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-05-00059-3

Projekt-Titel / Project Title

Self-Evaluation For European Schools

Koordinierungsschule / Coordinating School

Staatliche Handelsschule Am Lämmermarkt

1. Welche Aktivitäten sind innerhalb der Partnerschaft im vergangenen Schuljahr durchgeführt worden?

Kurze Beschreibung der Aktivitäten, die gemeinsam und bei den einzelnen Projektpartnern stattgefunden haben, sowie der transnationalen Mobilitätsmaßnahmen für Lehrer und Schüler. Was lief gut, was lief weniger gut als erwartet und warum?

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

• All schools planned and organised photo-evaluation and involved students in these activities. This method was very helpful to make the SEFES project visible for everybody at school.
• All schools used and improved peer-evaluation and student feedback.
• Project meeting Rovaniemi (October 2005). We compared the different ways and the results of the photo-evaluation method. German and Icelandic students used this method during the meeting to evaluate the Finnish school from their point of view. The interdependence of quality management and self-evaluation was discussed and demonstrated taking the Rovaniemi school as an example of good practise. This was an important theoretical and practical input to improve the implementation strategy of each school.
• Final project meeting Hamburg (April 2006). We created a new structure of the project website as the role of the website had to change from a discussion platform to an end product showing the results of three years of common project work. We decided to produce a leaflet as well as a project CD. Rima reported the results of a Comenius 3 network conference held in Estonia (March 2006) on synergy effects between internal and external evaluation.
• All schools tried to spread the self-evaluation concept and to implement successful methods.
• A group of German students visited the Icelandic partner school (March 2006) and compared school life focussing on student activities during the lessons and on the culture of student feedback.
• Finnish students visited Kaunas (March 2006) as part of a vocational school project (service).

B.     Local Activities

• Hamburg . Fifteen colleagues attended a 30-hour course  (further education) on self-evaluation. Some results of the photo-evaluation became part of the action plan for the new school year.
• Kaunas . The evaluation results were presented to the headmaster to find solutions to improve the school. The SEFES team published an article in the school newspaper.
• Reykjavik . Some additional evaluation instruments have been used. Solveig worked with student weblogs and Sigrithur Björk with portfolios. Moreover the evaluation methods have been used for distance learning too (Eirikur).
• Rovaniemi. On-the-job-learning which plays an important role for the students was evaluated. The school`s quality management concept was translated from Finnish into English.
• Rzeszow . Feedback became more important for teacher training. A combination of peer-evaluation and student feedback during the preparation for English exams was created, bilateral feedback in simulated oral exams was carried out.    

2. Was für Produkte sind im vergangenen Schuljahr erstellt worden? Welche davon sind gemeinsame Produkte, welche sind von den Projektpartnern getrennt erstellt worden? Wie und an wen sind diese Produkte verbreitet worden, sowohl innerhalb und außerhalb der Projektpartnerschaft? Wie sind diese Produkte aufgenommen worden?

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?

All schools produced exhibitions and/or powerpoint presentations of the photo-evaluation.

We produced:

• the website as an end product of the SEFES project. The website shows the results of the common and the local activities of  the school development project and wants to give some inspiring examples of self-evaluation.
• a leaflet that contains the main ideas and the addresses to contact the participating schools.
• a CD that contains documents and articles of the project work.

These products were distributed to all groups who are important for school life in all partner schools.

Moreover these products were sent to the helping and assisting institutions (teacher training institute Hamburg , University Reykjavik, exhibition of pedagogical project Lithuania ).

3. Wie effizient war die Zusammenarbeit innerhalb der Partnerschaft? Wie wurde die Aufgabenverteilung vereinbart und umgesetzt? Wie wurde die Kommunikation geregelt, welche Arbeitssprache(n) wurde(n) verwendet? Gab es größere Hindernisse für eine zufriedenstellende Zusammenarbeit? Wenn ja, wurden diese gelöst? Wie? Wie wichtig waren Lehrer- und Schülermobilität für die Zusammenarbeit?

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?

English has been used as communication language. All schools organised their photo-evaluation in time and presented the results during the common meeting. Students were involved much more than during the first two years (at school, visiting the partner school, attending the meeting).

This was very important to improve the acceptance of self-evaluation methods. Again it were the meetings that turned out to be the most inspiring events to find new ideas and new solutions for an implementation strategy for one`s own school.

4. Wurde eine gemeinsame Selbst-Evaluierung der Projektaktivitäten und der erzielten Fortschritte durchgeführt? Wenn ja, was waren die Hauptergebnisse und -konsequenzen dieser Untersuchung? Ist eine weitere Zusammenarbeit geplant, innerhalb von Comenius oder auf andere Weise?

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 reflected the project work and our results which depended on different circumstances. At the final meeting in Hamburg we did a common evaluation of our project which will be very helpful for future projects within and outside Comenius. In order to get a feedback from all teachers who took part in SEFES (25 teachers altogether) we did an additional SWOT analysis using the internet. We asked for strengths and weaknesses of our project and for opportunities and threats of the self-evaluation process at our schools.

Further co-operations are planned:

Hamburg and Reykjavik – school exchange autumn 2006 (outside Comenius)

Hamburg and Rovaniemi – marketing project starting September 2006 (Comenius school project)