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-04-00012-2

Projekt-Titel / Project Title

Self-Evaluation For European Schools

Coordinating School

Staatliche Handelsschule 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.

A.     Joint activities

• Project meeting Rzeszow (October 2004). We discussed and evaluated the first project year. Introduction of the new partner school (Rovaniemi). Reports on the evaluation activities of all partner schools. We got some new theoretical input (e.g.. “action research method” by Rima). We developed an action plan for the second year focussing on peer-evaluation and students feedback.
• Project meeting Reykjavik (March 2005). Our mutually shared experiences and new theoretical input ( University of Iceland , Comenius 3 network) led us to new aspects and helped us to improve the action plan. – All partners will focus on implementing self-evaluation at their own schools. We worked out a plan to integrate the head of each school and to do the first steps jointly. – We decided to start a photo-evaluation activity as this turned out to be a good method to involve students and all other groups at school in our evaluation-project. – We compared and developed structures that might support the improvement of the evaluation cultures at our schools.
• Ralph`s visit in Rovaniemi (April 2005). Meeting with SEFES team, information on structures of school organisation, conditions of evaluation culture.
• All schools added articles to the common website.
• All schools used and improved the evaluation instruments and tried to spread the evaluation concept.

B.     Local activities

• Hamburg . The instruments of self-evaluation have been used by the SEFES participants and by other colleagues as well, who also attended a course on students’ feedback at the local institute for further education of teachers. The participants have also planned to investigate and collect information on already existing methods of students’ feedback carried out by other colleagues who are not part of the project, to present it at a staff meeting and to invite others to join in. – As peer-evaluation was also accepted as further education (which has become obligatory for teachers), the staff was encouraged to do this to a certain extend instead of attending courses outside school. Accordingly a specific course on evaluation was planned and installed for our school, 15 colleagues applied for this course.
• Kaunas . Presentation of SEFES project to the staff. Using SEFES tools and improving the target method.
• Reykjavik . We have been using peer evaluation with some results and teachers have used the target method for feedback purposes. We hosted the project meeting in the spring of 2005 with great success, where Hafdís Ingvarsdóttir, an Icelandic expert on teacher development contributed with a talk, and we hope to continue cooperation with her regarding the project. Teachers have started developing their evaluation portfolios. We have held a meeting with the leadership of the school and our new headmaster, Sölvi Sveinsson, who is very enthusiastic about SEFES.
• Rovaniemi Presentation of the school and the quality work of the school in Rzeszow meeting; Presentation of SEFES project to the staff of the school; responsible SEFES persons nominated, time and economical resourses given by the leader of the school; using peer evaluation method, feedback taken from students by using SEFES tools; hosting a visiting partner from Hamburg and presenting the school and its quality policy (EFQM);collecting all the data produced in our school for SEFES project into a common info file of the school (Ropol/Tiedotus)
• Rzeszow . The peer-evaluation-method has been used successfully as an instrument to develop criteria for good language education and to manage this change.    

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?

We produced forms for peer evaluation and for students’ feedback were published on the project website. This helped to compare the activities of the partner schools. – We improved the “target method” and adopted it to various subjects. The combination of a large target, visible for everyone in the classroom and a paper that contains the target in a reduced scale and that offers some space for individual comments, turned out to work very well.

3. How effective was the collaboration between the participating institutions? – 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 effective collaboration between the partners during the last two years helped to create a climate of trust. The project meetings give some extra motivation to the participants to do the additional work that is required by our project. These meetings are very important for the progress of the SEFES-project: inspiring theoretical input and the chance to create realistic action plans. – The project website is still not used enough for communication and discussion. It is easier to write e-mails instead of publishing one`s message on the web.

Mainly English and sometimes German have been used as communication languages.

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 the project meetings we discussed and evaluated our work and our results. This helped us to improve the action plan and to define our aims more precisely. – Further cooperations have taken place and some more are planned. Icelandic students visited Rzeszow in 2004. Hamburg and Reykjavik decided to have a students exchange in 2005/2006. Kaunas and Rovaniemi are planning a vocational school project (service). International students’ meeting (students from SEFES schools) is planned to be held in Rovaniemi in October 2005