ruta was involved as a new participant and she began to write her diary. Peer evaluation (activity, attention) between Rima and Asta.
3. Reykjavik : Armann used photo-diary and Solveig computer feedback and the end of each lesson.
4. Barbara was involved as a new participant. New methods of short evaluation were presented to the whole staff. The SEFES members used peer-evaluation in several subjects and classes.

The meetings and visits have been prepared and organised very well. The common work was very productive. The exchange of experiences extraordinary valuable and inspiring. Maybe there were not as many contributions to the website as planned. So the website turned out to be an instrument to document the main project activities. It was not so effective as a platform for discussion. Most of the discussions were done by e-mail.

Teacher`s mobility at the whole was the most important tool for the project. The educational discussions were much more intensive and on a higher level than they could have been by using e-mails only.

2. What kind of product(s) have been produced in the course of the past school year? - Which of these are "joint" project results and which have been produced separately by the participating institutions? How have these products been disseminated and to whom, both within and outside the partnership? How were they received?

The common product of the first year is the project website.

Moreover there have been SEFES-presentations at some schools in order to spread the project ideas and to involve more colleagues.

3. How was the distribution of tasks agreed and put into practice? How was communication organised? What communication language(s) has / have been used? Were there major obstacles to a satisfactory cooperation - if yes, were they overcome? How? How important were staff and pupil mobility activities for cooperation?

The collaboration during the meetings and visits was pleasent and effective as well.

Because of different traditions in education our ideas were far away from each other at the beginning of our project. As a result of constructive collaboration we came to common aims and agreed to use the same evaluation instruments.

English was the first project language. The main results were translated into German. At the second meeting ( Kaunas ) our collaboration was improved by extending group work. The following method turned out to produce the best results: We formed two teams. One team with participants from each school using English. The other team with participants from each school worked on another topic using German. After this period of work each team gave a summary for the whole group using the opposite language. This method did a good job to avoid communication problems and to intgrate everybody into the learning process.

4. Has the partnership undertaken any joint evaluation of project activities and progress made? If so, what are the main conclusions of this evaluation? Does the partnership wish to continue its cooperation, within a Comenius project or otherwise?

During each meeting we used some instruments to evaluate the progress of the common work. This was really helpful and important for the process. For example the team working method described before was developed by using of self-evaluation instruments.

As a result of productive collaboration the partnership wishes to continue the common project and to extend it if possible. First project: student`s exchange between Poland and Iceland (Icelandic students are going to visit Rzeszow in October 2004).