...
h2. Agenda
|| Time || theme ||
| 09:00 .. 10:00 | introductory presentations |
| 10:00 -- 11:00 | Work on Gaps: Break in 5 groups and work around tables. |
| | Each table will choose to analyse 4 gaps. |
| | Template for collecting data: |
| | For each gap:
* a) provide comments on the gap’s description,
* b) identify relevant standards and relevant stakeholders,
* c) why it is important for the stakeholders to close this gap?
* d) define baseline
* e) assumptions
* f) list of recommendations. |
| 11:00 -- 11:20 | coffee break |
| 11:20 -- 12:30 | Work on Gaps: group work from previous session continues |
| 12:30 -- 13:30 | Lunch |
| 13:30 -- 15:30 | Report from the tables; update of gaps and aggregation of Recommendations |
| 15:30 -- 15:45 | coffee break |
| 15:45 -- 17:30 | Work on Recommendations: Break in groups from the morning and plan the gaps: Assessment of Recommendations; Classify recommendations: Group research topics and made a timeline: (Short-term, Mid-term, Long-term) Template for collecting data; final update of templates |
| 17:30 -- 18:00 | Collection of templates; closing session and plans for the position paper |
h2. Your task
_You are to choose one issue you will work on during the meeting, please investigate the list of issues, provide comments and contribute to the understanding and development of the issue prior to the meeting. So that we have something substantial to work on during the meeting in Berlin._
We have created a [issue doodle poll|http://doodle.com/ekx7khzzfxbabwrd] that you should use to indicate which issue you should work on.
_For a complete list of issues and gaps you can download the [PDF version|^Draft Position paper.pdf]_
h2. Motivation
The present working document was written and discussed to be used as an input to the 3rd annual meeting of the European Competency SIG at Berlin (November 30, 2010). It lists the issues that were identified as “gaps” between the present state of the art concerning Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL) and the situation described in the context and future scenarios1. If the main focus is outcome based learning2 or competency based learning and standards, some of the gaps identified are not directly related to outcome and competency based learning but could impact competency and outcome based learning. Similarly a certain number of types of stakeholders have been identified that are likely to emphasise different criteria to evaluate the gaps. These types of stakeholders are listed in Section 3.
h2. Background and method
The scenarios used to identify the gaps are of two types: context scenarios and future scenarios. The context scenarios were designed to take into account the views of different stakeholders: the educational view, the employer view, and the societal & market dimension such as the employee-employability view and the labour market processes. Another source was a meeting of experts at Leuven on May 31, 2010 during which, five visions were discussed. About 15 future scenarios were collected, some written by members of the ICOPER project, but most of them were written by other TEL projects and experts in TEL. The identified gaps were regrouped and then discussed during several meetings to produce a first list. This list was discussed in Barcelona in a workshop on September 28, 2010 and in two ICOPER meetings in London on October 13 and 14 and October 25, 2010.
h3. Group of issues (gaps)
In this section, the suggested identified gaps are listed and described. The related standards, the relevant stakeholders and the assumptions and preconditions associated with each gap are also provided. Each gap is further classified as a process, service or data gap (i.e. type of classification). Finally, a first set of recommendations regarding future research topics or actions to close each gap have been also suggested.
The relevant classes of stakeholders that have been identified are the following:
* TEL community (R&D community)
* HEIs (University managers, administration)
* HEI (faculty, teachers)
* Standard bodies (including standardization projects)
* Industry: client side (including HR departments, Professional Associations)
* Industry: provider side (technology providers and content provider)
* Policy Makers (including EQF, EU, national bodies, Ministries of Education etc.)
* Accreditation and Assessment Bodies
To facilitate the discussion with the experts during the summit, the gaps are classified into six (6) groups.
h4. 1) [Learning outcomes definition|issue1]
h4. 2) [Assessment, recognition and verification of learning outcomes|issue2]
h4. 3) [Learning design and content authoring|issue3]
h4. 4) [Outcome based descriptions of learning opportunities|issue4]
h4. 5) [Adoption and change issues required by HEIs|issue5]
h4. 6) [Collaboration issues|issue6]
|
