From Strasbourg to final results 9: The European reports take shape
17-December-2006
[
knowledge sharing ,
Final run ]
-
WLP European synthesis report (full text)
[ Download ]
(WLP_Eur_Synth_Rep'06_V2.doc
-
265.50 Kb
)
Preview
-
WLP Process development report (full text)
[ Download ]
(WLP_Proc_Dev_Rep'06_V2.doc
-
103.50 Kb
)
Preview
The previous postings after ther Strasbourg workshop have presented progress reports on the final run with the final products of the WLP project. This posting presents the drafts for the European reports.
The Strasbourg workshop confirmed (in accordance tothe original work plan) that the project should prepare two European reports. The first one - "European synthesis report" - should focus on the results and achievements. The second one - "Process development report" - should focus on the evolution of the project and on the related learning experiences.
I have attached the current draft versions for comments and suggestions.
Pekka Kämäräinen
I have attached the current draft versions for comments and suggestions.
Pekka Kämäräinen
3 comments.
- Latest comment:
- WLP European synthesis report (full text available); 23-December-2006 08:07:24 by Pekka Kämäräinen
From Strasbourg to final results 8: The WLP Tools take shape
15-December-2006
[
wlp tools ,
WLP Web ,
Final run ]
The previous postings after ther Strasbourg workshop have presented progress reports on making the final products of the WLP project. This posting focuses on the resource area "WLP Tools". The resource area has been based on the LPA tool (Learning potential analysis) and on the related development of web tools by the Knownet.
In the beginning of the project the WLP project was focusing on one central tool (Learing Potential Analysis) for identifying the learning potentials at workplaces. The main interest was to link (with the help of the tool) that analyses of parallel enterprises to each other. By identifying the distributed learning potentials the project sought to provide the basis for partnership cooperation between training providers and partner enterprises. Therefore, the project wanted to have a web tool that could link such analyses to each other.
As we know, the work with the LPA tool gave rise to develop a complementary tool (Learning Achievement Review) that was also brought into discussion at an early stage of the work. Later on I started to outline a bridging tool (Learning Provision Review) to stimulate mutual awareness and dialogue between training providers and enterprises.
With our last week' effort we (the Knownet and myself) have prepared a joint resource area for all these tools (with a common introduction). We hope to be able to add more cases. In this respect we invite the WLP partners to use the tool and to add more cases to be presented on the web page.
Pekka Kämäräinen
As we know, the work with the LPA tool gave rise to develop a complementary tool (Learning Achievement Review) that was also brought into discussion at an early stage of the work. Later on I started to outline a bridging tool (Learning Provision Review) to stimulate mutual awareness and dialogue between training providers and enterprises.
With our last week' effort we (the Knownet and myself) have prepared a joint resource area for all these tools (with a common introduction). We hope to be able to add more cases. In this respect we invite the WLP partners to use the tool and to add more cases to be presented on the web page.
Pekka Kämäräinen
From Strasbourg to final results 7: The WLP Wiki also available on ITB website
03-December-2006
[
WLP Wiki ,
WLP Web ,
Final run ]
In a recent posting I informed of the WLP Web resources. In this context I presented the new element - the WLP Wiki. Becaue of technical problems it has become necessary to have a backup. Therefore, WLP Wiki is also available on the ITB website.
Last week we introduced the WLP Wiki on the WLP website. After an intensive working period we have discovered some technical problems that need attention. In order to keep the work going we have set up a backup page on the ITB website (see the attached link).
In the next postings the web links to WLP wiki will be given to both websites.
Pekka Kämäräinen
In the next postings the web links to WLP wiki will be given to both websites.
Pekka Kämäräinen
2 comments.
- Latest comment:
- WLP Wiki; 06-December-2006 13:44:53 by Alan Brown
From Strasbourg to final results 6: The WLP Reports take shape
01-December-2006
[
WLP Wiki ,
WLP Web ,
knowledge sharing ,
Final run ]
The fifth posting in relation to the Strasbourg workshop presented the the conclusions on the development of the WLP Web as "WLP Web resources". Among other issues the posting presented the newly established the newly established WLP Wiki as a central element among the WLP Web Resources. This posting focuses on the WLP reports (in particular the national reports) and demonstrates how the WLP Wiki (as a presentation medium) can bring separate national reports into a joint resource environment.
So far the contributions of the national partners have been produced at different phases of the project. Firstly, the national partners have produced background information on the preconditions for developing workplace learning partnerships (national maps). Then the partners have produced analyses on the learning potentials at workplaces. These analyses were based on the use of common tools (the LPA tool). However, in differnt contries the interpretation of the results was linked to the critical question "how to proceed". In this respect the national partners found themselves in very different positions and there was no common working perspective that could be followed jointly.
At this phase the project developed a differentiated concept of 'piloting agendas' that took into account the following working parspectives after the LPA-analyses:
a) continuation of the work on the basis of pre-piloting agendas that include further studies and/or measures to disseminate the experience from other European contexts,
b) continuation of the work on the basis of actual piloting agendas that include creation of new partnerships and learning designs (or organisation of partnership-oriented micro-piloting via small steps in developing workplace learning),
c) continuation of the work on the basis of post-piloting agendas that include retrospective analyses on prior pilot activities and transition to working issues that can enrich the original piloting aproaches.
As a consequence, the role of further national contributions became less transparent. In the work of the project the discussion on the development of joint web resources and multimedia resources was given the main priority.
At this point the introduction of the WLP Wiki has made the idea of developing joint European knowledge resources more transparent. As the different resource areas take shape, it becomes clear that the national reports are part of the mosaic of European knowledge resources and that they have to be presented accordingly.
In this respect I have developed uploaded the current contributions from national partners and re-purposed them as components of the final National Reports. The contributions to 'national maps' have been redefined as the first part of the National Report ("Background and context") . The reports on the LPA-analyses and of related case studies (or on related tool development) have been repurposed as the second part of the National Report ("Analyses of learning potential"/"Specific cases"). Then, according to the national piloting agenda, I have included a component that presents the piloting activities or the further analyses as the third part ("Analyses on piloting"/ "Further studies"/"Knowledge base for national and European dissemination activities").
As the documents stand now (01.12.2006) in the WLP Wiki, the process of integrating the earlier inputs into the national reports is not yet completed. Yet, I have chosen to make them available so that the final editing can profit of the awareness of other partners' contributions.
Pekka Kämäräinen
At this phase the project developed a differentiated concept of 'piloting agendas' that took into account the following working parspectives after the LPA-analyses:
a) continuation of the work on the basis of pre-piloting agendas that include further studies and/or measures to disseminate the experience from other European contexts,
b) continuation of the work on the basis of actual piloting agendas that include creation of new partnerships and learning designs (or organisation of partnership-oriented micro-piloting via small steps in developing workplace learning),
c) continuation of the work on the basis of post-piloting agendas that include retrospective analyses on prior pilot activities and transition to working issues that can enrich the original piloting aproaches.
As a consequence, the role of further national contributions became less transparent. In the work of the project the discussion on the development of joint web resources and multimedia resources was given the main priority.
At this point the introduction of the WLP Wiki has made the idea of developing joint European knowledge resources more transparent. As the different resource areas take shape, it becomes clear that the national reports are part of the mosaic of European knowledge resources and that they have to be presented accordingly.
In this respect I have developed uploaded the current contributions from national partners and re-purposed them as components of the final National Reports. The contributions to 'national maps' have been redefined as the first part of the National Report ("Background and context") . The reports on the LPA-analyses and of related case studies (or on related tool development) have been repurposed as the second part of the National Report ("Analyses of learning potential"/"Specific cases"). Then, according to the national piloting agenda, I have included a component that presents the piloting activities or the further analyses as the third part ("Analyses on piloting"/ "Further studies"/"Knowledge base for national and European dissemination activities").
As the documents stand now (01.12.2006) in the WLP Wiki, the process of integrating the earlier inputs into the national reports is not yet completed. Yet, I have chosen to make them available so that the final editing can profit of the awareness of other partners' contributions.
Pekka Kämäräinen
From Strasbourg to final results 5: The WLP Web Resources take shape
30-November-2006
[
WLP Wiki ,
WLP Web ,
Final run ]
The third and fourth posting in relation to the Strasbourg workshop have discussed the WLP Manual and the WLP Course. These two items have been indicates among the main products of the the WLP project. A third item among the main products has been the WLP Web. This posting presents the evolution of the work with WLP Web during the project and the final conclusions.
One of the basic tasks of the WLP project has been to develop a working concept for "WLP Web" that supports the users of the WLP results to get access to the ideas, tools and services that they need. In this respect - as we have learned it during the project - the development of the "WLP Web" has not been a separate extension element to the 'main project' but an integral part of the whole project. However, in order to get this idea, the project has had to get a clearer idea of its own objectives and how to link the "WLP Web" to these objectives. This has required many phases and many revisions to the original ideas.
When looking back to the earlier stages of the project, the ideas on the "WLP Web" can be related to tool-centred assumptions on the role of "Web tools"as technologies for pushing through certain WLP-related ideas. Roughly we can reconstruct the following variants of such tool-driven approaches:
a) Using traditional Web tools as 'push technologies' to disseminate the use of WLP tools (notably LPA) as means to support paretnership creation and related cooperation,
b) Using social software as 'learning technologies' to enable reflective learners to shape their own personal learning environmentts and related uses of portfolios,
c) Using specific 'management technologies' to support local learning designs and networked learning arrangements or
d) Using 'home-made applications' (KLearn) that try to give a minimalistic support kit for further piloting (that may take different courses)
As the project had completed the preparatory analyses, it became clear that the national partners were not in similar starting positions. Therefore, the above listed tool-centred approaches could not give support for bringing the whole project forward. In this respect the project took the following measures to review the role of web resources within the WLP project:
1) Opening the discussion on different piloting agendas that respond to the national circumstances;
2) Bringing into picture the use of national and joint multimendia resources,
3) Putting a new emphasis on partners' own areas, on linking WLP website to external resources and on different ways to access and use web rsources.
At the end this brings us to a concept or "WLP Web" as "WLP Web resources". To me the architecture of "WLP Web resources" is based on different structural elements that help the users to access WLP-related knowledge resources:
i) Web resources for file management (WLP folders that make original documents available as they have been submitted)
ii) Web resources for communication and sharing ideas (WLP blogging system)
iii) Web resources for presenting the accumulated results (WLP wiki as a joint presentation medium),
iv) Web access points for providing gateways to country-specific or theme-specific resources (WLP Partners' areas/profiles).
In the Strasbourg workshop we discussed primarily the first point (file management) and the last point (gateways). The use of web resources for communication (blogging has taken its own course in the meantime). The new element after the Strasbourg workshop is the WLP wiki that completes the architecture of the WLP web resources. As things stand now, I would see the WLP wiki as the main instrument for presenting the WLP results. However, we do need the solutions for the gateways and for the index folders as well.
Pekka Kämäräinen
When looking back to the earlier stages of the project, the ideas on the "WLP Web" can be related to tool-centred assumptions on the role of "Web tools"as technologies for pushing through certain WLP-related ideas. Roughly we can reconstruct the following variants of such tool-driven approaches:
a) Using traditional Web tools as 'push technologies' to disseminate the use of WLP tools (notably LPA) as means to support paretnership creation and related cooperation,
b) Using social software as 'learning technologies' to enable reflective learners to shape their own personal learning environmentts and related uses of portfolios,
c) Using specific 'management technologies' to support local learning designs and networked learning arrangements or
d) Using 'home-made applications' (KLearn) that try to give a minimalistic support kit for further piloting (that may take different courses)
As the project had completed the preparatory analyses, it became clear that the national partners were not in similar starting positions. Therefore, the above listed tool-centred approaches could not give support for bringing the whole project forward. In this respect the project took the following measures to review the role of web resources within the WLP project:
1) Opening the discussion on different piloting agendas that respond to the national circumstances;
2) Bringing into picture the use of national and joint multimendia resources,
3) Putting a new emphasis on partners' own areas, on linking WLP website to external resources and on different ways to access and use web rsources.
At the end this brings us to a concept or "WLP Web" as "WLP Web resources". To me the architecture of "WLP Web resources" is based on different structural elements that help the users to access WLP-related knowledge resources:
i) Web resources for file management (WLP folders that make original documents available as they have been submitted)
ii) Web resources for communication and sharing ideas (WLP blogging system)
iii) Web resources for presenting the accumulated results (WLP wiki as a joint presentation medium),
iv) Web access points for providing gateways to country-specific or theme-specific resources (WLP Partners' areas/profiles).
In the Strasbourg workshop we discussed primarily the first point (file management) and the last point (gateways). The use of web resources for communication (blogging has taken its own course in the meantime). The new element after the Strasbourg workshop is the WLP wiki that completes the architecture of the WLP web resources. As things stand now, I would see the WLP wiki as the main instrument for presenting the WLP results. However, we do need the solutions for the gateways and for the index folders as well.
Pekka Kämäräinen
From Strasbourg to final results 4: The WLP Course takes shape
23-November-2006
[
project planning ,
knowledge sharing ,
Final run ]
- WLP Course on WLP Wiki at WLP website
- WLP Course on WLP Wiki at ITB website
-
WLP Course: Planning tool
[ Download ]
(WLP-Course_PlanTool_V1.doc
-
91.50 Kb
)
Preview
-
WLP Course: Framework
[ Download ]
(WLP-Course_Framework_V1.doc
-
87.00 Kb
)
Preview
-
WLP Course: Introduction
[ Download ]
(WLP_Course_Introduction.doc
-
40.50 Kb
)
Preview
The third postings related to the Strasbourg conclusions discussed the WLP Manual. This text of the Manual presented briefly the WLP Course. The posting presents the underlying ideas, the draft framework and the related support tools.
As has been the case with the WLP Manual (see my previous blog entry), the role of the WLP Course has been reconsidered in the light of the experiences of the WLP project. In the original plans the WLP Course was given the task
1) to disseminate the use of WLP tools (notably the Learning Potential Analysis)
2) to facilitate the use of the analyses in partnership-building,
3) to disseminate examples of good practice.
As the experiences of the project have pointed out, the WLP project had to encounter a more complex Europan landscape regarding the creation and further development of partnership cooperation. In this respect neither the "Groundwork tools" nor the web-based support facilities can be seen as universal keys to successive partnership cooperation.
From this perspective the concept of the WLP Course has been developed with a relatively open architecture that enables local adjustment to the needs of users and to their action contexts. In a similar way the concept makes it possible to use the "WLP Course" either as a basis for an ordinary training course or as a suppot framework for self-directed explorations.
The WLP Course is based on four Learning Areas:
Learning Area 1: Partnership Creation and use of basic analyses,
Learning Area 2: Planning of partnership-based learning arrangements,
Learning Area 3: Support for partnership-based learning activities,
Learning Area 4: Making use of web services and web platforms.
The WLP Course concept is presented and explained with the following documents (see the attachments to this blog entry):
The Introduction document (2 pages, presents nutshell information)
The Framework document (5 pages, outlines the structure and presents the learning tasks for the ),
The Planning tool document (5 pages, presents the underlying pedagogic principles),
The Customisation tool document (5 pages, presents questions and remarks concerning the adjustment of the course),
The Tutorial tools (short documents, to be presented with a later blog entry, support the work on specific Learning Areas).
The general aim of the WLP Course is to promote continuing professional development of teachers, trainers and other interested professionals in the related learning areas. The learning tasks start with issues that have been discussed in the WLP project, offer a perspective to deepen one's knowledge and open prospects for further learning. In this respect the course links the results of the WLP project to some parallel developments.
I have submitted this blog entry to make the preparation of the WLP Course more transparent (and open for feedback). In the course of the week I try to submit the above mentioned documents as attachments. I hope that the process of giving shape for the WLP Course is completed very soon.
Pekka Kämäräinen
1) to disseminate the use of WLP tools (notably the Learning Potential Analysis)
2) to facilitate the use of the analyses in partnership-building,
3) to disseminate examples of good practice.
As the experiences of the project have pointed out, the WLP project had to encounter a more complex Europan landscape regarding the creation and further development of partnership cooperation. In this respect neither the "Groundwork tools" nor the web-based support facilities can be seen as universal keys to successive partnership cooperation.
From this perspective the concept of the WLP Course has been developed with a relatively open architecture that enables local adjustment to the needs of users and to their action contexts. In a similar way the concept makes it possible to use the "WLP Course" either as a basis for an ordinary training course or as a suppot framework for self-directed explorations.
The WLP Course is based on four Learning Areas:
Learning Area 1: Partnership Creation and use of basic analyses,
Learning Area 2: Planning of partnership-based learning arrangements,
Learning Area 3: Support for partnership-based learning activities,
Learning Area 4: Making use of web services and web platforms.
The WLP Course concept is presented and explained with the following documents (see the attachments to this blog entry):
The Introduction document (2 pages, presents nutshell information)
The Framework document (5 pages, outlines the structure and presents the learning tasks for the ),
The Planning tool document (5 pages, presents the underlying pedagogic principles),
The Customisation tool document (5 pages, presents questions and remarks concerning the adjustment of the course),
The Tutorial tools (short documents, to be presented with a later blog entry, support the work on specific Learning Areas).
The general aim of the WLP Course is to promote continuing professional development of teachers, trainers and other interested professionals in the related learning areas. The learning tasks start with issues that have been discussed in the WLP project, offer a perspective to deepen one's knowledge and open prospects for further learning. In this respect the course links the results of the WLP project to some parallel developments.
I have submitted this blog entry to make the preparation of the WLP Course more transparent (and open for feedback). In the course of the week I try to submit the above mentioned documents as attachments. I hope that the process of giving shape for the WLP Course is completed very soon.
Pekka Kämäräinen
From Strasbourg to final results 3: The WLP Manual takes shape
23-November-2006
[
WLP Web ,
project planning ,
Final run ]
- WLP Manual on WLP Wiki at WLP website
- WLP Manual on WLP Wiki at ITB website
-
The draft layout for the WLP Manual
[ Download ]
(WLP_Manual_Draft1.pdf
-
893.46 Kb
)
Preview
-
The WLP Manual (edited draft version)
[ Download ]
(WLP_Manual_V1 edited.doc
-
81.00 Kb
)
Preview
The two previous postings have presented the discussions at the Strasbourg workshop and the conclusions concerning the development of the WLP Website. This posting shifts the emphasis to the final products that are to be presented as services for the users. The first final product to be discussed in the WLP Manual.
In the original plans the idea of a "WLP Manual" was closely linked to the assumption that the use of the WLP tools and to certain organisational models for partnership cooperation between training providers and and partter enterprises. However, the work of the WLP project has brought into picture a more complex European landscape regarding partnership creation and needs for support. Therefore, the role of the WLP Manual has been reconsidered in the London workshop and I have prepared a draft version on the basis of the London conclusions.
In the light of the above the current version of the WLP Manual is not an extensive guide to the WLP tools (with many examples on the uses of tools). Instead, the revisited concept provides a "brief guide" to the knowledge resources, working instruments and support facilities theat have been developed by the WLP project.
In five pages the WLP Manual covers the following themes:
a) Value of workplace learning and partnership cooperation in different countries,
b) Use of the results of the WLP project in the development of partnership cooperation,
c) Understanding the diversity of partnership concepts and different evolutionary stages,
d) Identifying different patterns for promoting networked learning,
e) Changing role of web-based support for workplace learning and for related piloting,
f) Use of case stories and multimedia products as means to promote nowledge sharing,
g) Making targeted use of the WLP Course and of related tools and facilities,
h) Conclusions and recommendations for further activities.
The sixth page should contain a list of web links - both to WLP pages and to external resources. This page can be finalised when the necessary changes have been made in the architecture of the WLP website.
In this context it is essential to note that the WLP Manual should be translated into all national languages. Therefore, it is important that the final text will be agreed jointly and that the partners can produce the national language versions.
Pekka Kämäräinen
In the light of the above the current version of the WLP Manual is not an extensive guide to the WLP tools (with many examples on the uses of tools). Instead, the revisited concept provides a "brief guide" to the knowledge resources, working instruments and support facilities theat have been developed by the WLP project.
In five pages the WLP Manual covers the following themes:
a) Value of workplace learning and partnership cooperation in different countries,
b) Use of the results of the WLP project in the development of partnership cooperation,
c) Understanding the diversity of partnership concepts and different evolutionary stages,
d) Identifying different patterns for promoting networked learning,
e) Changing role of web-based support for workplace learning and for related piloting,
f) Use of case stories and multimedia products as means to promote nowledge sharing,
g) Making targeted use of the WLP Course and of related tools and facilities,
h) Conclusions and recommendations for further activities.
The sixth page should contain a list of web links - both to WLP pages and to external resources. This page can be finalised when the necessary changes have been made in the architecture of the WLP website.
In this context it is essential to note that the WLP Manual should be translated into all national languages. Therefore, it is important that the final text will be agreed jointly and that the partners can produce the national language versions.
Pekka Kämäräinen
From Strasbourg to final results 2: The Minutes of the Strasbourg Workshop
22-November-2006
[
WLP Web ,
Final run ]
-
The Minutes of the Strasbourg workshop
[ Download ]
(Minutes_Strasbourg.doc
-
85.50 Kb
)
Preview
The WLP project had its concluding workshop in Strasbourg 9.11.-10.11.2006. As has been indicated, the workshop discussed thoroughly the current phase of the project work. Therefore, this blog entry complements the first report that focused on the website revision. This posting presents the minutes of the workshop.
As has been indicated in the first report, the Strasbourg workshop analysed what has been achieved in the project. This examination was prepared by prior working notes that drew attentin to the attainment of the goals and to the relevance of the results.
In the discussion the partners put a great emphasis to the need
1) get an overall picture of the achieved results and to
2) transform the project-internal thinking on the results towards a user-centred approach.
Therefore, the Minutes of the Strasbourg workshop are very detailed and follow closely the course of the discussion. Also, the conclusions were very closely related to the tasks that the partners took to themselves to bring the proect into the final results. (See the Minutes of the Strabourg workshop as attached dopcument.)
Pekka Kämäräinen
In the discussion the partners put a great emphasis to the need
1) get an overall picture of the achieved results and to
2) transform the project-internal thinking on the results towards a user-centred approach.
Therefore, the Minutes of the Strasbourg workshop are very detailed and follow closely the course of the discussion. Also, the conclusions were very closely related to the tasks that the partners took to themselves to bring the proect into the final results. (See the Minutes of the Strabourg workshop as attached dopcument.)
Pekka Kämäräinen
From Strasbourg to final results 1: The revision of the WLP website
21-November-2006
[
knowledge sharing ,
Final run ,
WLP Web ,
project planning ]
-
Website-revision 3: The Bremen modification
[ Download ]
(WLP_Website-Revision_Bremen.doc
-
44.50 Kb
)
Preview
-
Website-revision 2: The Strasbourg outcome
[ Download ]
(WLP_Website-Revision_Strasbourg.doc
-
43.50 Kb
)
Preview
-
Website-revision 1: Proposal for the Strasbourg workshop
[ Download ]
(WLP_Products&Resources.doc
-
56.50 Kb
)
Preview
The WLP project had its concluding workshop in Strasbourg 9.11.-10.11.2006. The workshop made a thorough examination of the current stand of the project work. The ain thrust of this examination was how to transform the hitherto produced materials into products for users. In this respect the key issue is the revision of website. Therefore, this blog entry takes up the issue of website already before the minutes of the workshop are available.
The discussion of the website was opened with my proposal on reshaping the website on the basis of four Product Areas and five Resource Ereas. The four Product Ereas (WLP Manual, WLP Course, WLP Web and WLP Reports) would provide different starting points for examining the work of the WLP project. The joint Resource Areas would present preparatory tools, tutorial tools, case stories and multimedia resources. The fifth Resource Area would contain the Partners' Areas (Piloting forums or Dissemination forums that would serve the partners' purposes).
(See the attached document Website-revision 1)
The subsequent disussion was highly critical led to fundamentally different direction:
Based on this reasoning, the products and resources should be presented with the help of a box on the left-and side. The tabs of the box should give drop-down menus for exploring the resources under the main heading. This idea for revision was developed together and it reached a high degree of consensuality.
(See the attached document Website-revision 2)
However, when having returned to Bremen I had to work with the texts for the final product that had not been thoroughly discussed by the project (WLP Course). It struck me that the Learning Areas of the course will integrate some of the resources that had been to some extent disconnected to others. This gave rise to a slight modification to the joint result that was achieved in the Strasbourg workshop.
(See the attached document Website-revision 3)
With this posting I have tried to summarise the progress with this issue and give the starting point for the final steps for transforming the WLP website from a project-internal construction site into a users' website.
Pekka Kämäräinen
(See the attached document Website-revision 1)
The subsequent disussion was highly critical led to fundamentally different direction:
- Firstly, the WLP partners apreciated the proposal and considered that it linked in a coherent way to each other the materials and resources that had been produced in the project.
- Secondly, the partners pointed out that this overview could only be based on insiders' experience or evaluators' analysis on the process and the outcomes.
- Thirdly, the partners' emphasised the necessity to address users' perspective to the producs and resources as the starting point. This would have implications for the opening page, for the architecture and for the navigation.
Based on this reasoning, the products and resources should be presented with the help of a box on the left-and side. The tabs of the box should give drop-down menus for exploring the resources under the main heading. This idea for revision was developed together and it reached a high degree of consensuality.
(See the attached document Website-revision 2)
However, when having returned to Bremen I had to work with the texts for the final product that had not been thoroughly discussed by the project (WLP Course). It struck me that the Learning Areas of the course will integrate some of the resources that had been to some extent disconnected to others. This gave rise to a slight modification to the joint result that was achieved in the Strasbourg workshop.
(See the attached document Website-revision 3)
With this posting I have tried to summarise the progress with this issue and give the starting point for the final steps for transforming the WLP website from a project-internal construction site into a users' website.
Pekka Kämäräinen
Getting the act together 3: Developing the website and presenting the web-based resources
18-October-2006
[
WLP Web ,
project planning ,
knowledge sharing ]
-
Proposal (outline) for reshaping the WLP website
[ Download ]
(WLP_Website_Revision_V3.doc
-
39.50 Kb
)
Preview
-
Working Note 3 on website development and on presenting web resources
[ Download ]
(WLP_ActTog_N3-Web.doc
-
56.00 Kb
)
Preview
This posting is the third one in a series of three linked blog entries. They all discuss the concluding phase of the WLP project and present an attched working note. This posting and the related note focus on the development of the project website and on the role of web platform or web-base resources for the piloting concept the project is developing.
The third note discusses the development of the project website and the related idea of the role of web-based tools/platforms and knowledge resources for the piloting approach of the project. In this repect the project has undergone some changes that need to be reflected. Moreover, in the later phase of the project some developmental ideas have been brought to discussion but not yet worked to final conclusions.
In the light of the above the attached working note brings the discussion further in the following way:
The first main section raises the key questions for discussing the website development and the role of web resources.
The first sub-section analyses the early stages of the website development and the related ideas how to work with web tools. The second sub-section presents a critical interim assessment that relates the London conclusions to working and learning with web resources.
The second main section presents a propoal for restructuring the WLP website in the basis of the current view on "Product Areas" and "Resource Areas" hat will present the mature stage of the project.
The first sub-section presents the central "Product Areas" based on the ideas that were laid down in the funding application.
The second sub-section presents an overview of "Resource Areas" under which the main results of the work can be grouped.
The third sub-section discusses synergy, overlaps and remaining gaps between the said areas.
The working note provides a background for the related proposal on restructuring the website. These proposals are linked to recent progress with "workshop facilitators' tools", "Planning tools", case stories and with WLP Multimedia resources. Finally, the proposed new architecture seeks to provide the WLP partners country-specific areas for piloting or for dissemination purposes. These last mentioned ideas are to be presented on the "WLP Piloting Forum" blog.
Pekka Kämäräinen
In the light of the above the attached working note brings the discussion further in the following way:
The first main section raises the key questions for discussing the website development and the role of web resources.
The first sub-section analyses the early stages of the website development and the related ideas how to work with web tools. The second sub-section presents a critical interim assessment that relates the London conclusions to working and learning with web resources.
The second main section presents a propoal for restructuring the WLP website in the basis of the current view on "Product Areas" and "Resource Areas" hat will present the mature stage of the project.
The first sub-section presents the central "Product Areas" based on the ideas that were laid down in the funding application.
The second sub-section presents an overview of "Resource Areas" under which the main results of the work can be grouped.
The third sub-section discusses synergy, overlaps and remaining gaps between the said areas.
The working note provides a background for the related proposal on restructuring the website. These proposals are linked to recent progress with "workshop facilitators' tools", "Planning tools", case stories and with WLP Multimedia resources. Finally, the proposed new architecture seeks to provide the WLP partners country-specific areas for piloting or for dissemination purposes. These last mentioned ideas are to be presented on the "WLP Piloting Forum" blog.
Pekka Kämäräinen
Getting the act together 2: Development processes, tools and piloting
18-October-2006
[
project planning ,
knowledge sharing ,
arenas for piloting ]
-
Working Note 2 on development processes
[ Download ]
(WLP_ActTog_N2-Processes.doc
-
61.50 Kb
)
Preview
This posting is the second one in a series of three linked blog entries. They all discuss the concluding phase of the WLP project and present an attched working note. This posting and the related note focus on analysing the developmental activities that have been put on the agenda, the reorietation that has occurred and the results that are coming up at the final stage.
At this phase of the WLP project it is necessary to work out a 'big picture' on the diverse developmental activities that have been launched at the European and in the participating countries. On the one hand it is essential to look back what changes have occurred in the course of the project work and what new elements have come into picture. On the other hand it is necessary to take a closer look at the achievements so far and what can be done in the remaining time. Regarding the last item, it is necessary to consider how the work of the WLP project can be linked to the achievements of parallel projects. ("We don't need to re-invent the wheel if it has been invented elsewhere.")
From this perspective the attached note examines thoroughly the project history of WLP from the perspective of developmental processes, construction of tools and platforms and setting the piloting agendas:
The first section outlines the key questions that the 'big picture' has to answer (in order to specify what the WLP project has achieved as a pilot project).
The second section examines the underlying ideas that were highlighted in the application and analyses the obstacles for piloting with the original ideas 'as such'.
The third section links the work of the project to an ongoing conceptual change that has overshadowed the current discussion and developmental work on 'e-learning' or 'working and learning with web-resources'.
The fourth section examines the key ideas that the WLP project has put forward regarding 'WLP web' and regarding web-based support for country-specific piloting activities.
The fifth section relates the work of the WLP project to parallel progress in other projects and initiatives.
The sixth section summarises the analyses and links the conclusions to the remaining tasks of the project.
This note is a more extensive (and yet compressed) analysis on what has been happening in the project and how the current 'construction sites' can be brought into mature results. This analysis is closely related to the third note on presenting the web-base knowledge resources that the project has brought together.
Pekka Kämäräinen
From this perspective the attached note examines thoroughly the project history of WLP from the perspective of developmental processes, construction of tools and platforms and setting the piloting agendas:
The first section outlines the key questions that the 'big picture' has to answer (in order to specify what the WLP project has achieved as a pilot project).
The second section examines the underlying ideas that were highlighted in the application and analyses the obstacles for piloting with the original ideas 'as such'.
The third section links the work of the project to an ongoing conceptual change that has overshadowed the current discussion and developmental work on 'e-learning' or 'working and learning with web-resources'.
The fourth section examines the key ideas that the WLP project has put forward regarding 'WLP web' and regarding web-based support for country-specific piloting activities.
The fifth section relates the work of the WLP project to parallel progress in other projects and initiatives.
The sixth section summarises the analyses and links the conclusions to the remaining tasks of the project.
This note is a more extensive (and yet compressed) analysis on what has been happening in the project and how the current 'construction sites' can be brought into mature results. This analysis is closely related to the third note on presenting the web-base knowledge resources that the project has brought together.
Pekka Kämäräinen
Getting the act together 1: Country studies, case stories and country-specific material
18-October-2006
[
project planning ,
knowledge sharing ]
-
Working Note 1 on country studies
[ Download ]
(WLP_ActTog_N1-Countries.doc
-
32.00 Kb
)
Preview
This posting is the first one in a series of three linked blog entries. They all discuss the concluding phase of the WLP project and present an attched working note. The first posting and the related note focus on preparing the country studies and the country-specific materials to a final stage.
In my previous postings I have presentemy interpretation on the conclusions of the workshop of the WLP project in London. Then I outlined a framework for bringing different activities together and for presenting them on the website. However, as these views were quick notes, I knew that there is a need to present a proper backgrroun reasoning. Therefore, I have drafted prepared three linked working notes with the common heading "Getting the act together".
In the first note (see the attached document) I discuss the finalisation of the country studies, the role of the 'case stories' and the work with other country-specific materials. The note draws attention to the remaining tasks of the WLP partners and to the need to develop country-specific 'Dissemination Forums' for the national partners. The short note is self-explanatory but it has implications for the other issues that are discussed in the two following notes.
Pekka Kämäräinen
In the first note (see the attached document) I discuss the finalisation of the country studies, the role of the 'case stories' and the work with other country-specific materials. The note draws attention to the remaining tasks of the WLP partners and to the need to develop country-specific 'Dissemination Forums' for the national partners. The short note is self-explanatory but it has implications for the other issues that are discussed in the two following notes.
Pekka Kämäräinen
Progress after London - Proposals for linking the WLP activities together
07-October-2006
[
WLP Web ,
project planning ]
- Documents of the London workshop
-
Revised framework for the WLP website
[ Download ]
(WLP_Website_Revision.doc
-
40.00 Kb
)
Preview
The London conclusions brought the different areas of activity within the WLP project closer to each other. With this posting I try to develop a framework that interprets the links between different working areas and resource areas of the WLP project. Since the London conclusions emphasise the central role of web resources, I have developed this framework as a basis for reshaping the WLP website.
So far the WLP project has been working its way forward and the website has been a developmental website. After the London conclusions there has been a need to to consider how the results of the WLP project can be presented as products and services for users of knowledge. Equally, there has been a need to consider how the work in different working areas can be brought to a final stage within the WLP project. Finally, in the light of progress in some parallel projects, there has been a need to consider how the work of the WLP can be linked to their achievements.
From this perspective I would suggest that the image of the WLP project should be based on the following products and services:
However, the WLP project should be identified as a gallery of resource areas (or working areas). As such I would define the following ones:
The above presented framework (see the visualisation as the attached document) relates the content areas to each other. In addition, the website needs an information box that refers to the basic infornation pages, to the interim documents and to the blogs.
I am aware that the proposal needs to be explained more thoroughly. In particular this is the case with some areas that are yet under construction (tools for basic analyses, KLearn) and with which it is difficult to see what brings them together. I will get back to this with my next postings to this blog. However, at the same time there is a need to discuss how to support the ongoing efforts at the national level. This discussion will be continued with postings to the blog "WLP Piloting Forum".
Pekka Kämäräinen
From this perspective I would suggest that the image of the WLP project should be based on the following products and services:
- The WLP Manual
- The WLP Course
- The WLP Web
- The WLP Reports.
However, the WLP project should be identified as a gallery of resource areas (or working areas). As such I would define the following ones:
- The WLP tools for basic analyses: The LPA tool, the LAR tool and the workshop facilitators' tools (under construction);
- The WLP knowledge bases: This area should make available the knowledge resources pooled together with del.icio.us;
- The KLearn support instruments: This area should present checklists, planning tools and reporting tools that support the development of networked learning arrangements;
- The WLP case stories: This area should present a gallery of case stories that reflect upon the progress with the WLP project and specific developments related to the project.
- The WLP multimedia resources: This area should present edited videos and podcasts (presenting the work of the WLP project) and additional video material (provided by individual partners).
- The WLP piloting area This area should provide access to the native language piloting forums and dissemination forums for Italian, Estonian and Slovenian partners.
The above presented framework (see the visualisation as the attached document) relates the content areas to each other. In addition, the website needs an information box that refers to the basic infornation pages, to the interim documents and to the blogs.
I am aware that the proposal needs to be explained more thoroughly. In particular this is the case with some areas that are yet under construction (tools for basic analyses, KLearn) and with which it is difficult to see what brings them together. I will get back to this with my next postings to this blog. However, at the same time there is a need to discuss how to support the ongoing efforts at the national level. This discussion will be continued with postings to the blog "WLP Piloting Forum".
Pekka Kämäräinen
The London conclusions and issues for further work of the WLP project
07-October-2006
[
arenas for piloting ,
project planning ,
knowledge sharing ]
After a period of summer holidays, conferences and other commitments the coordination team (notably Wolfgang) has prepared the minutes of the July workshop of the WLP project in London. This posting will take a second look at the London concusions and point to some issues that could not be settled in London. The next posting will take these up and present some fresh proposals.
The London workshop of the WLP project provided a clear evidence that the project could concetrate on its work at the eve of the summer holidays. The workshop took note of the developmental phase that had been carried out with the help of blogging and related exchanges of information (the exchanges of ideas on the WLP web and on the national piloting agendas). Equally, the workshop made decisions concerning the work to be carried out during the Autumn months.
In this context I try to draw attention to some points in which the London workshop made clear progress and became a collective learning experience:
1) The original project plans had created an impression of relatively uniform piloting phase with similar partnership arrangements. The experience during the project implementation had brought into picture the different possibilities for actual piloting, for preparatory measures and for transfer-promoting measures after earlier pilot phases.
2) The demonstration of the newer tools for social bookmarking and social networking (with the help of del.icio.us) opened new prospects for linking work with knowledge resources to development of work-related learning arrangements and to respective design of learning contents.
3) The WLP partners could contribute (to a greater extent than expected) to the production of WLP Multimedia resources and the editing of such materials could be linked closer to the project development.
4) The WLP Manual would be more useful as a brief (electronic and printable) introductory document that points to the WLP knowledge resources that are made available on the web.
5) The WLP Web can be used as an umbrella concept for diferent web resources and services provided by the WLP project.
6) The WLP Course could best be developed as a tutorial service area that supports the use of the resources and services of the WLP project. However, the WLP course should provide support for implementing such learning arrangements as courses.
7) The final efforts of the WLP partners should concentrate on supporting the whole development of the WLP project in such areas of work in which they can best contribute. However, the final activities of the partners should be seen as part of a (national or trans-national) piloting agenda.
Regarding the above mentioned points the project team could reach common conclusions and take some decisions how ro organise the work with multimedia resources. Yet, in some respects the outcome of the London discussion left open questions to be responded in the next phase:
a) How can the steps towards a project-specific light-weight Learning Management System (in the meantime called as "KLearn") be linked to the conclusions that were drawn in London?
b) How can some partners' efforts to develop networked learning arrangements in a regional context be best supported and documented ?
c) How can the partners' efforts to disseminate each others' work best be supported by the project?
These questions could not be directly answered on the basis of the London conclusions. To some extent these have been processed further with bilateral tals and related exchanges. At the moment it seems that it is possible to take some further measures that help the project to link different activities together.
I believe that this is enough at the moment. In the next posting I will present some proposals that respond to these open questions and complete the London conclusions.
Pekka Kämäräinen
In this context I try to draw attention to some points in which the London workshop made clear progress and became a collective learning experience:
1) The original project plans had created an impression of relatively uniform piloting phase with similar partnership arrangements. The experience during the project implementation had brought into picture the different possibilities for actual piloting, for preparatory measures and for transfer-promoting measures after earlier pilot phases.
2) The demonstration of the newer tools for social bookmarking and social networking (with the help of del.icio.us) opened new prospects for linking work with knowledge resources to development of work-related learning arrangements and to respective design of learning contents.
3) The WLP partners could contribute (to a greater extent than expected) to the production of WLP Multimedia resources and the editing of such materials could be linked closer to the project development.
4) The WLP Manual would be more useful as a brief (electronic and printable) introductory document that points to the WLP knowledge resources that are made available on the web.
5) The WLP Web can be used as an umbrella concept for diferent web resources and services provided by the WLP project.
6) The WLP Course could best be developed as a tutorial service area that supports the use of the resources and services of the WLP project. However, the WLP course should provide support for implementing such learning arrangements as courses.
7) The final efforts of the WLP partners should concentrate on supporting the whole development of the WLP project in such areas of work in which they can best contribute. However, the final activities of the partners should be seen as part of a (national or trans-national) piloting agenda.
Regarding the above mentioned points the project team could reach common conclusions and take some decisions how ro organise the work with multimedia resources. Yet, in some respects the outcome of the London discussion left open questions to be responded in the next phase:
a) How can the steps towards a project-specific light-weight Learning Management System (in the meantime called as "KLearn") be linked to the conclusions that were drawn in London?
b) How can some partners' efforts to develop networked learning arrangements in a regional context be best supported and documented ?
c) How can the partners' efforts to disseminate each others' work best be supported by the project?
These questions could not be directly answered on the basis of the London conclusions. To some extent these have been processed further with bilateral tals and related exchanges. At the moment it seems that it is possible to take some further measures that help the project to link different activities together.
I believe that this is enough at the moment. In the next posting I will present some proposals that respond to these open questions and complete the London conclusions.
Pekka Kämäräinen
Milestones 7b: How to proceed to a piloting with WLP Web ("Organisational users")
24-May-2006
[
workplace learning ,
WLP Web ,
knowledge sharing ,
arenas for piloting ]
The previous "Milestone" posting already shifted the emphasis to actual piloting with WLP Web. In that posting the shift of emphasis was on the interaction between individual users (learners and supervising teachers or trainers). In this posting the focus is on organisations - training providers and partner enterprises - who are developing partnership-based cooperation to support work-related learning. The point of interest is how the prototype instrument KLearn and the prototype resource environment WLP Web can already support the partnership creation and reach their maturity by learning with the partnership creation.
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
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
Milestones 7a: How to proceed to actual piloting with WLP Web ("Individual users")
24-May-2006
[
WLP Web ,
knowledge sharing ,
arenas for piloting ]
The previous posting focused on the possibilities to work with a "pre-piloting agenda" alongside the development of the WLP Web. Now it is time to shift the emphasis to actual piloting activities. However, there is a need to make a distinction between cases in which the piloting focuses on individual users and others in which the cooperation of organisational users is the focal issue. This posting focuses on possible piloting activities that are related to the cases in which individual learners and supervising teachers or trainers are using Klearn as support facility.
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
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
Milestones 6: How to link a "pre-piloting agenda" to work with WLP Web
24-May-2006
[
project planning ,
knowledge sharing ,
arenas for piloting ]
So far the "Milestones" postings have been focusing on the development of the WLP Web and on linking the work of the project to the preparation of a central instrument. The latest posting started to shift the emphasis from the instrument to the working agendas of the partners of the WLP project. With this posting I try to give a more detailed impression on the the work with a "pre-piloting agenda".
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
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
Milestones 5: How to proceed to the "Working areas" of the WLP Web
23-May-2006
[
WLP Web ,
project planning ,
arenas for piloting ]
-
The WLP Web Framework (short version)
[ Download ]
(WLP-Web_Framework_SV.doc
-
31.00 Kb
)
Preview
So far the main thrust in the interim work has been in the development of a central instrument for the WLP Web (Milestones 1), in developing the user-applications for individual or organisational users (Milestones 2) and in giving the shape for the attached resource areas and working areas (Milestones 3). In the next phase I have outlined a way to ptoduce contents for the resource areas by presenting case stories with the help of the attached templates (Milestones 4). Now it is time to pose the question how to use the designed "Working areas".
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
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 4: How to work further with the WLP country studies
22-May-2006
[
workplace learning ,
WLP Web ]
-
Template: Case stories on partnership concepts
[ Download ]
(WLP_Case-Story_PC_Tmpl.ppt
-
145.00 Kb
)
-
Overview: National reports and case stories
[ Download ]
(WLP_NatRep_Overview.doc
-
36.00 Kb
)
Preview
-
Template: Case stories on Learning Designs
[ Download ]
(WLP_Case-Story_LD_Tmpl.ppt
-
112.00 Kb
)
So far the "milestones" after the Velenje workshop and the interim meetings have focused on the shaping of the WLP Web. This is due to the fact that there have been different user-needs and expectations to be taken into account. This posting discusses the issue how to make use of the existing country studies and the related case stories in the current phase of the WLP project.
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
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
Milestones 3: The WLP Web is getting shape
22-May-2006
[
WLP Web ,
knowledge sharing ,
arenas for piloting ]
-
The WLP Web Framework
[ Download ]
(PK_WLP-Web_Framework.doc
-
61.00 Kb
)
Preview
-
The WLP Web testing areas
[ Download ]
(WLP-Web_Testing_areas.doc
-
31.00 Kb
)
Preview
My latest blog postings have introduced the prototype instrument "KLearn" as a starting point for developing the WLP Web. Now it is time to change to shift the emphasis from "KLearn" to the WLP Web as a whole. Below I will first present my ideas how the WLP Web can be shaped around the KLearn. Then I will present a proposal how to structure the "WLP Web testing area" on the WLP home page.
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
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
