WLP Project Development

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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:

• 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.

Therefore, the partners started to construct the proposal for the new architecture from the perspective of users in different national contexts. The main entry to the website should be given via thenational  Partners' Areas. The Partners' Areas should then give further links to resources in national language or to joint resources in English language.

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

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

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:

• The WLP Manual
• The WLP Course
• The WLP Web
• The WLP Reports.

These should be presented as the main headings (link buttons) on the top bar of the website. Each link would lead to a specific page or to an index folder (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:

1. The WLP tools for basic analyses: The LPA tool, the LAR tool and the workshop facilitators' tools (under construction);
2. The WLP knowledge bases: This area should make available the knowledge resources pooled together with del.icio.us;
3. The KLearn support instruments: This area should present checklists, planning tools and reporting tools that support the development of networked learning arrangements;
4. 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.
5. 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).
6. The WLP piloting area This area should provide access to the native language piloting forums and dissemination forums for Italian, Estonian and Slovenian partners.

These resource areas could be presented as a next layer of headings (link buttons) under the top bar. Each link would lead to a one-layer index folder.

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

Just struggling a bit today trying to define what is it exactly that I'm trying to do!  Not as some profound existentialist study (though can it be true George dubya B has been reading Camus at his ranch) but in relation to the online module I'm trying to develop on using Labour Market Information Effectively in Guidance.

I feel strongly that the module will comprise a series of suggested activities/learning objects through multiple entry points.  To facilitate the learner led progression through the various resources what is needed is some sort of personalised learning space but I felt quite strongly yesterday that this would be something quite distinct from a portfolio, and said as much in my blog about the developmental process.  I feel this personalised learning space isn't a blog either, it's something else, but today, I am not sure that distinction is quite so clear....

On balance, I think of 'portfolios' as being about amassing evidence for external scrutiny as a means of demonstrating externally set learning outcomes.  However, that may not be entirely fair - i've had a sprint through some of the literature on the WLP site and it would be ludicrous to claim there isnt going to be common ground between what the online module's 'personal learning space' and what many eportfolios set out to do.  Sure  I want to include space for reflection, potential for storing project 'work' and resources and it may be that this could be used to demonstrate learning to a third party if desired.  I suppose then the difference for me is attitudinal - the driver for keeping the 'personal learning space' active is the desire of the learner to learn and document their progress as a way of consolidating and building on that learning voyage.  So, the impetus to use the 'personalised learning space' (oh how I wish we could come up with a better term than that) is the user thinking 'wow, that's a really handy tool to use to help me to organise my thoughts on this topic', rather than, 'oh no, here we go, more death by the futile act of evidence creation and demonstration this time on line ...'

As for blogs, that maybe closer to what is envisaged in terms of ownership, except that:

the user is more likely to keep this area as private (though they wouldnt have to)

there would be more functionality than the average blog

the link between the module and 'personal learning space' is strong and streamlined, i.e. automatic importing of relevant exercises into the 'appropriate' place in the PLS by giving a prompt feature on completion /abandonment of any exercise 'i have finished with this for now, please save to my PLS' click here for auto- shift to new wonderful PLS!

so i think that's the difference, the learner drives the space, and it is a useful tool rather than a tedious organisational requirement.

Does anyone else see a distinction to be made, or is it an artifical and perhaps unhelpful divide?

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

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

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

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

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

Pekka Kämäräinen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pekka Kämäräinen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pekka Kämäräinen

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pekka Kämäräinen