Interoperable interactive geometry for Europe
I forgot my login data

Report a bug

Fan club

Quick Intro Videos
click to start movie
Create A Simple
GeoGebra Resource (25Mb)
click to start movie
Filing a review
click to start movie
Find a Resource

This platform is brought to you by the intergeo project, funded under the eContent Plus programme of the European commission and by partners

D8.4 Internal Evaluation Report Y2

This is the document preparing the deliverable to be submitted at the end of October.

General Guideline (Summary of recommendations by the reviewers of the technical review)

The consortium should develop an active risk management plan to deal with potential deviation from the work plan that may affect the eventual achievement of the project objectives.

Although quality assessment is based on post-evaluation, it is recommended that the consortium implement a monitoring process carried out by experts to ensure that contents aggregated meet a minimum quality standard.

The consortium should proactively take all necessary actions to make sure end-users will be properly involved in and contribute to final outcomes of the project.

Future internal evaluation reports should clarify how the actual impact of the project is affected by the measurable performance indicators.

The original risk analysis and risk management was focused on three main aspects: (1) unavailability of some content and IPR clearance; (2) governments reluctant to use outcomes from INTERGEO and (3) adoption of content by teachers. From the documentation reviewed it was not possible to identify actual measures to be taken in case any of these risks actually happen. In addition, new issues appeared during the evolution of the project that recommend to define an active plan continuously adapted to address these issues. A section on risk analysis should be included in future reports.


According to the Description of Work WP8 supports the management of the project and shall ensure a constant level of quality of the whole action by monitoring all parts of the project:

  • the internal project progress by interaction with the project heads and checking the delivery of deliverables (WP Performance)
  • the external project progress by evaluating the performance indicators and the impact of the whole project (Project Performance)

WP Performance Y2

Internal review process

WP8 installed internal review mechanisms that are based on standard peer-reviews as common in scientific organisations. To ensure the deliverables’ quality technical premises were set up early in the life cycle of the project to support this.

  • Each deliverable passes through a standardized review-cycle.
  • In terms of quality assurance, a continuous two week review process is implemented, performed by two WP-independent Consortium members.
  • The binding distribution of internal referees is performed at the beginning of each project-year.
  • Feedbacks provided by the internal referees are supervised by the project coordinator to ensure a transparent quality-monitoring and comprehensibility of the deliverbles’ review process.
Furthermore a multiplicity of web-based applications and online-services are installed in order to support communication matters and data exchange between partners.

  • SVN-Server: WP4 has set up a SVN-Server (Subversion) for data interchange that allows collective editing of current deliverables and sharing of Intergeo related contents provided by the Consortium members. This means that every Consortium member has always access to the latest version of all relevant documents.
  • WebCAL: WP1 and WP4 have set up a webCAL to share "up-to-date" calendars including all deliverable-deadlines and the duration of the internal referee process (two weeks), separated for each workpackage.
  • Online meetings/teleconferences: Using online meeting tools enables the WPs to discuss upcoming tasks. Agendas, meeting minutes and conclusions were collected at the internal project website for later reference.
  • Internal Project website: WP4 has set up an internal platform (, restricted to official Intergeo members: Consortium Members, Associate Partners, Country Representatives, User Representatives. This allows the project partners to use discussion forums, upload files etc.
  • Mailserver: WP1 has set up a mailserver to administer mailing-lists, seperated for each workpackage. Sending mails to a mailing-list instead of single individuals guarantees that every WP member is reached.
Experience with internal reviews

  • A few reviews had to be done very quickly (within two days), but this was negotiated between the WP leaders and referees to make sure that this turnaround time can be met.
  • exchange of review reports was handled via eMail
  • ...

WP1 - Project Management

Objectives for Y2

  • ongoing management for the period must be ensured.
  • communication with the EC has to be handled (submission of Deliverables, negotiation of derivations,… )
  • preparation of General Assembly for Y2
  • preparation of the Intergeo Conference 2010
Deviation from the Workplan and Identified lacks

  • There is still a noticable lack of Country Representatives (only 9 out of 28 European Community countries are currently represented by CRs).
*Remedial actions

  • CRs...

WP 2 – Content Classification

Objectives for Y2

  • The plan was to start large scale competency editing earlier (in January)
  • Maturation of the annotation, work of the additional encoders, German and Czech curriculum.
  • Import of GeoSkills into the GNU Edu system to convey all involved didactical purposes from one learning context to the other
*Deviation from Workplan and Identified lacks•

  • The competeny editor (comped) is available only since March 6th.
  • The team of encoders has waited and is now ready to act.
  • intended to request validation for the metadata structure… did not manage that
  • intended to get all curriculum encoded pretty soon now… still not the case
  • Curriculum-texts display took long to start and still can't display PDF-encoded curriculum-texts. We only have partners curriculum-encoding thus far.
*Remedial actions …

WP 3 – Content Integration

Objectives for Y2

  • The main objective of this period was evaluating the metadata enrichment and providing a report about it. In parallel, the file format and the Intergeo API
  • D3.5. API Specifications
  • D3.6. Common File Format v2
  • In parallel, the implementation of the file format had to be evolved.
Deviation from Workplan and Identified lacks

  • D3.4 was finally delivered after rescheduling it twice.
  • The remaining pending deliverables have all been delayed:
  • D 3.5 (API specifications) from M14 to M20.
  • D 3.6 (Common File Format v2) is created anew. M20.
  • D 3.8 (Report on Implementations of File Formats) from M19 to M25.
  • D 3.10 (Revised and extended file format) from M32 to M33.
*Remedial actions

WP 4 – Community Platform

Objectives for Y2

  • The existing search tool has been repaired and extended for cross-curriculum (March 13th) The translation plan is being followed with almost issues known of fixed.
  • maturation of the platform
  • fixes and enhancements of feedbacks
  • search tool completion
  • deliverable D4.6
Deviation from Workplan and Identified lacks

  • The platform acceptance is still imperfect but ongoing feature reporting. Plans of reskinning decided at the general assembly… most appearance issues were put on ice.
  • one more feature not yet honoured: preview and play constructions… under work
  • see details of our planning at
*Remedial actions …

WP 5 – Gathering Communities of Practices

Objectives for Y2

  • completing the organization of meetings at the countries listed in the DoW, which have not taken place in the first year of the project (Luxembourg, France)
  • identifying testers for classroom experiments and evaluation of quality, through different meetings and through other means.
  • writing the report on Local User Meetings (LUM), as deliverable D 5.2
  • Dissemination activities (meetings, publications), mostly related to presenting the enhanced features of the i2geo platform and to engaging communities of practice in the assessment tasks.
  • Deliverables: D5.2 and D5.4
Deviation from Workplan and Identified lacks

  • Due to the change of the WP5 lead in October 2008 a reorganisation of administratives tasks was needed for the whole Workpackage.
  • The new WP leader is Tomas Recio (UCAN). Due to a lack of usability of the platform at this time it was not wise to invite teachers to work with the platform. Thus the WP5 team decided to organise further LUMs depending on the platforms' progress and usability.
  • postponement of D5.2 would help us to evolve a more elaborated report and furthermore it allows us to include discussions and teachers' reaction of additional meetings that took place until March 2009.
*Remedial actions …

WP 6 – Quality Assessment (of content)

Objectives for Y2

  • setup the multilingual quality framework environment,
  • organise the quality testings in the classroom
  • Begin a small scale campaign of evaluation in the classroom
  • Report in D6.2 Report on best practises for DGS content
Deviation from Workplan and Identified lacks

The work of incorporating the quality framework within the general curriki scheme turned out to take a lot of time. And because the availability of the platform is such a bottleneck, we invested a lot of person-month from the WP6 into the WP4 package. Nevertheless the organization of the quality evaluation in the classroom is behind the schedule because the platform is still not completely ready for ordinary teachers to be used. That means that the collection of quality tests in the classroom will happen later than planned so the best practice guidelines and experimentation protocols will be based on fewer examples than expected.

The deviation from work plan is major, because of the delay in platform implementation, we could not use the online review form. Therefore we haven't been able to conduct the evaluations as planned and we asked for the permission to reschedule D6.2. We under-performed and a lot of our users lost their confidence in the project during this period and reactivating them for the next period is going to require a lot of work from WP5.

*Remedial actions …

WP 7 – Dissemination and Sustainability

Objectives for Y2

Intergeo shall be promoted to key people (researchers in education, software publishers, Government bodies, interested teachers) in Europe. They should be aware of the existence and the goals of the project, and they should be invited to join the project (either officially or informally as users). The necessary material to present the project at conferences or other events should be available to all project members. The infrastructure for a broader user outreach (for example through newsletters or registration at the website) should be established, and user contacts should be collected to make it easy to contact them when the project platform is fully operational.

Deviation from Workplan and Identified lacks

The quarterly newsletter was only send once, as we still were expecting major changes in the platform. We will resume the newsletter as soon as we think the platform is mature enough. The quarterly newsletter was replaced by the weblog feature of the platform

*Remedial actions

WP 8 – Evaluation

Objectives for Y2

  • The necessary structures for project evaluation should be maintained.
  • Deliverables due in M13-M24 should be refereed.
  • Revisions of Deliverables that were not approved should be coordinated and carried out in cooperation with the original submitters.
  • Audits and Reviews requested from the EU should be coordinated.
Deviation from Workplan and Identified lacks

There were no significant deviations. A few reviews had to be done very quickly (within two days), but this was negotiated between the WP leaders and referees to make sure that this turnaround time can be met.

*Remedial actions

Project Performance


The second year of Intergeo was supposed to be mainly dedicated to quality assessment of the available resources. According to the DoW: The second year also introduces quality assessment for the content, and continues activating users, now backed by a substantial, accessible content base. Interoperability between the involved software packages is accomplished during the year. Also, the Intergeo conference is in preparation.

Deviations from the workplan and impact on the Project Progress

As pointed out in the previous Progress Reports (see D1.7 and D1.9) we had slow down the process of user acquisition and quality testing due to delays in WP4 (Intergeo Platform). Fortunately, the platform has improved substantially during the last six months and is now usable for the general public and to perform quality assessment tasks.

Underachievements of Performance Indicators

The underachievement of performance indicators were mainly caused by the late start of the working platform and technical issues during the first phase.

Remedial Management

more publicity to promote the platform (User Involvement - WP5 future activities) As the platform gets more stable and user-friendly, we need to consider other initiatives to gather 3rd party content and to attract more users. Those that are close to the goals of WP5 could be the following:

  • Writing articles on Intergeo issue. For example in the journals of national association of mathematics teachers of European countries.
  • Visiting both national and local math conferencies on the use of new technologies in teaching mathematics, physics etc. in every country.
  • To inform math students at Pedagogical faculties and other schools preparing students to teach mathematics about Intergeo.
  • To inform the teachers of in-service training about Intergeo.
  • to offer the sources of a high quality and demonstrate them.
  • To translate attractive sources into various languages.
  • To organize special events for teachers How to work with Intergeo?
  • To inform the public about Intergeo at international level (conferencies (Hagenberg, etc.), journals).
  • To prepare work sheets for teaching mathematics for various important topics (Theorem of Pythagoras, Euklid theorem, Theorem of Thales, . . . ).
  • To show how Intergeo contributes to obtain better professional knowledge. Pedagogical contributions.
  • To concentrate on content and the quality of the sources.
  • Cooperation with other European projects (running or in preparation) of similar topics (Inno- MathEd - Innovations in Mathematics Education on European Level , LEGIs - Local European GeoGebra Institutes, EMATEC - European Certificate for Technology in Mathematics Education, . . . ).
  • usability testing






File Format


Building a Community