WLP Project Development

The conclusions that paved the way to KLearn
In a nutshell these conclusions can be summarised in the following way:
1) The work programme of the WLP project requires us to develop a web tool or instrument that can be piloted in the participating countries. However, the needs of different parties (and their local counterparts vary to great extent).
2) The prior experience with the work on ICT-supported learning in VET and SMEs shows that the existing designs ("Virtual Learning Environments", "Learning Management Systems", "e-Portfolios") tend to be developed for institutions and organisations, not for the actual users. Therefore, they are often overloaded with  features that are not helpful for selective users that need specific support for work-based learning.
3) The recent experience with social software has led from closed systems with "all at once" packaging of features towards light-weight applications that are linked to general web services. Therefore, new features can be brought into picture when the users make progress with useing the facilities. This enables a transition from the role of consumer-users to the role of  user-developers.

Adjusting the KLearn to the needs of different users
Presently the KLearn instrument has been presented in a rough script that provides the basic guidelines for software developers and gives hints of possible uses. Mostly these hints are related to the needs of individual learners and to possilities to support learning acticities (and cooperation with supervisors. However, for the WLP project there is a need to consider also the role of Training Providers and Partner Enterprises as potential users. For the organisational users there is a need to develop tools that helps them to draw conclusions for the development of partnership cooperation.
Based on this reasoning I have drafted two versions of User's Guides to the KLearn (already before the instrument has been developed). With these Guides I try to outline how the core concept of KLearn can be adjusted to facilitation of ongoing learning activities (= Individual Learners/ Supervising Teachers as users) and to the shaping of such learning arrangements at the level of partnership-based cooperation (= Training Providers/ Partner Enterprises as users).

Individual Learners/ Supervising Teachers as users of KLearn
For individual users the KLearn will provide tools for
a) preparation of learning activities by specifiying learner profiles (on the basis of given instructions) and negoriating individual learning objectives (on the basis of given options),
b) planning of learning activities by analysing learning needs (with the help of a review tool) and by getting an overview of learning materials and resources,
c) implementing learning activities by linking individual activities to group processes or community processes and by keeping a learning diary or learning record in order to document progress in learning.

Training Providers/ Partner Enterprises as users of KLearn
For organisational users the KLearn will provides tools for
a) preparation of a range of learning opportunities by specifying the learning-related support profiles or partner profiles and related institutional or organisational learning objectives,
b) supporting of a range of learning activities by developing coaching and mentoring approaches vis-à-vis identified needs and by specifying the strategic learning resources and related web-based facilities,
c) monitoring of a range of learning processes by promoting group processes and community processes and by creating resource pools of learning diaries/records (in order to draw conclusions from prior learning experiences).

Reflective commentary
Firstly, it is difficult to make lively picture of the potentials of an instrument that is only in the process of being drafted. Yet, the Users Guides try to make the contexts of using the instruments more transparent - both for the software developers and for the members of WLP project who have to consider their role in the piloting phase. In this respect it is more helpful if the user-needs are taken into account in the development process.
Secondly, the KLearn has been deliberately been stripped down to an elementary core instrument. However, with the help of web links it can be connected to attached resource areas and to supporting web services. In this respect it provides an entry point to using web applications and services without overwhelming the users. One of the challenges for the piloting phase is to see how such links can be introduced without making the instrument too complicated.

I guess this is enough for the moment, I welcome comments and questions on this issue. In the next posting I try to link the piloting with the KLearn instrument to the other tasks of the WLP project.

Pekka Kämäräinen

So far the discussion on the WLP Web has been looking for a solution that is sufficiently simple and flexible
a) firstly to address the  basic needs for pedagogic and conceptual support for workplace learning partnerships and
b) secondly to enable the enrichment of the web facility with attached resources and links to external resources.
In this respect it seems to me that the KLearn provides an appropriate starting point. However, there is a need to reach a common understanding how the WLP web can be built around it and how the work of the WLP project can be linked to the web resources that are to be developed. Below I will present my views on these issues:

1. The KLearn as core structure of a resource environment
Firstly, I see KLearn as a starting point of an open and dynamic web-based resource environment. From my point of view the work that has aready been undertaken in the WLP project can be attached to KLearn as "Resource Areas". Likewise, the work with the piloting activities (that are toyet  be undertaken) can be accommodated under "Working Areas".  This outline is the starting point for the attached overview "The framework for WLP Web".

2. The KLearn as a working instrument
Secondly, I see the KLearn as a working instrument that provides a basis for different applications. For the WLP project it is essential to create user-friendly applications that support
a) the pedagogic interaction between individual learners (or groups of learners) and supervising teachers (or trainers) and
b) the pedagogic and organisational cooperation between training providers and partner enterprises.
The overview document "The framework for WLP Web" also presents an outline of the mutual interaction between different counterparts and some ideas how the KLearn instrument can support dialogue and cooperation.

3. The WLP Web as a bridging resource environment
Thirdly, I also see the shaping of the resource environment as a bridging process in which the shaping of the core instrument, the supporting resource areas and the future-oriented working areas are linked to each other. In this respect I have divided the resource areas into two layers  ("Partnership Concepts", "Learning Designs") that are linked to different working agendas. In a similar way I have outlined two working areas ("Pre-piloting workshops" and "Piloting workshops") depending on the prospects to go further with piloting on partnership-oriented learning designs. The mutual dependences between the instrument and the attached resources are illustrated by the diagram of the completed framework.

4. The proposal for shaping "WLP Web testing areas"
Fourthely, I see that there is an urgent need to move on from abstarct talk that refers to scripts towards shaping web-based prototypes.  In order to make the work transparent I suggest that the the current "wlp test area" is renamed into "WLP Web testing areas". The existing prototype tool should be accommodated under one of the testing areas and the other three should be dedicated for the "Resource areas", "the KLearn instrument" and the "Working areas". This idea is illustrated by the overview "The WLP Web testing areas".

I think these proposals help us to move ahead towards taking the next steps when we can all see how we can position ourselves on the map. Considering the next steps to be taken I have developed some further thoughts how to process the country-specific information that has been produced in the first phase of the project. However, that is a subject for another posting.

I think this is enough for the moment. I am looking forward to your reactions and ideas how to move further.

Pekka Kämäräinen

In the light of the recent postings it is worthwhile to emphasise that the WLP project is not primarily a project for piloting with virtual learning environments. Instead, the main thrust for the project is to find ways to promote partnership-based cooperation in different country contexts. In some countries the hurdles are related to organisational and pedagogic boundaries. Therefore, it would seem unlikely that the Web-based facility would solve the key problems. However, in other countries the availability of appropriate web-based resources may be crucial to kick off the process towards a workable partnership cooperation.

In this respect I have drawn the conclusion that in the next phase of the project the WLP partners are working with somewhat different agendas (see also the attached diagram):
1) The partners who do not have immediate possibilities to pilot with active partnership arrangements (with or without web-based support) are invited to work with a pre-piloting agenda.
2) The partners who have possibilities to work with active partnership-based cooperation are invited to use certain elements of the WLP web as part of their piloting agenda.

For the partners that are following a pre-piloting agenda the key point is to organise and/or to report on workshops that discuss/have discussed on the preconditions for partnership-based cooperation. I take note of the fact that some partners have organised the worshops at an earlier date and that reporting is to some extent incorporated into the existing country studies. However, in some countries the workshops are still under preparation. In this respect it is essential that we can link the experience of the prior workshops and the ones to be prepared to each other. I have already started to prepare the facilitator's tools for such workshops but we had to focus on the WLP Web first. Now it is possible to link the preparation of such workshops to the parallel work with active piloting agendas.

For the partners who are implementing an actual piloting agenda the key point is to create and maintain active collaboration with counterparts who are involved in designing workplace learning arangements (or key elements of such arrangements). This collaboration may be supported by workshops or there may be other modes of communication. However, the main thing is that the project will provide support for the kind of cooperation activities that are taking off. Therefore, in these cases it is essential to develop a dynamic process model in order to offer appropriate support facilities. In this respect it is also essential to draw conclusions from other developmental communities wo are working with web-based facilities.

So, as I now look at the next step of the project, there is a need to discuss what kind of pre-piloting or piloting agendas can be tailored for the partners in different countries and how to link them together. I will try to develop some further thoughts on this isssue in my next posting.

I think ths is enough for the moment. I am looking forward to your reactions and to your views how to develop the work further.

Pekka Kämäräinen

Milestones: Heading from the Velenje Workshop (January) to interim meetings in Bremen (March)
As I have indicated in a previous posting, the WLP Workshop in Velenje helped us to get a picture of the results of the groundwork phase. It also gave us a push towards a piloting phase that has to be implemented in a differentiated way in the participating countries. Therefore, I worked with the partnership concepts and the visualisation of the interim synthesis. As the next step I started to draft a roadmap to give an overview on the piloting phase. However, because of time pressures I had to leave this 'big picture' aside and concetrate on the inputs for our interim meetings alogside the German cnference "Hochschultage Berufliche Bildung" in the middle of March.
For our meetings in March I prepared some drafts with which I tried to support separate piloting measures with Personal Learning Reviews (support for individual learners) and Learning Interface Reviews (dialogue between training providers and partner enterprises). However, it appeared during our talks in Bremen that could take one step further and draft an outline of an integrative instrument (see below).

Intervening factors: The issue of Leonardo projects'  participation in the ECER'06 conference in Geneva
In this context it is worthwhile to note that the administrative efforts  to ensure a proper  partiipation of ongoing Leonardo projects (including WLP) caused a delay in the work with the WLP Web tools. Now we are in the position to take further steps.

The interim conclusion: KLearn as the WLP prototype for an integrative Personal Learning Environment (PLE) and Learning Management System (LMS)
During the series of meetings with Graham Attwell, Al Harris, Alan Brown and Elmo De Angelis we could agree on some basi principles how to develop the integrative instrument for our piloting activities. The instrument "KLearn" (that Graham Attwell drafted on the basis of our talks) draws upon our discussions in Velenje and upon the needs that wer expressed by different partners. It draws upon the preliminary tool ("Courses") that was drafted by the KnowNet on the basis of the LPA-analyses. It also draws upon the prior work of Alan Brown and the KnowNet for the "Skills Review".
The KLearn instrument is presented in the attached note that was drafted by Graham Attwell on basis of our discussions. Here just some quick remarks on the two main features:

a) The simple Administration Interface  makes it possible for  vocational teachers and trainers to work as system adminstrators and provide the necessary support for learning),
b) The simple User Interface makes it possible for individual learners or training providers or partner enterprises to analyse and manage their work-related learning activities.

My impression is that KLearn will be the kind of integrative and easy-to-use instrument that the WLP project has been looking for to introduce as the "WLP Web tool".  However, we have to look at the usability from different user perspectives. This brings me back to drawing the "Roadmap" but now with an idea on the central instrument.

I think this enough for the moment. See the presentation of the "KLearn" as the attachment.

Pekka Kämäräinen

After the Velenje workshop - and in particular after the interim meetings in March - my main concern as a project coordinator has been the issue how to develop the concept of WLP Web. As our discussions in Velenje pointed out, the partners could have a fairly good understanding on the situation of each other as long as we were working with the background analyses. Yet, when we reached the point of drafting piloting agendas the icture started to become much more differentiated. In some countries the work with a web-based facility could appear as a sideline activity. In some others the shaping of a working concept to be brought into piloting phase was crucial for the whole excercise.

At this point I do not want to draw more attention on the differences. My conclusion at Velenje was that there is a need for differentiated piloting agendas. This will be reflected in the subsequent work with the WLP Web. However, now (after some milestones and some ideas that have been put to discussion) I would prefer to take a fresh look at the country studies and the related ideas how to use them.

I have used the expression "country studies" for all the country-specific materials that have been produced by different partners. I have in mind that the original idea was to proceed from "national maps" to publication-ready national reports. Equally, I have in mind that there was an agreement t produce selected 'case stories' to illustrate the forthcoming WLP Manual. However,  I now see it necessaty to link the processing of the country studies  to the shaping of the WLP Web.

As I have indicated in my proposals for the framework of the WLP Web, I consider that the "Resource areas" should give a picture on
a) country-specific boundary conditions for developing workplace partnerships and
b) local, regional or sectoral examples of partnership-oriented learning designs.
Also, if the case stories are used as inputs for web-based resource areas, it would be better to have more than one 'case story' pro country.

For this purpose I have developed templates for presenting 'case stories' as inputs for the resource areas. Considering the fact that the cases have different characteristics, I have made a distinction between
1) the stories that focus on the boundary conditions for partnership cooperation and
2) the stories that focus on the development of learnin designs.

At the moment the templates are just Power Point slides that present spaces to be filled with content. Yet, the  instructions that I have prepared should give a clue how to compose the case stories of different items and how link comments to the narrative spaces. I have also introduced hyperlinks that help the readers to navigate their way (forward and backward) through the document.

I have also given some thoughts on the reworking of the more extensive country studies towards more coherent and comparable "national reports". At this point I find it appropriate to present the attached overview that presents a reporting scheme for summarising the country studies. My aim is to develop it towards a reporting tool that can be used in the preparation of the reports.

I think this is enough for the moment. I am looking forward to your reactions and on your views how to develop this part  of the project further.

Pekka Kämäräinen

During the work of the WLP project it has become very clear that the national partners ohave different preconditions to promote partnership-based cooperation in their national contexts. This has become manifest with the analyses based on the LPA instrument and with the related conclusions. This has also become manifest with the discussion on the possibilities to link the development and piloting with WLP Web to the working agenda of different partners. At this stage of development I would draw emphasise  that the work programme of the WLP project does require some degree of piloting. However, this does not mean that the WLP project should adopt a "one size fits all" or "one format fits all" approach. Neither should the work that has been done for preparation of the KLearn and WLP Web bseen as something that is exclusively related to work with web applications. My view is that we should not put anyone into a position to choose between "All" (full-scale piloting with web) and  "Nothing" (complete separation from the developmental work that is paving the way to WLP Web).

To me the challenge for the WLP project is to work on several fronts in order to find specfic answers to the following common questions:
1) How can we improve the general readiness of training providers and partner enterprises to develop partnership-based cooperation arrangements and construct related learning designs and support measures?
2) How can the we develop practical support facilities for individual learners (and groups of learners) and their supervisors that make transparent the learning gains in such collaborative learning (and the role of the supporting tools)?
3) How can we link the development of web-based facilities to ongoing sectoral or regional partnership-creation processes that open new opportunities for piloting with web-supported learning designs?

To me it appears that some of the national partners need to concetrate primarily on the first question. Therefore, the measures to be taken can be characterised as "pre-piloting agenda". From the operational point of view these partners can provide deeper analyses on the societal, sectoral and regional boundary conditions that either promote or reduce the readiness to partnership cooperation. Parallel to this they can try to present newer impulses (that emerge from the work of the other partners) as tentative inputs to discussion and examine whether it is possible to improve the readiness towards partnership-based cooperation with insights into parallel cases.

As specific cases for "pre-piloting agendas" I would see the cases of Estonia and France. As specific measures that could be taken I would suggest the following ones:
a) In Estonia the main activity is the designed workshop that has been postponed to Autumn. In the preparatory phase it is possible to prepare demonstration material based on the work in other countries (and based on complementary inputs to the WLP Web resource ares). With the support of this preparatory material it is possible to construct facilitation tools that would link the examples to questions that can be proposed for the regional training providers and partner enterprises.
b) In France the main activity could be a working visit to the Endress & Hauser company (including interviews and possible group discussions). The main aim of these interviews would be to get a deeper understanding on the working patterns in the partnership-based training and learning programme.  The corollary aim could be to get situated video-shots or podcasts that demostrate the partnership cooperation in action. (The latter aspect would require additional resources and involvement of supporting people).

I hope that these few lines give some ideas how the work in the next phase. I will try to attach a draft for a "facilitation tool" for a pre-pilotin workshop in the next possible moment.

I think this is enough for the moment. I am looking forward to your reactions and your views how to develop the work further.

Pekka Kämäräinen

So far the "Milestone" postings have reported of partial progress in developing the "KLearn" instrument, the overarching framework for WLP Web as a working environment and of working agendas that have a preparatory character or piloting with a focus on individual users. Accepting all that as necessary steps forward it is essential to broaden the scope of piloting activities to support for actual partnership-creation processes.

From the conceptual point of view the KLearn instrument has been designed in such a way that it can support collaborative processes between training providers and partner enterprises. Equally, the framework of the WLP Web has been outlined in such a way that it can provide resource areas and working areas for developmental processes that are shaing joint training arrangements and learning designs. Furthermore, the lesson that has been learnt from erlier processes is that more features can be added and more support facilities can be made available (e.g. via links to external services) when these start to  support the developmntalm process.

Concerning the possibilities to proceed to active piloting I have the following remarks:
1) If I have understood corrently the messages from Italy the WLP project has contributed to the start of a partnership-creation process that is already using the draft documents for KLearn as support for planning a joint learning space. It seems to me that the light-weight instrument has served the purpose to bring the potential counterparts to common questions. Now there is a possibility and a need to accompany the process and explore the possibilities of a working areas to support the thematic areas and the related cooperation processes.
2) In Germany the coordination team is making contacts with ongoing projects or project initiatives that have prepared collaborative learning designs for partnership-based leaning arrangements. The plan is to produce some case stories on the basis of these examples. In his respect we try to shadow the developmental work that is taking shape in Italy.

For the preparation of the KLearn instrument and the WLP Web resource environment these developments (and the parallel activities) provide an interesting constellation - already the first drafts on paper have stimulated some practical ideas how to go further. At the same time these ideas nurture the development of the web-based resources. I think this is what piloting with the theme "wokplace learning partnerships" should be heading towards.

I think this is enough for the moment. I am looking forward to a more detailed report on the recent progress in Italy and to other comments or views how to proceed from the current phase.

Pekka Kämäräinen

As the earlier blog postings on the prepration of the "KLearn" indicate, the aim has been to offer a light-weight instrument that combines certain features of "virtual learning environments" (VLE), "learning management systems" (LMS) and "personal learning evironments" (PLE) to each other.

From the perspective of supporting workplace learning (that is organised in partnership cooperation with training providers) it is important to get support facilities that create links between individual learners and supervising teachers and trainers. From the perspective of promoting partnership culture it is essential that the learning design and the use of support tools help the learner to make the learning situation a meaningful exercise In this respect it is essential that the learning arrangement and the use of supporting tools bring the supervising teachers and trainers in as resource persons and as coaches - not as controlling powers. 

The documents that outline the development of  KLearn (the original script, the "User's Guides" and the framework of  the WLP Web) give a rough idea of the kind of interactive "learning and supporting process" that can be developed with the help of KLearn. Yet, currently we have only the skeleton of the instrument. We also know that we can hardly progress without looking at real cases in which the instrument can be used as a support for real practical training periods.

Therefore, we need a dynamic developmental process in which the development of tools is closely linked to real piloting contexts. At the same time we need to focus on the interactivity between learners and supervisors not to overloead the tool development with too many additional features.

From this respect I would assume that we have two country contexts in which we could make progress with this piloting agenda:
a) In Slovenia the Solski Center Velenje can pilot with applications for individual learners and supervising teachers in external traineeship placement arrangements and in the context of joint learning arenas (laboratories for learners from diverse workplaces). Furthermore, Solski Center Velenje can pilot with applications for foreign exchange students/trainees (in this case from Sweden).
b) In the UK the IER can link the development of tools for supporting/supervising individual learners to several parallel activities and to the follow-up of the partnership arrangements that have been reported in the countr studies. The parallel work with career guidance professionals provides opportunities for cross-project learning regarding the use of web-based support facilities (in particular to applications and services that are linked to blogs).

In this respect I am confident that we can enter soon an active developmental phase that contributes to some features of the KLearn instrument and to the usability of the WLP Web. At the same time I am confient that the challenge to develop the tools and instruments for a Web environment will support everyday-life innovations in the piloting contexts.

I guess this is enough for the moment. As a point of comparison I attach the link to the website of the country focus groups of the European Guidance and Counselling Research Forum. I hope that it is helpful to look a bit sideways and to learn from the different cases of using blogs to support learning communities. I am looking forward to your reactions and views on the way forward.

Pekka Kämäräinen