Bridging Insula Europae Project Monitoring System June 5th, 2009 Ayia Napa, Cyprus 4th Meeting This communication 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 Bridging Insula Europae Enhancing Pupils Motivation by Developing European Dimension of Learning and the Use of ICT LLP IT-COMENIUS-CMP

During the experimentation – to remind what was agreed during the last meeting Diffusion of evaluation questionnaires of the experimented methodology (by the students and the teachers) Monitoring the development of the activities and of the outcomes by involving the reference national authorities Gathering the material for the Virtual Photographic Exhibition and for the Video Dossier that will be realized at the end of the experimentation

1. Experimentation phase description in (name of the country) 1.1 Participants involved in the project (schools, teachers, students) 2. The methodological and didactical approach adopted 2.1 Students satisfaction/feedbacks about : Didactical Methods Contents Level of learning by enjoying Experimentation schedule General satisfaction about the experience 2.2 Teachers satisfaction/feedbacks about Didactical Methodology: level of understanding the method and the goals Didactical Methodology: efficacy of the teaching method Contents Contents Experimentation schedule General satisfaction about the experience Report on the experimental phase with schools This communication 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

3. The use of the technical tools/platform 3.1 Students and teachers satisfaction/feedbacks about Usability Graphics and Layout What sections are used and what are not used and why What is nice and useful and what is not and why 4. Strengths and weaknesses of the testing, specific of the country Report on the experimental phase with schools Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threads This communication 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

LevelNarrative Summary Measurable Indicators Means of VerificationImportant Assumptions Goal -Project Monitoring System - Evaluation Purpose A Output A.1 Output A.2 Output A.3 Purpose B Output B.1 Output B.2 Output B.3

This communication 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 Outputs Key Delivery Performance Indicators: Classification of Outputs HSSUVU Assumptions Related to the Implementation of each outputs Probability HighLow Implementation Progress Summary Classification (IP): (A satisfactory or higher classification indicates, among other things, that the project will reach the foreseen outputs during the currently approved period) [ ] Highly Satisfactory (HS) [ ] Satisfactory (S) [ ] Unsatisfactory (U) [ ] Very Unsatisfactory (VU)

Highly Satisfactory (HS): Implementation of all project outputs is on schedule as envisaged in the original or revised project implementation and sequencing plan and the quality of the outputs is good. Satisfactory (S): Implementation of the significant outputs is on schedule as envisaged in the original or revised project implementation and sequencing plan and quality is adequate. Implementation of outputs may require remedial actions, but they will not seriously (less than 15% of the existing timetable) affect or delay overall project implementation. Unsatisfactory (U): Significant outputs are not in compliance with the original or revised project implementation and sequencing plan or there is a problem with the quality of the outputs. A serious delay in implementation of the project may be occurring (over 15% of the existing timetable). Corrective actions are being applied which may produce results. Very Unsatisfactory (VU): Most significant outputs are not in compliance with the original or revised implementation and sequencing plan and/or there is a problem with the quality of the outputs. No feasible corrective action has been identified or there is no agreement within the partnership on appropriate corrective actions. Implementation Progress:

Assumptions: Highly Probable (HP): The project is expected to achieve or exceed its development objective(s) Probable (P): The project is expected to achieve most of its development objective(s) Low Probability (LP): The project is not expected to achieve a significant portion of its development objective(s) Improbable (I): The project is not expected to achieve its development objective(s)

Check key reasons for Unsatisfactory/Very Unsatisfactory IP Classification or Low Probability/Improbable DO Classification and explain in the second part of the table [ ] Organizational changes [ ] Subcontractor inefficacy [ ] Partner withdraw [ ] Partner not collaborative [ ] Inefficacy in management procedure [ ] Inefficacy in communication strategies [ ] Supplier/contractor performance [ ] Project/component design [ ] Procurement difficulties [ ] Cost overrun [ ] Insufficient budget [ ] Delay (explain) [ ] Technical issues [ ] Organizational changes [ ] Other EXPLANATION

Progress to date in implementing each outputs (Include reference to IP assumptions, if applicable) Timeliness of Compliance with contractual conditions Lessons learned (If applicable): Potential Problems (If applicable):

Thank you for your kind attention! This communication 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 June 5th, 2009 Ayia Napa, Cyprus 4th Meeting