WLP Project Development

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pekka Kämäräinen

So far the 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