Euronet-PBL:Draft Agenda of the 3rd International Meeting in Bremen,
Day One: Thursday, December 3rd 2009 at ITB, Universityof Bremen
Participants / The following persons (partner organisations) participated in the meeting:
P1: Ludger Deitmer and Pekka Kämäräinen (University of Bremen, ITB)
P2: Icara da Silva Holmesland and Ronny Sannerud (AkershusUniversityCollege)
P3: Yildiz Arikan (SabanciUniversity)
P5: Timothy Hall (University of Limerick, EMRC)
P6: Lars Bo Henriksen (AalborgUniversity)
P7: Jo Turner-Attwell (Pontydysgu)
P8: Bernd Hofmaier (HalmstadUniversityCollege)
Excused / The Slovenian partner (P4)Dusko Ursic could not attend the meeting because of illness.From the Turkish team (P3) Oguz Baburoglu could not attend. From the Norwegian team (P2) Arne Roar Lier could not attend. The web-support partnersGraham Attwell and Dirk Stieglitz from Pontydysgu (P7) werecontributing to the Online Educa conference in Berlin.
1. Opening & Welcome / Ludger Deitmer and Pekka Kämäräinen welcomed the participants on behalf of the host organisation ITB, University of Bremen and informed of the arrangements for the joint lunch and for the working dinner at end of the first day of the meeting.
2. Progress report & interim assessment by EACEA / On behalf of the coordination team Pekka Kämäräinen presented the main points of the progress report and gave a summarisation of the feedback from assessor drawing attention to the following points:
a)delays & uneven level of the completing tasks
b)lack of common results and products
c)weakness in internal monitoring and quality assurance
d)under-spending of partners’ budgets
e)lack of dissemination or insufficient transparency of actions already taken
f)the lack of content in the public project website.
3. Discussion on progress report & interim assessment: measures to be taken / The discussion was started by the video message ofGraham Attwell (Pontydysgu). He emphasised that the criticism was adequate and intended to encourage the project to catch up. This needed catch-up plans from partners and joint decisions how to improve the use of web resources, how to launch dissemination activities and how to establish a pattern of self-monitoring. He informed of the potentials of the blog facility on the website and of flash-meetings. He invited the partners to submit monthly blog entries (on issues that are important in their context) and the project to organise monthly flash-meetings as means of self-monitoring.
The other partners raised the need to clarify the role of workshops for dissemination and validation purposes (Bernd Hofmaier) and added value of self-evaluation workshops vis-à-vis other ways of collecting feedback (Ludger Deitmer). The comments of other partners emphasised the need to clarify the possible benefits of the project in their own contexts and to introduce peer reviews or mutual feedback between the project meetings.
3b. Updates of the partners / Lars Bo Henriksen (AalborgUniversity) gave a presentation of the work of the Danish partner since he was first time attending a regular project meeting. He informed of the difficulties regarding the acceptance of the separate Praktik placements (engineering studies) and drew attention to an alternative solution as ‘collaborative inquiries’ with field visits (interdisciplinary management studies).
Tim Hall (University of Limerick) reported of arrangements with which the COOP service unit collects feedback on the students’ placements. In this context he put into question the use of an evaluation workshop. The subsequent discussion clarified the role of the self-evaluation workshop as a small-scale meeting of all parties involved (students, company and the faculty) and with an intention to promote reflection and exchanges between different viewpoints (which could not be achieved by secondary analyses of existing feedback data). The coordination team and/or the internal evaluator will participate in the workshops.
4. New work package: Comparative analyses / On behalf of the coordination team Pekka Kämäräinen presented the preparatory work for work package “Comparative analyses”. For the second meeting (Istanbul) there was already a one-page overview (a matrix) of the six study programmes and on the role of practice-based learning arrangements.
For the third meeting (Bremen) the draft version has been developed into two matrixes that outline
1)Institutional and curricular boundary conditions for Practice-Based Learning and
2)The actual implementation of Practice-Based Learning Arrangements.
The draft document has been uploaded on a wiki page that can be co-edited by all partners (after registering oneself as user and logging in). The URL of this wiki page is

The updating of the comparative analyses will be organised with the help of the wiki page by the next project meeting.
The presentation and the approach were welcomed but the partners preferred to proceed to the next topic and to the next work package.
5. New work packages: Common PBL framework / On behalf of the coordination team Pekka Kämäräinen also presented the preparatory work for the new work package “Common PBL framework”. For this work package a preliminary support document had been prepared to facilitate joint group work in the meeting. The support document had also been uploaded on the wiki page.
The aim is to develop a joint framework for promoting shared quality awarenessacross different PBL models. The proposed sections address the following issues:
1)underlying principles and aims of the practicum,
2)commitments (by the various actors),
3)cooperation and communication routes and mechanisms enable interaction between the partners and finally implementation phase possibilities.
At all stages allowing for variability to match specific situations and needs and offering good practice and lessons learned.
After the introductory presentation the partners regrouped themselves into two parallel working groups that carried out a mapping of contents for different sections of the framework. The results of the group work will be reported with a separate document that will be used to develop further the draft document on the wiki page
.
6. Closure of Day One / The meeting was closed at 17.40 and the first day was concluded by a joint working dinner at the restaurant Am Deich 68.
Day Two: Friday, December 4th 2009 at ITB, University of Bremen
7. Develop-ment of the website of Euronet-PBL project / The second day was started by Pekka Kämäräinen with a brief introduction to the development of the project website After the transitional phase with the Google group page (that was given up because of spam attacks) the public website will be used as the main resource environment of the project.
As the first step the materials from the Google page had been uploaded in a password-protected intranet section. The materials were grouped under the following main headings:
  • Project documents
  • Case studies and interviews
  • Key results and products
  • Other studies and reference materials .
The partners were asked to give their views, whether these materials could be made publicly available and which materials should be kept in the password-protected intranet section.
Follow-up: On the basis of the discussions with the partners the coordination team and Pontydysgu moved the above mentioned sections to public domain. Only the confidential part of the progress report was kept in the intranet section.
As new features to be used in the coming period Pekka and Jo Turner-Attwell presented the blog facility and the wiki page:
  • The blog will be used for quick messages, sharing information and for peer-to-peer comments. Itisin the public domain of the website.
  • The wiki will be used for working together on shared documents. At the moment there are three draft documents of the wiki page:comparative analyses, common framework and the common toolbox.
Follow-up: After the meeting Pontydysgu will contact the partners to check that all partners have registered as users (sothat they can contribute). Alternatively the partners can send their contributions to Pekka and Jo via e-mails. Also, contributions can be taken via skype-interviews that will be edited as podcasts.
7a. Develop-ment of the common toolbox / In addition, Pekka Kämäräinen gave a brief introduction to the draft document that outlines the forthcoming tool box. At present thetoolbox existsas a workspace in which partners can present and commenttools that are used to support the development and implementation of practice-based learning arrangements. The following examples were discussed:
  • The German partner team informed of the plans to shape an online tool (the “Praktikum Online” or “Praktikum Wizard” facility) based on a layered hypertext. This gives the students an overview of the Praktikum process, inserts checklists and questions and provides templates and models for preparing reports and presentations.
  • Elements of such facility were identified in the current practice of the Turkish CAP programmes.
  • Other ideas for similar tools were identified on the basis of students’ projects (such as the German concept for trainees’ wiki and the Norwegian students’ self-evaluation matrix).
Then Ludger Deitmer presented an evaluation questionnaire that provides feedback on the functioning of practice-based learning. (The questionnaire is currently used in the vocational teacher education programmes of the University of Bremen).
These inputs led to quick exchange of views on the following questions:
  • What is a tool and what is a toolbox?
  • How should we classify tools within the common toolbox?
The partners suggested alternative ideas for classifications:
  • Classifications based on different phases of Praktikum or CAP process(With which phase are the students/supervisorsworking with?);
  • Classifications between different typesof tools(e.g. forms, to-do-lists, report formats).
  • Classification according to who the tool is for – student, company, university representatives.
Follow-up: The discussion will be continued and the above mentioned alternative approaches can be taken into account when the on-line version of the toolbox will be developed.
10. Planning of specific activities for dissemination, valorisation, quality assurance / Taken into account the critique given by an external assessor on the Progress report the project team had a discussion on specific activities for dissemination, valorisation and quality assurance:
  • Concerning dissemination:The partners concluded that the project was only now reaching the point of producing common results and products. Yet, a more effective use of the website (in particular the blog facility and podcasts) is needed to link effective dissemination to work in progress. For the next project meetings it was agreed that the host organisation should add an extra session that invites interested colleagues and organisations to an exchange of ideas arising from the Euronet-PBL.
  • Concerning valorisation (exploitation of results): Ludger Deitmer informed of the agreements of ITB to organise valorisation workshops with some neighbouring universities with VET teacher education programmes. He recommended that each partnershould organise a workshopperhaps attached to an already agreed wider event. In such workshops the partners should invite associated partners to attend.
  • Concerning quality assurance:The internal evaluator Bernd Hofmaier recommended that the project should have a self-evaluation workshop built in into the all remaining meetings (using the tool that was tried in the Istanbul meeting). Also, self-monitoring should be linked (as a specific point) t to each flash-meeting (to be organised between the regular meetings). There should be an evaluation blog and the partners’ should submit peer review postings to give feedback to each other. Blog comments could also be allowed and invited from external contributors.
Follow-up:The Irish partners indicated that they will have a valorisation event in April/May but they will present the plans in the next project meeting inLimerick meeting.Also the dissemination aspect will be taken into account in the planning of the agenda. Pontydysgu will clarify the opening of the blog for external contributors (taking into account the security aspects).
9. Revision of the financial plan / On behalf of the coordination team Pekka Kämäräinen presented a proposal for the reallocation of staff costs among the research partners (P1-P8). The reallocation was needed because the resources of the coordination team had been underestimated and because there was under-spending among the research partners. The proposal was based on ca. 10% cut for all research partners. And a corresponding increase for the coordinating partner. It was agreed that the staff costs of Sabanci University (P3) will not be reduced and that increase of the staff costs of ITB, University of Bremen (P1) will be smaller. (See the modified financial plan as Annex).
Follow-up:The project consortium can re-allocate the resources up to 10% in direct costs between headings.The resources for sub-contracting and travelling have to be reviewedin the next project meeting.
10. Measures to secure the results of the project / The final session discussed the next steps to be takenand the measures to secure the results of the projectin the near future. The completion of the work plan (and the backlog with tasks) was reviewed with the help of the document “Interim assessment”.(See the annex.)
Below the conclusions are summarised in terms of
  • The face-to face meetings of the project team
  • Obligations of the partners to keep the schedule
  • The monthly flashmeetings between partners
  • Tasks and deadlnesfor completing the delayed work packages.
1) The face-to face meetings of the project team
The project team decided to organise three project meetings with the following dates and characteristics
  • Fourth project meeting in Limerick, Ireland in March 18.3.-19.3.2010:Results of the empirical analyses and evaluation workshops, work with the common framework and toolbox.
  • Fifth project meeting in Oslo, Norway in June either3.6.-4.6. or 10.6.-11.6.: Results of valorisation and dissemination workshops, finalisation of the comparative analyses, the common framework and the toolbox).
  • Sixth project meeting in Bremen (or Brussels) in September either 13.9. -14.9. or 16.9.-17.9.:Dissemination of thefinal results, concluding discussions and self-evaluation.
Follow-up: Coordination team confirms the dates with the hosting partner in January 2010 and the with the project team in the next flask
2) The partners’ obligations
Each partner prepares a written catch-up on plan by the end of January with focus on the completion of case descriptions, stakeholder interviews and evaluation workshop meetings (see the document “Interim assessment”).
Follow-up in the flashmeetings (see below)
3) The monthly flashmeetings between partners
The project team agreed to start monthly flashmeetings as means of self-monitoring and exchanging experiences with the project work. Pontydysgu will invite the partners and give instructions. The first flashmeeting was scheduled for the last week of January, 27th or 28th29th at 14:00 CET.
Follow-up:The first flashmeetingwasrescheduled for the beginning of February, new proposed dates Thu 4.2. or Fri 5.2. (to be confirmed).
4) Schedule for completing the delayed work packages
  • WP2 (Deliverable 6): Case descriptions on student projects to be completed by 22ndof January.
  • WP2 (Deliverable 7): Interviews stakeholders (primarily company representatives): To be completed by26thof February.
  • WP3: Evaluation workshops on the functioning of the practice-based learning by 26thof February
  • Comparative analyses:missing info to be added to wiki, 22nd January.
  • Work with the Common framework(results of the brainstorming to be sent out by coordination team byend January to be commented and completed by the partners by 26thof February.

11. Closure of the meeting / The meeting was concluded by reflective comments from all participants. The partners expressed their satisfaction with progress that was made in the meeting. The internal evaluator drew attention to the need to put the decisions into practice. All participants thanked ITB team for the organisation. The meeting was closed at 17.00.

1