Sorry for lack of posts of late. I've been in meetings for the last ten days - in Bucharest, Monte Gordo (you will definitely need Google maps to find that one) and finally in Utrecht. In Bremen now, off to Stockholm tonight. Internet access has been pretty patchy - hence the lack of posts. Anyway, thanks to all you loyal readers who have enquired after my health!

Many things to say - but limited time. I did promise that I would post today regarding an issue that arose at the Utrecht meeting (that old debate over blogs vis a vis bulletin boards) - but it really is a more general question.

All the meetings were concerned with European projects in the area of education and training. the first was concerned with developing new curricula for social workers, the second with guidance and participation for the unemployed, the third with self evaluation for vocational teachers and the final meeting developing communities of practice for the tourist industry.

As is the way these days all the project had promised a platform for project communication (all the projects involve partners from different European countries) and all had promised to develop some sort of ICT based 'tools' (as an aside I am getting really fed up with that word - more on this in another post).

The majority of the partners in the project are specialists in education and training - researchers or practitioners - teachers and trainers or social workers. For the first three projects I am the ICT 'specialist', in the fourth I am the evaluator and am spared that role.

What seems to happen is that we get alloted a slot on the agenda to explain what we will do. And this is where the problem starts. Usually we do not have web access or access is slow. Not all participants have a computer with them - still less internet connectivity.

So we make a presentation. Different people in the 'audience;' have different levels of knowledge and competence in ICT. Different project parters have different interest in the use of ICT.

There is no way to pitch a presentation to suit everyones needs. More than that it is an inappropriate medium for what we are trying to do. I did quite well at the first meeting - at least gave an accessible and reasonably informative 'speech' about web 2 and it seemed to interest the audience. The second I screwed up totally. The participants had already listened to too many speeches - they wanted to do something. Fair enough. I went on too much about the technology. They told me (in no uncertain terms - feedback was not in short supply) that they wanted just to know what they had to do.

I do not think this would work either. One solution would be to divide into groups - and those that want the minimum information can get that whilst those prepared to explore and learn by doing could learn that way. But the whole process of developing platforms and tools is wrong. Project coordinators and partners should realize that they have as much to contribute and as much responsibility for development as the IT 'specialists'. These things can only be designed as a co-design process. OK - there are iterative design processes that can help. But the only real answer is to organize co-design workshops as an integral part of the project meetings. That requires a proper time allocation - not just a half hour or twenty minute slot at the end of the agenda. It requires proper facilities. And most fundamental it requires participation form all the partners.

OK - end of rant. I promised I would write something and send to participants as an example of what a blog is about. think I have done that pretty well. More about all these issues over the next week,. Please feel free to use the anonymous reply button to add your comments.

Technorati Tags: e-learning design, social software