WLP Project Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pekka Kämäräinen

So far the 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

For the WLP Workhop in Velenje I had prepared a Power Point presentation that provided in a nutshell form an interim synthesis of the work of the WLP project. I have reworked this presentation in order to put the work of the project partners and the next steps in the tool development and piloting into the centre. (See the revised ppt-presentation as an attached document)
The first two sections of the presentation recapitulate the main challenges for the WLP project and the main outcomes of the country studies. Thus, the presentation provides a European group picture of different starting points and strategic working isues to be linked to the common theme "Workplace learning partnerships". These sections represent the phase of discussion that had been reached by the Velenje workshop.
The third section tries to use the group picture as a basis for bringing the debate on "workplace learning partnerships" further. In this respect the section builds upon the interim reflections on different partnership concepts tat I presented in previous posting. Now I have tried to preent some insights into possible benefits of partnership-based cooperation for different parties to be addressed in diverse countries.
The fourth section outlines the discussion on the role of WLP Web tools from the perspective of different starting points, from different contexts for piloting and with a view on different target groups to be addressed with the piloting activities.
The fifth section outlines the strategic steps to be taken in the further development of the project and provides anoverview on the strategic angles from which the partners can approach their own tasks. Furthermore, the section provides a visualisation on alternative developmental arenas and their neighbourhood relations to be considered when setting the priorities. Finally, the presentation provides a visual interpretation on the developmental phases and process dynamics in the project. It is worthwhile to note that this image draws attention on the need to distinguish between the piloting measures that can only be prepared via feasibility studies and the ones that can be actively implemented during the current WLP project.
I guess this is a sufficient commentary for the attached presentation. I am preparing a "roadmap" presentation that illustrates different options for tool development and piloting. I hope to get this presentation ready in one week's time. Looking forward to your comments in the meantime.
Pekka Kämäräinen

So far the comparative analysis of different preconditions for workplace learning partnerships has highlighted diferent institutional and organisational starting points and relate working perspectives. In this respect I have emphasised the following approaches to the creation and promotion of workplace partnerships:

• Educational approaches that focus on the incorporation of workplace learning into vocational curricula (and on the attainmen of related qualification goals);
• Work process -oriented approaches that focus on the incorporation of training provisions (or virtual learning arrangements) into the culture of  organisational learning and process improvement;

• Virtual networking initiatives that try to create joint resource pools among training providers and partner enterprises (and to promote related capability for knowledge sharing and networking).

Although this is a rough categorisation, it gives an idea how different boundary conditions are characteristic of the counry contexts in which the members of the WLP project team are working. However, in order to get a clearer idea on possible arenas for piloting we need to be more specific on the preconditions and on the process dynamics that are related to partneship creation and/or to the supporting activities.

Therefore, I would like to draw attention on the way that the preconditions for partnership creation (and for related support activities) vary in different developmental contexts. In this respect I would highlight the following contextual settings:

a) Co-development and accompaniment of multi-player partnerships

This kind of partnership concept has been brought forward in the application phase and in the initial phase of the WLP project. The  German predecessor projects GOLO and GAPA can be seen as forerunners of a transition strategy in which the VET colleges adopt a new role in supporting workplace learning and regional or sectoral initiatives. From the industrial perspective this kind of partnership concept has been brought forward by the UK cases that higlight the role of training and learning in the context of supply chains.

b) Outreach activities of training providers and/or training enterprises

This kind of partnership concept comes into picture as the most likely actual starting point or as a potential working perspective. The most striking example is the Solski Center Velenje and its outreach activities (from the educational perspective) or the Estonian enterprises and their potential cooperation with the regional training providers (from the industrialperspective).

c) Facilitator-supported search for joint resource pools or networking concepts

This kind of partnership concept has been brought into discussion in the Italian context with reference to virtual networking and to joint resource pools for knowledge sharing. On the other hand this kind of partnership-oriented approach is coming into picture in the analyses on cross-border cooperation and trans-national synergies between France, Germany and Switzerland.

I think this is enough on this topic at the moment. With this interim remark I have wanted to open the prospects for a more differentiated piloting phase with an understanding on the different preconditions for partnership-creation, networking and using virtual support.

Pekka Kämäräinen

Shortly after the Velenje workshop (see the previous posting) the WLP had to make decision on submitting a proposal for the next European Conference on Educational Research (ECER'06) to be organised in September 2006 in Geneva, Switzerland. As we discussed this item in Velenje, the participation in ECER had been written down on our work programme. However, there was an administrative issue concerning the possibility of EU-funded projects (particularly of Leonardo-projects) to undertale dissemination activities in a conference that is organised in Switzerland (not belonging to EU or EEA and not having a participation agreement regarding the programme Leonardo da Vinci). After some inquiries we came to the conclusion that there is a case for submitting a proposal.
Along the lines that we discussed in Velenje, the main idea with the proposal is to present Work in Progress and Lessons from Transnatonal Cooperation. Therfore, we have chosen to propose a Research Workshop (that puts more emphasis on joint discussion) than a Symposium (that puts more emphasis on presenting joint results in a coherent group picture). Yet, in the light of our discussions in Velenje there is a need to consider how this proposal and the preparation for the session in Geneva can be helpful for our net phase of work. Some colleagues might have a feeling that we are putting the carriage in front of the horse (by preparing a research workshop when we should give our main attention on piloting and fieldwork). In this respect I try to re-examine our ECER-proposal from the perspective our project-specific needs and to demonstrate how the preparatory work for an ECER-session can best support us in our work for the WLP project.
1) The issue on thematic focuses and related arenas for piloting:
The designed Research Workshop indicates three thematic focuses and/or arenas for piloting: a) reviewing of individual learning, b) development of social web in enterprise contexts and c) exploring the developmental prospects related to regionalisation, cross-border cooperation and internationalisation. With these we have to make progress regarding piloting or identifying the boundary conditions for further developmental work. The "Research Workshop" provides an opportunity to reflect upon the research-related value of the work that has been undertaken in the context of these thematic areas and/or arenas for piloting.
2) The issue of comparative studies and trans-cultural learning:
The interim version of a European synthesis report (that was prepared by me for the WLP workshop in Velenje) could not make sufficiently transparent the role of different partnership concepts and different arenas for piloting. In this respect there is a case for some amendments and some rewriting that can be summarised in the Research Workshop. However, the main point is that such studies should not remain as 'satellite pictures' that portray the developmenmtal activities from a remote distance. Instead, they should help in bringing the country contexts and the developmental arenas into working neighbourhood relations with each other
3) The issue of a collaborative preparatory process and of making it public:
To some extent there is some prior work that can be reused as inputs for the Research Workshop. To some extent it is possible to indicat next steps for piloting that can be reported by the time the inputs for the ECER are to be finalised. As I see it, we are in a good position to share these contents with each other and to compose joint contributions. At the moment we are preparing the grounds for such a phase of work with our internal blog (the WLP project Maagement). However, once we have got the ball rolling, we should have the courage to step into public domain. In this respect we have to respect the selection process of ECER and VETNET. We also have to consider when we are ready to bring our findings and conclusions to public discussion. In this respect we may have different time lines in different areas of work.
I think this is enough on this topic at the moment. In my next postings I will try take a closer look at different thematic focuses and on related arenas on piloting. In the meantime I welcome comments and further inputs.
Pekka Kämäräinen