Bridging Insula Europae Project Monitoring System

1. Bridging Insula Europae Enhancing Pupils Motivation by Developing European Dimension of Learning and the Use of ICT 134214-LLP-1-2007-1-IT-COMENIUS-CMP Bridging Insula EuropaeProject 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. Project Logical Framework

6. Project Implementation Progress (IP) 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

7. Project Classification Scales Implementation Progress: 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.

8. Project Classification Scales 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)

9. Overview of project performance issues

10. Project Status

14. Thank you for your kind attention! 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