Work & Learning Partners

In my previous characterisation of the resource area that presents our work with the "KLearn" tools I have used the expression 'simulation cabin' to illustrate how the original idea ofdeveloping a light-weight learning management system has changed. At present the results of this work can best be made available as a tutorial area.

The attached documents are the first reworked "KLearn tools" that provide the basis orientation for the subsequent steps.

The next steps (and the related presentations) are dealing with

• contextualisation of learning (support for individual learning; shaping the organisational preconditins)
• positioning of learning arrangements (between traditional didactic concepts and open learning designs)
• customisation of learning arrangements (in the light of local circumstances and related strategic choices).

The presentations are relatively open for different country contexts and therefore need some further interpretation when used as a basis for workshops or training measures. Yet, I believe that there is a need to complete the series (the groundwork has already been done in July and August).

Pekka Kämäräinen

In the previous posting I have presented my thoughts on the need to upgrade the status of the 'case stories' as a specific resource area that consists of simple power point presentations. The aim of these presentations is to make the different experiences and observations in diverse country contexts to some extent comparable with each other.

So far it has been difficult to proceed with this idea because there has been no mutual agreement to what extent the case stories should be worked into a common format an to what extent they should be left as free narratives.

On the other hand there has been the issue how to cover very dfferent aspects of piloting with one single 'case story'. In fact, our experience has shown us that we need to illustrate our developmental processes from different angles to make them more accessible for diacussion and transfer-promoting initiatives.

From this perspective the attached presentations provide mutually complementing angles to the Italian and Slovenian piloting activities:

• Regarding the Italian case stories the first presentation focuses on the phases of the community-building initiative and on the specific process dynamics that have characterised the piloting. The second presentation focuses on the role of 'local' facilitation (provided by Training 2000) and on the role of external support (provided by the WLP project).
• Regarding the Slovenian case stories the first presentation focuses on the 'micro-piloting' initiatives that have been taken in the VET college itself (the SCV) in order improve its capability to support workplace learning. The second presentation focuses on the initiatives that involve regional enterprises into active cooperation with the VET college (SCV).

I believe that these examples make it more transparent what can be achieved with a resource area that provides a critical mass of such case stories with a relative transparent structure. However, these examples also demonstrate the limits of presentations with a common format. Therefore, I would assume that the French and UK case stories could be best available as free narratives. In the German cases (under construction) there is a point in using the common format.

Pekka Kämäräinen

In the evolution of the WLP project history it has become clear that there has been a conceptual hurdle how to proceed after the basic analyses that were undertaken in the beginning phase. The project proceeded for some time with a coherent format via the construction of the national maps and via the LPA-analyses (or the alternative LAR-analyses). Then, after the LPA-analyses (or LAR-analyses) there was a difficult period how to find the ways further. As we remember, the joint discussion shifted to the theme "WLP Web" whereas the partners had to find their ways forward with a manageable 'piloting agenda'.

The "Workshop facilitators' tools" have been designed as simple tools to address some key questions that are important for the primary orientation of the potential partners:

• Tool 1 focuses of different options for partnership cooperation.
• Tool 2 focuses on different options for networked learning.
• Tool 3 focuses on different steps to be taken as immediate developmental measures.

The tools refer to the different piloting/networking approaches (and the related organisational measures) that have been put into practice in some of the national activities within the WLP project.

From this perspective I believe that the Workshop facilitators' tools serve their purpose as bridging contributions between the LPA/LAR-analyses.

Pekka Kämäräinen

In the earlier phase of the WLP project the work with web-based resources was tied up with a common heading "WLP Web". Therefore, the project expected to develop a common concept that could be transferred to diverse countries. As a result, the earlier steps to prepare the grounds for such piloting were taken under the headings "WLP Web testing areas" or "WLP Web piloting areas". Now, a few months later this seems an anachronism. It seems obvious that the national partners should have had their own areas for piloting and/or dissemination purposes and that both approaches are helpful for the project.

At this late moment it is possible make some remarks how to use WLP Partners' Areas to strengthen the project:

The Italian Piloting Forum has been built as the basic case for such areas and it should be developed further as support for the ongoing Italian piloting  activities.

The UK partners have made available a lot of video material that would overwhelm the joint WLP Multimedia Resources. Therefore, there is a case to consider how to make use of such material as contributions to the joint multimedia resources and to the UK Dissemination Forum (?).

The French partners have made available video material that will be made available as English language versions in the WLP Multimedia Resources area. The French language versions should be made available on the French Dissemination Forum.

The Slovenian partners are producing video material for the joint WLP Multimedia resources and text material for the case stories. The original Slovenian langage versions should be made available on the Slovenian Dissemination Forum.

The Estonian partners are exploring their possibilities to develop the Estonian Dissemination Forum that would support their pre-piloting activities.

The German coordination team is exploring the possibilities to provide German-language material for the German Dissemination Forum.

The dissemination forums should link back to the oher Resource Areas of the WLP project.

The role of multimedia resources was originally thought to be that of a relatively marginal illustration of the project activities that rely primarily on written documents. However, as has been the case with web-based resources in general, the WLP project has had to reconsider the role and the usability of multimedia resources.

From this perspective it appears to be resonable to emphasise the role of WLP multimedia resources as a specific resource area that is developed alongside other knowledge resources.

More on this soon ...

Pekka Kämäräinen

The WLP project has already in the original work programme outlined the importance of 'case stories' parallel to other country-specific reporting. However, the role of 'case stories' was linked to the outcomes of the Learning Potential Analysis and to the expectation on subsequent partnership development.

In the course of the project history it became clear that the national partners have different possibilities to promote and/or analyse actual cases in which piloting with partnership-based cooperation is central. Therefore, it became even more important to find ways to present the experiences of the partners as contributions to a common European knowledge base.

From this perspective the case stories that are brought together by this resource area ave different features and pass different messages. Some of the case stories have been shaped with a common format to promote shared learning across different countries. Some have been presented as free narratives to emphasise the specific messages arising from the case.

The German case stories provide insights into the evolution of partnership cooperation from earlier pilot projects to present date.
The Italian case stories provide insights into ongoing piloting with a learning community and into the role of facilitators in such piloting.
The Slovenian case stories provide insights into local micro-piloting in a regional training centre and its WLP-related development activities.
The French case stories provide insights into partnership-oriented cooperation from the perspective of a traditional enterprise and from the perspective of a trans-national networked enterprise.
The Estonian case stories provide insights into different starting positions for entering partnership cooperation in a regional context.
The UK case stories provide insights into partnership cooperation in industrial networks based on supply chains (and supported by training providers).

As such the case stories provide a certain degree of illustration that can be greatly enhanced by multimedia resources.

Pekka Kämäräinen

The WLP project has taken an effort to develop a light-weight tool that brings together some elements of e-portfolios (support for indvidual learners), Personal Learning Environments (support for developers of learning opportunities) and Learning Management Systems (support for organisers of learning provisions). This integrative approach was named "KLearn" (promoting Knowledge on your Learning). However, very soon it became clear that the KLearn approach needs to address questions on contextualisation, profiling and customisation in order to support real planning processes. At the same time the progress towards piloting proceeded in different ways and with different pace in the participating countries.

As a consequence, the 'KLearn' approach is being reshaped into a "simulation cabin" that helps the partnership developers to get first insights into the planning process and to deepen their view gradually. Thus, the simulation cabin provides different chambers for getting acquainted with the planning issues.

The entry chamber presents the KLearn tools 1a and 1b for basic orientation into the WLP ideas and into the planning process.
The beginners' chamber presents the KLearn tools 2a and 2b for contextualising the planning at the level of Individual Learning or Organisational Measures.
The profiling chamber presents the KLearn tools 3A and 3B for reflecting upon different strategic options (traditional didactic designs or openlearning designs).
The developers' chamber presents the KLearn tools 4a and 4b for finding customised and personalised solutions for the local learning context.
The exit chamber presents the KLearn tools 5a and 5b for linking the planning issues to developmental work outside the WLP project.

Thus, the current view on the KLearn tools has tried to maintain the simplicity of the initial idea and yet to respond to the growing complexity that is encountered in the developmental work.

In this context it is worthwhile to note that the shaping of the KLearn tools has shadowed the developmental work that has been described in the WLP case stories.

Pekka Kämäräinen

In the early phase of the WLP project the work with Learning Potential Analysis was crucial for getting insights into different working environments and into related prospects for promoting cooperation in workplace learning However, at that time the project did not have common tools for supporting the initial discussions between training providers and enterprises. In particular there were no common tools for tackling possible obstacles and for bringing into picture relevant experience from similar cases.

From this perspective it has become crucial to develop a broader gallery of tools for preparatory analyses. My proposal is that the Resource Area 1 should include (in addition to the LPA tool and the parallel LAR tool) the following tools for workshop facilitators:
Facilitators' tool 1: Scenarios for workplace learning and partnership development
Facilitators' tool 2: Scenarios for web-based learning and networked learning arrangements
Facilitators' tool 3: Readiness to use web-based and local learning resources
Facilitators' tool 4: Readiness to particapate in the organisation of partnership-based learning.

Each of these tools deals with a tension between potentials (that partnership-based cooperation offers) and obstacles (that are there for various reasons).  The tools are based on simple questions that can be linked to different strategic choices. The commentary space invites the facilitator to make use of other WLP resources (in order to bring the discussion further).

If the preparatory discussions find a way forward, this leads to questions how to plan the common activities.

Pekka Kämäräinen

In the recent period I have had to give a lot of thoughts on the work that has been undertaken and on the results that are coming up on the WLP project. As I have emphasised on various occasions, the WLP project has gone through a period during which it has had to modify its work programme. In this context the project has had to reconsider what is possible to achieve when the underlying ideas have met obstacles and work has taken somewhat different course.

The major conceptual change that has occurred has been a transition from
a) separate 'packaged knowledge resources' to 'networked knowledge resources' and from
b) separate 'e-learning platforms' (in their own sphere) to 'working and learning with web-based resources'.

From this perspective I try to make transparent what is special (from the users' point of view) in the Resource Areas that we are building in the WLP project. To me the idea is growing gradually on the drawing board but it is difficult to communicate if the discussion focuses on single Resource Areas or single tools or single knowledge elements.

In the subsequent postings I try to give a picture of the building of mutually complementing resource areas that cover the following resources:
Resource Area 1: The preparatory tools for analyses of the preconditions for partnership creation,
Resource Area 2: The KLearn planning tools that provide a 'simulation cabin' for getting insights into partnership development,
Resource Area 3: The case stories that present  WLP partners' experiences on piloting and/or their insights into development of partnership-based cooperation in their countries,
Resource Area 4: The WLP Multimedia resources that provide video and audio materials on issues that are central for the WLP project and for learning from each other,
Resource Area 5: The WLP Partners' Areas that provide specific web areas for piloting (e.g. The Italian Piloting Forum) and dissemination (e.g. The Slovenian Dissemination Forum).

In the following postings the building of these resource areas is being discussed alongside the development of the materials. The idea is make the knowledge resource work togethether within the areas and across the areas.

Pekka Kämäräinen

Proposals for shaping the WLP Web Piloting Areas

In the light of the recent developments I would suggest that the main section on the WLP website that currently has the title "WLP Web testing area" should be renamed into "WLP Web Piloting Areas" (please note the plural form).

1.  Introduction text for the "WLP Web Piloting Areas"
In the attached document I have drafted a general introduction to the whole section.

2. Layout of the main page
In addition to the brief introduction the main page should contain links to the country-specific Piloting Areas and to the European Overview. The links should be named as

"WLP Web Piloting Area for Italy"
...
"WLP Web Piloting Areas - European Overview"

3. Introduction to the WLP Web Piloting Area for Italy
In the attached document I have also drafted an introduction to the WLP Web Piloting Area for Italy. In the introductory text I have renamed the current "Italian demonstration Area" as the "Italian Piloting Forum" and that it should be presented as the main component of the Area.  I have also made the proposal that the general WLP Web facilities will be made available as another main component.

4. Layout of the WLP Web Piloting Area for Italy
In the attached document I have illustrated how the layout of the main page of the WLP Web Page for Italy could look like. My point is to link the country-specific piloting forum to the ongoing European project work. However, as we have discussed, it would be helpful to get a direct domain name for the Italian Piloting Forum.
I have also included a proposal for a shared area into the links. This could be an interface between Italian and English postings. otherwise the Italian Piloting Forum should run primarily in Italian language.


So these are my proposals. I hope we canhave a quick exchange of views on these because we need to accommodate the emerging Italian Piloting Forum very quickly and in an appropriate way. looking forward to prompt reactions from the all European research partners.

Pekka Kämäräinen

With this posting I want to give some more food for thought concerning the shaping of different areas of the WLP Web. I do emphasise that my proposals are first drafts and that there is plenty of room for discussion. Therefore, I do not want to present my background thinking at this moment. instead, i would invite you to look at my drawings in the attachment and compare them with the models that I presented in the previous posting.

Feel free to have a look and give your views.

Pekka Kämäräinen

In my first comment on Al's posting I used football terminology and heard the whistle blow due to the fact that Al had got himself to an offside position. Now, assuming that we have all worked some steps further with the "Resource Areas" and the "KLearn" instrument, we might consider anew the ideas that Al has put forward in his posting.

I think that the key questions that Al wants us to consider (regarding our piloting activities) are the following ones:
a) Can the WLP project pilot with online  tutoring and Skype tutoring in order to train beginner-users (of web applications) into user-devlopers (of their own applications) and into peer tutors (that disseminate the know-how to other users)?
b) Can the WLP WLP project make use of similar web applications and services as other professional communities (e.g. the Guidance Research Forums) in order to promote broader accessability and (re)usability of European knowledge resources on work-related learning?

Here again, I must remind myself and the reader that when I start discussing the above presented questions and Al's proposals I have to consider firstly the work with the German piloting agenda.

Firstly, I can very well see the potential of the tutorial measures that Al is proposing. I think that this could be one way to develop a concept for "Tutorial workshop"and to implement it in practice. However, when thinking of the different situations in which we are I do not think that such tutorial arrangements are a solution for every partner. I do not wish to speak on behalf of others before having their views but my sofisticated guess is that we should need a clear idea on the contents and tasks to which such exercise is related and that we would need a clear idea how to use the know-how in the country-specific piloting agenda. When I think of the German context I would need to get the students (who need to report on their prior experience to get it recognised as practical learning) working with the KLearn and find their way to work with the item 'Learning diary'. At that point it is possible to introduce such measures. However, here we have to take into account the language issues and the possible need for interpretation. Yet, I would imagine that some of the students are in the position to go through a tutoring process in English language (and that it would be helpful for me to join them).

Secondly, I am a bit more slower in getting myself a clear idea of the benefits of the web applications and services that Al mentions as support facilities for content management and knowledge sharing (categories, tags, tag clouds, feeders, bookmarks, del.icio.us etc.). I know that they are powerful but they appear to me at the moment as double-edged-swords.  Usually these tools are discussed by educational technlogists, software developers and facilitators of web-supported learning. Therefore, the discussion appears to go deeper in the advanced developers' underground bunkers and leaves the layman users with their content-related interests on the ground. In this respect there is a need for a similar 'survival kit' as the "KLearn" appears to be regarding the realm of 'learinng management systems' or 'personal learning environments'. However, I also see the possibility to work with this prospect in some country contexts but I do not see this as a strong priority for the German piloting agenda.

As I see it, we should explore the possibility to make use of the woking perspectives that Al has proposed. If we manage to tie online tutoring and Skype tutoring to some of the piloting agendas and document this process properly, we will have an important experiment to report on. Also, if we manage to make proper use of the web applications and services for content management and knowledge sharing (related to particular content areas) we would also make important steps forward. However, we need to see what kind of opportunities we can identify within the country-specific piloting activities.

I think I have said enough on this topic. I would very much welcome other views on these issues. We shall not finish the discussion before we have some more views to take into consideration.

Pekka Kämäräinen

When reading Al's posting it strikes me that he has attached the initial script of the "KLearn" instrument but yet he doesn't make reference to it. To me this is somewhat surprising because to me the "KLearn" instrument is crucial for the construction of  the WLP Web. Yet, I understand that it takes some time to digest what kind of possibilities the instrument opens for users.

For me the critical step for getting further was the effort to develop a differentiated understanding how
a) the different organisational counteparts (partner enterprises and training providers) can use the KLearn instrument as a supporting instrument when negotiating on the possibility to develop partnership-based cooperation and how
b) individua users (individual learners and supervising teachers/trainers) can use the instrument in the context of workplace learning.

I have illustrated this in the attached documents that emphasise the role of KLearn as an intermediate and bridging instrument between two sides of pedagogic interaction and/or between organsational partners who are developing learning arrangements.

Now. when I think the possible testing grounds for using KLearn in the German context it appears to me that we have a natural starting point. The study programme or VET teacher education (with a focus on 'vocational disciplines' and 'pedagogics of VET') requires practical teaching/learning/training periods at vocational schools and at enterprises. However, students who already have worked  as taechers or trainers can apply for recognition of prior experience. Yet, in this context they have to analyse their prior learning and justify that they have acquired the competences that practical learning period seeks to promote.

I recently visited the ITB seminar that prepares the students this practical learning period and gave a presentation that linked the students' tasks to the work of the WLP project. In the dscussion I got the impression that the experienced students with a practical background would be the optimal testers of the prototype and that they could really benefit of the possibility to get involved in such piloting. At the same time I would link this testing to a possibility to use the 'case story' template as a reporting tool.

I think this gives an idea how the "KLearn" instrument can be linked to transfer-promoting activities. The main limitation for our "piloting" is that we do not have a direct opportunity to work alongside the creation of new learning partnerships (like the Italian partners) or to implement the KLearn as an in-built instrument to be used as part of learning design for the practical learning (like the Slovenian partners). Therfore, our contribution could be seen as pilot testing with a limited number of users but with interesting special cases.

I guess this is enough on this topic. In the next posting I will focus on Al's ideas tutoring and virtual support facilities.

Pekka Kämäräinen

My first observation is that Al declares the readiness of the KnowNet to start a closer cooperation with the WLP partners to promote customisation of the website and the related country-specific work processes. (To me this is all fine.) Secondly  he invites the WLP partners to familiarise themselves with the content management interfaces and the blogging interfaces which KnowNet has developed. (This, also is an appropriate appeal although we may not be quite sure what he exactly wishes us to look at.) Then, he continues to his offer for coaching and tutoring how to use these facilities.

At this point I can hear a referee blowing his whistle for Al due to an offside position (even though we are not at a football field). As far as I am concerned (and now I am speaking as a German partner) we cannot start the discussion on customisation from the ideas that Al floats upon us on blogging and online tutoring without addressing the work we should be doing for the project. However, if we start addressing our needs from the perspective of our concerns and tasks in the project we are in a better position to develop WLP Web facilities to meet the needs of the WLP project partners.

In my prior postings I have tried to outline tasks in general concepts that make the different piloting agendas comparable with each other. Now I try to respond to my own instructions and proposals as a partner with country-specific concerns and tasks.

From the German perspective the theme "workplace learning parnerships" is covered by a chain of pilot projects that date back to the early 1990s and represent different phases of educational and societal innovation policies. Normally, the German innovation policies have required an accompanying research project when the innovations are based on public-private partnerships and on combination of different funds. However, even if these accompanying research projects have been well thought (in terms of suporting the innovation processes) the reports have hardly managed to pave the way for broad-based dissemination of innovative practice. Instead, there is an information overkill regarding documentary information and a lack of shared learning on the basis of project histories. This is somewhat alarming when the innovation policies and the VET policies are going through a rupure period.

Given this background I see two kinds of tasks for the German contributions to the WLP Web 'Resource Areas':
a) On the one hand there is a need to raise awareness of the organisational knowledge on partnership cooperation that is 'out there' (in the project-related know-how on teamworking, learning designs and in the reports that document the processes).
b) On the other hand there is a need to raise awareness of the experiential learning (e.g. overcoming communication barriers, finding new ways to cooperate, putting joint ideas into practice) that has taken place in the projects.

In this respect I have started to work with 'case stories' that try to give a more living (but at the same time analytical and critical) picture of the project histories. Please find as an attachment the first pilot version of case story on the GoLo project. As I see it now, I would need for the German WLP Web testing area an architecture that allows me to to store such case stories to a container area that portrays the cases as clusters of inputs. (I would hope that there is a possibility to produce similar case stories for the GAPA project and for the successor activities).

On the other hand I have started a cooperation with some German students who have to work on reporting and supervision of workplace learning (based on their own experience as trainers). For this cooperation I would need another container area that links the students to a common learning process.

We are now in a position to begin discussing the customisation of the website for the various "country views" and "country specific" workflow processes.

Please feel free to use the content managment and blogging interfaces.  It is essential that the leaders of the various country piloting tasks make themselves familiar with the software. We  can offer online coaching using VoIP,  Instant Messaging and good old fashioned email.
We can show you how to set up and use the blogs, post links and content and pull in external services such as del.icio.us and Google Video. We can set up a private area for you to practice producing blog entries and to learn the many powerful features offered.
We can personalise the work areas and show you how to set the various permission structures to control access.

Once you are familiar with the software we recommend setting simple tasks to start, ie.  registering and replying to a blog entry, uploading a word document into the home folder, adding an attachment to a blog entry and so on. A few weeks on developing fluency with the software by the setting of "easy" single task excercises is time spent well.

Poke around in the software, you probably won't break anything but if you do we'll fix it.


Good luck and please call us for support.