leadlab model of personalization

Grundtvig Project

Leading Elderly and Adult Development – LAB

http://leadlab.euproject.org/

leadlab @ learningcom.it

Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP

30/09/2010

EUROPEAN MODEL OF PERSONALIZATION

FOR ADULT LEARNERS

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission.This publication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.

mailto:[email protected]

http://leadlab.euproject.org/

LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LABReference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL

SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................................... 3

ABSTRACT.............................................................................................................................................................. 4

WHY TO DEVELOP A MODEL OF PERSONALIZATION FOR ADULT LEARNERS.................................................................5WHAT IS A MODEL?................................................................................................................................................ 7

THE LEADLAB MODEL......................................................................................................................................... 10

WHY INTEGRATED MODEL OF PERSONALIZATION FOR ADULT LEARNERS..................................................................10Personalization: an integrated meaning................................................................................................... 11Personalization: an integrated European experience.............................................................................13Personalization: an integrated theoretical paradigm..............................................................................17Personalization: an integrated System..................................................................................................... 22Personalization: an integrated context..................................................................................................... 27

DESIGN OF PERSONALIZED CURRICULA AND COURSES...........................................................................................30LEARNING AND TEACHING ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES..........................................................................................35

Individual self-directed learning................................................................................................................ 36Group self-directed learning...................................................................................................................... 39

PERSONALIZED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................................... 48THE EDUCATIONAL INTERACTIONS......................................................................................................................... 49EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT............................................................................................................................. 51

CONCLUSIONS...................................................................................................................................................... 56

MAIN REFERENCES ABOUT PERSONALIZATION AND ADULT EDUCATION.................................................57

ITALIAN REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................... 57FINNISH REFERENCES.......................................................................................................................................... 69FRENCH REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 71GERMAN REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 74Greek References.............................................................................................................................................. 77

2


Introduction

The present document is part of the LEAD-LAB project that refers clearly with the aims of the

LifeLong Learning Programme: the development and exploitation of education in adult and

elderly contexts have strong reference with the actions conceived by the proposal that

addresses just the priority areas of Call. The difficulties of adult education are well-rendered in

data and figures on percentage of participation in education and training, very far from Lisbon

objectives (for ex. in EU27 in 2006 was 8,8%: it's -3,7% by 12,5% expected).

Countries involved in project experimentation (in particular Italy at -6,8% in 2006) are the ones

where participation is under the average mark. A solution for implementing participation is

make adult education system more attractive by quality empowering. LEADLAB will try to,

through introduction of personalization and self-learning methods in trainer's "luggage".

LEAD-LAB aims to support the European NVEA system by the development of an integrated

model based on personalization and self-learning approaches according to the “Andragogic”

(Adult) paradigm; a Learning Personalization trainers job profile and map of competences; a

"blended" combination of these approaches and the best practices in adult education can

contribute in a meaningful way to improve the attractiveness of NVEA in a logic of

sustainability.

Personalized paths allow adults to conciliate learning activities with the job and the leisure time;

self-learning focuses on self-awareness of oneself learning styles and intelligences (e.g.

Gardner’s multiple intelligences).Objectives and results of the proposal are formulated

appropriately to answer to the challenge to make adult education more flexible and "learner

friendly" through the empowering and the development of competences of trainers and

teachers in NVEA.

Partners of LeadLab Project:

Learning Community srl (IT) www.learningcom.it ;

AFOL- Agenzia Formazione Orientamento Lavoro Sud Milano (IT) http://www.afolsudmilano.it/;

CNAM - Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers (FR) www.cnam.fr;

TV – Thüringer Volkshochschulverband e.V. (DE) www.vhs-th.de/;

CECE - Confederación Española de Centros de Enseñanza (ES) www.cece.es;

HRDC- HELLENIC REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CENTER (GR) www.hrdc.org.gr/;

Noema-CMI (FI) www.noema.fi.

Associated partners of the LEADLAB Project are:

Educommunity – Association for the educational professionalism www.educommunity.it

3

http://www.educommunity.it/

http://www.noema.fi/

http://www.hrdc.org.gr/

http://www.cece.es/

http://www.vhs-th.de/

http://www.cnam.fr/

http://www.learningcom.it/


AGRAF - Groupe de Recherche sur l'Autoformation - http://www.a-graf.org/

APP - Atelier Pédagogique Personnalisé - http://www.app.tm.fr/

FDP - Fondation pour le Développement de l’éducation permenente - www.fdep.ch

The present document is aimed to describe the LEADLAB Model for the adult learning

personalization.

The model is the result of the previous study realised about the Status Artis of Personalization

and Adult education in the Partners’ Countries, and the diffused practices of personalization in

Europe.

The document describes the theoretical requirements, learning approach, learning pathway,

educational methodology, learning environments, educational interaction, evaluation and

assessment methodology of the integrated model of personalization of adult learning.

The model is part of a wide design including also the job description and the design of the map

of competences of the Learning Personalization Trainer (LPT), describing the main areas of

competences and necessary knowledge and skills, for who wants to become expert in

personalization of NVAE learning pathways. The LEADLAB model represents the ideal

framework where this innovative professional figure should operate.

The LEADLAB model here presented will be tested and validated within an experimental

course involving 10-15 trainers of adult/elderly learners in Spanish, German, Italian, French

Adult Education Institutions.

AbstractThe LEADLAB model is the result of the comparison among several meanings, experiences,

theoretical perspectives and paradigm of personalization and adult learning.

Following is described the rationale of the design of a model of personalization for adult

learners, the features of such a model and the feasibility conditions for its application.

The Model design is based on a shared definition of what is a model, what is adult learning,

what is personalization, shared among partners, coming from different cultural background,

were the same words could have different meaning.

Then LEADLAB Model, following described, is the result of an:

- integrated meanings;

- integrated experiences;

- integrated theoretical perspectives and paradigms, including for Adult learning,

(andragogy, anthropogogy) theories of Knowles, Adkins, Mezirow, Feuerstein,

Liendeman; and for Personalization, theories of Gardner, Hoz, Kolb, Przesmycki;

4


- integrated systems and specialized professional figures: Learning Persoanlization

Trainer, Trainer, Instructional Designer;

- integrated contexts, including the ideal context foreseen by the model and the real

contexts where adults learn.

After this necessary introduction, is described the possible design of personalized curricula and

courses, indicating suggested learning and teaching methodologies and strategies; suggested

features of the learning environment; the dynamics of a personalised educational interaction;

evaluation and assessment strategies.

Finally are highlighted some feasibility conditions for the application of the model, even in

different countries having different rules and institutional Organization addressed to adult

learning. Are identified strengths and opportunities of the application of such an innovative and

integrated model of personalization and possible suggestions in order to allow the integration

and the development of the LEADLAB model in the traditional educational System.

Why to develop a model of personalization for adult learners In 2005 in Europe 10,8% of adult working age population (24-64) has participated in Non

Vocational Adult Education (NVAE); one benchmark adopted by the Council in 2003 was to

reach an average level of participation of at least 12.5%. Recent studies (EAEA, Adult

education trends and issues in Europe, 2006; Eurydice, Non vocational adult education in

Europe, 2007) show common participation patterns in NVAE: participation declines with age;

participation rates increase as the level of education of the participants rises; the main

obstacles are lack of time, of money, of customized learning paths, unsupportive social

environment, bad previous learning experience, and so on. NVAE learning paths lack of

attractiveness: they are stereotyped, don’t valorise adults learning styles and biographic

elements, are inadequate for elderly people. Successful approaches are often diffused only in

restricted contexts, and the good pedagogic practices are not standardized nor recognized out

of those contexts.

LEAD-LAB refers clearly with the aims of the Programme: the development and exploitation of

education in adult and elderly contexts have strong reference with the actions conceived by the

proposal that addresses just the priority areas of Call. The difficulties of adult education are well

rendered in data and figures on percentage of participation in education and training, very far

from Lisbon objectives (for ex. in EU27 in 2006 was 8,8%: it's -3,7% by 12,5% expected).

Countries involved in project experimentation (in particular Italy at -6,8% in 2006) are the ones

where participation is under the average mark.

5


The Status Artis analysis highlighted common characteristics of European countries, with

regard to adult education, showing common participation patterns in NVAE: participation

declines with age; participation rates increase as the level of education of the participants rises;

the main obstacles are lack of time, of money, of customized learning paths, unsupportive

social environment, bad previous learning experience, and so on. NVAE learning paths lack of

attractiveness:

- they are stereotyped, don’t valorise adult learning styles and biographic elements;

- are inadequate for elderly people;

- successful approaches are often diffused only in restricted contexts, and the good

pedagogic practices are not standardized nor recognized out of those contexts.

It is anyway possible to intercept good practices oriented to the personalization and taking in to

account constraints of adult learning. Yet the "practices" in question are developed within the

institutional structure of the adult education field, which varies from one country to another.

Furthermore, the very notion of individual and person and their relationship to the collective, is

not the same in national cultures: the Latin, French, Anglo-Saxon or Germanic traditions, vary

significantly. It is striking, for example, to find that in each country, organizations, which develop

the mentioned good practices, are specific. There is no transposition of an organization type

from one country to another one.

The challenge of LEADLAB project is therefore to design, from and beyond the national

traditions, a new paradigm to be verified in the different countries, to enable the formulation of a

joint and integrated model for the personalization of adult learning at the European level.

What is a model?Before introducing the LEADLAB model, taking in to account the both cultural and institutional

differences among the involved countries, it worth to clarify a shared meaning of what we here

intend for educational model.

The term “model” acquires different meanings according to the various context and the users.

Generically, it can be defined as a mental image that helps us to understand something we

cannot directly see or experience; in the education science a model is a mass of systemic

guidelines to design and realize a learning path, a visual representation of a process in which

are illustrated elements and phases composing it and their relationships. A model gives the

procedural architecture to systematically produce learning paths; one of its peculiarities is

reproducibility.

The value of a model is determined by the context of use: as any instrument, a model assumes

the specific intentions of its user. In instructional design model are the most general level,

6


inside which is possible to define teaching strategies, methods, technical competencies and

students’ activities. A learning environment always presupposes a learning model; the

theoretical structures allow selecting and applying the adequate educational approach.

For McPherson and Nunes a pedagogic model is a theoretical construction that can be used by

practitioners as a structure to understand educational actions through a specific learning

theory. A pedagogic model allows practitioners and trainers to elaborate thinking to decide the

goals and the activities to reach them. The model must include a clear definition of the learning

philosophy, describing which learning typologies are compatible with it, designing pedagogic

strategies and tactics to realize goals and objectives.

Thus, we can illustrate the model with the following picture:

For McPherson and Nunes pedagogical models are based on general philosophies and

epistemic assumptions aiming to support experts and teachers to design, plan and develop

educational actions. Implementation models, instead, have the purpose to facilitate the

application of pedagogical model in specific environments and contexts. Pedagogical models

tend to be persistent, implementation models change by context, technologies and users’

profile.

The dimension of value and the philosophical paradigm are underlined in the concept of

theoretical model proposed by Philippe Meirieu. A pedagogical model must include three

dimensions: the values it promotes, the theoretical structure on which it’s based, and the

operative tools it makes disposable. Values belong to the axiological side, which constitutes

one of the fundaments of an educational model: every model aim to promote values. The

second side is the scientific one, with scientific, sociological, linguistic, epistemological

7

PHILO

SO

PHIC

AL

PAR

AD

IGM

PEDA

GO

GIC

AL

TAC

TICS

PEDA

GO

GIC

AL

STRAT

EGIES

LEAR

NI

NG

ENVIR

ON

MEN

T

LEAR

NI

NG

M

OD

ELS


knowledge able to legitimate the model; this knowledge is derived from a choose preceding the

creation of the model itself. The third side is the praxeological one: a pedagogical model must

create tools that are coherent with its aims, and that are clarified by the scientific knowledge.

The inner organization of the model includes five main components:

Didactic formalization;

Educational situations and learning environments;

Resources and training aids;

The typology of pedagogical relationship between learner and teacher;

The assessment strategies1.

Michele Pellerey, an Italian pedagogist, proposes the concept of educational model as a tool to

realize a meta-reflection process on the educational practices2. The term model has two

meanings: the master who is the reference model for the behaviour of the learner; a physical

structure, a mock-up that reproduces reality. To build a model it’s necessary to identify the

main elements of a situation or practice and of the relationship among them, and to adequately

represent them in a verbal, figurative or symbolic form3.

Charles M. Reigeluth defines model a prescriptive theory, with actions and methodologies to be

applied within a theoretical reference. The theoretical reflection is followed by the application of

the model, that implies an interpretation and contextualization activity by the designer4.

1 V. http:// www.meirieu.com ; cfr. anche P. Meirieu, Méthodes pédagogiques, in P. Champy, C. Etve (eds.). Dictionairre enclyclopédique de l’éducation et de la formation, Paris, Nathan, 1994, pp. 660-666.2 M. Pellerey, Educare. Manuale di pedagogia come scienza pratico-progettuale, Roma, LAS, 1999, p. 130.3 Ivi, p. 131.4 C. M. Reigeluth (eds.), Instructional design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional design, Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.

8

http://www.meirieu.com/


In the picture situations represents the aspects of the operative context that influence

methodological chooses; they are related to desired outcomes and instructional conditions.

Outcomes concern effectiveness (to reach a certain result), efficiency (relation between costs

and benefits) and appeal (satisfaction by learners). Instructional conditions concern the nature

of the contents of learning (concepts, skills, competences, etc.), the peculiarities of the learner

(previous knowledge, learning strategies, motivation), the learning environment (self-directed

learning, class, etc.), the delivery constraints (time, budget, human resources)5.

For Glenn Snelbecker of Temple University a theory is a gathering of guidelines and a model is

the concretization of the theory. Knowledge producers (researchers and scholars) create

theories and models; knowledge users (teachers an lecturers) use these theories and models6.

5 Ibidem. Lo schema riprodotto si trova a p. 9.6 G.E. Snelbecker, Some thoughts about theories, perfection, and instruction, in C. M. Reigeluth (eds.), op. cit., pp. 31-47.

9


The LEADLAB Model

LEAD-LAB refers clearly with the aims of development and exploitation of education in adult

and elderly contexts. A solution for implementing participation is make adult education system

more attractive by quality empowering. LEAD-LAB tries to meet this challenge through the

introduction of personalization and self-learning methods in trainer's "luggage".

LEAD-LAB aims to support the European NVEA system by the development of an integrated

model based on personalization and self-learning approaches according to the Andragogic

paradigm; a "blended" combination of these approaches and the best practices in adult

education can contribute in a meaningful way to improve the attractiveness of NVEA in a logic

of sustainability. Personalized paths allow adults to conciliate learning activities with the job and

the leisure time; self-learning focuses on self-awareness of oneself learning styles and

intelligences. The integrated model of personalization for adult learners is then designed in

order to answer to the challenge to make adult education more flexible and "learner friendly"

through the empowering and the development of competences of trainers and teachers in

NVEA.

Why integrated model of personalization for adult learnersLEAD-LAB, aiming to support European NVEA system by developing a new andragogic

approach, is an integrated model at several levels:

1. it tries to integrate a common vision of personalization, through the identification of

common elements within the different meanings and cultural background towards a

common definition and common meanings and language about personalization that is

a concept rich of meaning that is subject to manifold interpretations;

2. it is designed on the basis of an integrated vision of methodologies, models and

practices developed and applied in the European partner Countries;

3. it aims to integrate personalization and self-learning approaches within an adult

(andragogic-anthropogogic) paradigm;

4. it integrates the personalized vision of adult learning within three system levels:

learning level;

teaching level;

organizational level;

5. it consequently implicates the interaction of three professional figures within a

personalization inspired integrated educational system:

Trainer;

10


Instructional Designer;

Learning Personalization Trainer;

6. it integrates the personalized vision of adult learning within three context levels:

macro;

meso;

micro.

Each of the cited elements of integration is detailed in the follow description and presentation of

the LEADLAB Model.

Personalization: an integrated meaningThe term “person” refers to three major cultural references through which Partner Countries

identify the training in which the learner is considered in its singularity and is actor of his

training.

In Germany we have the term "Selbstbildung" which is rooted in the great German romantic

tradition, especially developed by Goethe.

In France, the term "Autoformation" (self-learning) brings together practitioners and

researchers who designate thus the phenomenon by which learners control their own learning.

The training organization that refers explicitly to the self-learning uses the term "personalized"

in its name (Personalized Learning Workshops).

The term of individualization, heavily used in all these countries, is subject to different

interpretations.

In France, for example, researchers clearly differentiate, schemes aiming at empowering, and

those with an institutional objective. A definition which makes consensus among key actors.

We find the similar difference between the concept of Independent Learning and Personalising

Learning of the Eurydice document. Thus, Independent Learning is defined as “whereby the

place, time, duration, content and intensity of the learning can all be adapted to the individual's

requirements is considered a good response to the flexibility needs of adults”

It is only question here of better adapt the learning to the needs and constraints of the adult

learner.

On the other hand, the Personalising Learning states that “The learning may be self-directed or

may be facilitated by a tutor on a one-to-one basis and/or within a group setting”.

The G100 conference (bringing together 14 countries) at the National Academy of Education

Administration (NAEA) in Beijing, China 16-19 October 2006 aiming to discuss the

transformation of and innovation in the world’s education systems, suggests in its conclusions,

the following: “Personalization as a mean enabling every student to reach their potentials, to

learn how to learn and to share the responsibility for their own education”.

11


Furthermore, the OECD published a book in 2004 with the title: “Personalising Education”,

comprising contributions from Canada, Denmark, France, Germany and United Kingdom.

Hopkins defines, in summary, the personalization as follows: “Personalisation is a very simple

concept. It is about putting citizens at the heart of public services and enabling them to have a

say in the design and improvement of the organisations that serve them”

We find here two basic ideas: the flexibility of the device, on one side, the role of the learner as

actor who takes charge of his learning and its organization, on the other side.

Thanks to the result of the research’s stage about the Status Artis, a common definition of

Personalization has been found within the frame of Leadlab Project.

The personalization of the training includes the following dimensions:

all the dimensions of the learner: the personalization does not only include the

cognitive dimension of the person. It has for goal his/her development, both cognitively

and emotionally, as well as social and citizen.

self-directed learning: the personalization is based on the learner self-direction, which

means: a. that he has the ability to choose by himself the object and to determine the

objectives of his learning (learning self-determination) and b. that he can have a control

over the terms and means of this learning (learning regulation: place, calendar,

educational approach and material)

learner as actor and co-producer of the learning process: according to a personalized

approach the learner is seen as the actor of his learning and in this sense, is

associated with the decisions of the training organization.

Within a personalized learning vision the trainer is a facilitator of the learning process:

the role of the teacher or of the trainer is not to transmit contents, but to support the

learner in the control of his learning.

Through the analysis of the partner’s contribution to the research about the Status Artis in the

partners’ Countries, it is also possible to highlight different and similar aspects of

personalization models, concepts, practices and identify the following recurrent features:

– Involvement of the all dimensions of learner;

– Development of self directed learning process;

– Development of self regulated learning process;

– Co-design of the learning pathway and process;

– Development of self-evaluation process;

– Learning challenges not learning objectives;

– Learning pathway not instructional curriculum or training program;

12


– Achievable results are not predictable a priori.

Personalization: an integrated European experienceWhat is striking, it is the diversity of organizational forms in which the personalization of the

adult education is developed in the European Partners Country. It varies essentially under a

form:

of a "pedagogical label," defined by a national charter, and implemented by different

Organizations (for example the APPs in France);

of training methods implemented in a more global offer (such as the "evening

Universities" in Germany).

A first observation can thus be made: this is not all training devices in the NVEA that would

tend towards the personalization.

This finding requires to define a strategy and a policy of the educational innovation:

either to develop localized experimentations with the risk that they remain exceptions,

without a possible extension;

or decide to change the overall supply of training, by small steps, by introducing in the

traditional educational devices the dimensions of the personalization.

That is what LEADLAB intends to do through the design of a common European framework,

supporting the introduction of the personalization dimension, to be flexibly adopted in the

different contexts and backgrounds.

That is why it is decisive to acquire the knowledge about the diffused European personalization

experience in order to design the LEADLAB model.

Finland

“Online learning services can be provided with a highly personalized approach, managed via a

Member engine which presents info, functionalities and services based on ID, memberships in

groups and clusters, usage level, and usage history. All web pages, forms, and other

presentation interfaces are built with application generating engines that enables

personalization both through relevance and access rights as well as conditionalising based on

past performance (e.g. via electronic footprints), gained assets and/or conditionalization

statements with a wide range of conditionalization options. The interactive environment

includes more than 15 engines by which different personalization features can be built. Some

of these can be both interconnected with each other as well as be interconnected to internal or

external learning services, such a LMS/VLE services” (Library Management System/Virtual

Learning Environment).

13


France

In the "best practices" area, the approach that best illustrates the LeadLab's project issues is

that of the APPs.

The personalized learning workshops (APP - Ateliers de Pédagogie Personnalisée) support all

dimensions of people, hence the choice of the term « pédagogie personnalisée » (personalized

pedagogy). They are situated in the social and professional integration field, but not

exclusively. They are for anyone, working or not. This choice has the advantage of not

developing segregation against a population suffering from social disqualification.

In its action field, this kind of device allows to develop a different relationship with learning (« I

gained confidence in the fact that I am capable of learning », say some APP's users). By

frequenting these places, they can develop a positive image of themselves become actors in

their social and professional life and develop new social relationships. Knowledge acquisition,

cognition and socialization operations are thus closely interrelated.

For more information about this approach and device please see the French contribution on

“Best practices” of April, 2010.

Germany

An example of one of the best practice organization implementing a training customizing

approach - non-formal learning: the LQW – Learner Oriented Quality in the Further Education

which is applied at Adult Education Centres (Volkshochschulen) in Germany.

The LQW is the widest spread quality management system in the further and adult education in

Germany and Austria. It was supported from 2000 -2005 by the Federal Office for Migration

and Refugee and ESF and is recognized as a renowned quality attestation procedure.

What is so particular on LQW? Education is a particular “product” – you cannot sell or buy it.

The individual ONLY can educate himself! However, education organisations can support the

education process through their services. For the result of the education process, though, the

learners themselves are responsible at a high percentage. The education organisations only

design and organize the facilitation area for them. LQW considers the learner as a central point

of the quality development procedure designed for the further education, which means that the

entire quality of the organization is focused on the learners. Notion also of “satisfying learning”

(Gelungenes Lernen).

Greece

14


In Greece, practices are limited to the fields of vocational training and continuous learning in

enterprises, that is, not in the formal education in primary and secondary school, and in the

Universities. At the same time customized training is strictly related to the use of new

technologies (Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Open and Distance Learning

(ODL) etc.). But maybe some useful elements could be found from the experiences in the

Hellenic Open University (EAP or HOU), Adult education centres (KEE), parents schools,

centres for distance lifelong learning (KEDBMAP), etc.

Italy

Despite laws and speeches, in Italy, NVEA represents a small reality where courses/training

are delivered in secondary schools or training centres. Although good or best practices are

difficult to find, some experiences or pilot projects can be relevant.

Another experience to be reported is the “@ of self-evaluation” or self-assessment which has

been experienced at different educational levels (university, post-graduate education

specialization courses…). This model developed by a group of experts in educational

processes led by Marco Guspini includes several interesting features :

- “self-assessment is a group reflection in which everyone is asked to describe his or her

own behaviour and attitude (how did I work, how did I interact and communicate with

others, what other criticalities have surfaced, etc.)” ;

- The path or levels representation;

- “The model has been experienced in several adult training courses. Particularly it worth to

describe the experience within the courses of a post graduate school of teacher training at

University by the professor Marco Guspini in the course of “Evaluation of educational

processes”. It is interesting the number of people involved in the experience: about 160

teachers. This experience shows a possible strategy that allow to personalize a training

pathway also addressed to a large number of people in a traditional course at a presence”.

- “The symbol of the @ represents just an iterative cycle of progressive improvement of the

person that reaches, at each turn of the cycle, a new level of ability, of consciousness,

knowledge, competence”.

- “The @ of self evaluation is based on an inductive approach, not didactic, nor directive.

The role of the professor is to scaffold and offer peer tutoring. During the whole life cycle of

the @ process professor with his/hers assistants (one or two) go through the groups, gives

suggestions, answers the questions, encourages participants who are less involved, makes

questions, etc. The @ process development is mainly based on a collaborative learning

(rather then cooperative) approach. It is not referable to a unique specific pedagogic

15


theory. It rather includes and matches several theoretical elements of cognitivism,

constructivism, constructionism, connectivism, interactionism”.

Other identified projects (the PEAPEDA- personalizzare l’apprendimento in ambito EDA (to

personalize Adult Learning Pathways) initiative ; the XFORMARE which is an example of an

ICT based practice ; the University web based Master: “Cinema: educare e comunicare”), could

be also useful to build the map of the competences (WP3) necessary for trainers dealing with

adult people, in the NVEA field and in a learning personalization perspective.

Spain

Training customizing in Spain seems to be mainly related to employment and vocational

dimension. However, the example of the Angel Martínez Fuertes Foundation identified as a

“best practice”, presents some interesting elements (promotion of educational, cultural,

research activities…, encouragement of human and personal development, self-control, self-

confidence…).

Switzerland

The “good practices” identified by the FDEP as programmes of basic training for adults were

rewarded by a price, during the last ten years, if they were respecting the following three

criteria as key elements of their strategies:

- education by proximity : near the practices, experiences and needs of every learner,

accessible by a large number of people, aims and means being adjusted to the cultural,

diversities of actors; education by comprehensiveness : simultaneously general, cultural,

vocational, strengthening social and technical competences in order to exercise the

citizens' rights and obligations, to ensure a sound social adaptation and find a qualified job;

- education by participation : a training system which involves learners and trainers, fostering

individual and collective self learning and self training.

In the FDEP’s website we can find the presentation and the description of some interesting

rewarded projects. For example, “La Suisse en jeu” from the “Français en jeu“ Association –

2009 FDEP’s award – is a training project (French courses) intended for migrants in precarious

socio-economic situation and aims to improve their knowledge of their environment and their

ability to be involved in the Swiss society.

16


Personalization: an integrated theoretical paradigmLEADLAB intends to design a “blended” model oriented both to personalization and self-

learning approaches within an adult (andragogic-anthropogogic) paradigm.

LEADLAB model is therefore based on three theoretical perspectives and paradigms:

- adult learning (Andragogy, Anthropogogy);

- self learning;

- Personalization.

Adkins’ model

Adkins’ model is founded on the concept that an individual by the years cumulates life

experience and this constitutes the incremental basis of further learning. Adkins says that

human behaviour is determined by a process including instinct, emotions and reason.

Consequently, it is necessary to take account of these factors to have a significant learning.

Winthrop R. Adkins, from Columbia University, has developed a learning model aiming to form

the life skills in a global perspective, involving the interior world (insight), knowledge and

behaviour of the subject who attends the guidance course. All persons continuously learn, but

while children learning is based on disciplines, adult learning is based on problems. According

to this considerations, adult learning should follow these phases:

1. stimulus: presentation of a problem, a difficult (the instinct phase);

2. evocation: discussion of the problem to identify its elements (emotional phase);

3. objective inquiry: the reaching of a conceptual awareness through dialogue and

exchange (the reason phase);

4. application: the concrete experience, in classroom and in real world situations, to

define the behaviour.

By his method, Adkins wants to allow adults learners to acquire competencies useful in the

labour market.

Gardner’s multiple intelligences

Howard Gardner, an American psychologist, is the author of the theory of multiple intelligences.

Multiple intelligences is an idea that maintains there exist many different types of "intelligences"

ascribed to human beings. In response to the question of whether or not measures of

intelligence are scientific, Gardner suggests that each individual manifests varying levels of

different intelligences, and thus each person has refined in subsequent years.

Gardner lists eight intelligences as linguistic, logic-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily

kinesthetic, naturalist, interpersonal and intrapersonal. Each intelligence has a unique

biological basis, a distinct course of development, and different expert, or "end-state,"

17


performances. At the same time, a lengthy process of education is required to transform any

raw potential into a mature social role.

This means that we can’t treat in the same way all learners: education must be different for

each person. The same thing can be taught in different ways, introducing many strategies

according to each student’s learning style and intelligence.

Victor Garcia Hoz: personalization

Victor Garcia Hoz was the first to talk about personalization in education. To personalize

means to allow learners developing their personal freedom. Attention is paid to the individual

not only as a learner, but as a protagonist of life experience too. Learning should concern all

aspects of the individual, including the affective and relational ones. Personalized education is

based on two requirements:

1. educational aims and objectives must be arranged for the personal development, with

the elements characterizing each individual (creativity, difference, originality, freedom,

autonomy, socialization, communication);

2. from the didactic side, to personalize means to organize the activities for the individual

and autonomous work of each student, who has the responsibility of his learning.

Learner is able to ri-elaborate, create, discover. In this sense, teaching is to guide and

control the autonomous learners’ activities.

Differently from Mastery Learning and individualized education, Hoz stress the importance to

differentiate the learning objectives of the courses.

Malcolm Knowles’ Andragogy

Knowles' theory of Andragogy is an attempt to develop a theory specifically for adult learning.

Knowles emphasizes that adults are self-directed and expect to take responsibility for

decisions. Adult learning programs must accommodate this fundamental aspect.

Andragogy makes the following assumptions about the design of learning:

1. Adults need to know why they need to learn something;

2. Adults need to learn experientially;

3. Adults approach learning as problem-solving;

4. Adults learn best when the topic is of immediate value.

In practical terms, Andragogy means that instruction for adults needs to focus more on the

process and less on the content being taught. Strategies such as case studies, role-playing,

simulations, and self-evaluation are most useful. Instructors adopt a role of facilitator or

18


resource rather than lecturer or grader.

Andragogy applies to any form of adult learning and has been used extensively in the design of

organizational training programs (especially for "soft skill" domains such as management

development).

Andragogy underlines the value of the adult learner and the importance of his involvement in

the process of knowledge building. Malcolm S. Knowles defines six assumptions about adult

learning:

Adults need to know the reason for learning something (Need to Know)

Experience (including error) provides the basis for learning activities (Foundation).

Adults need to be responsible for their decisions on education; involvement in the

planning and evaluation of their instruction (Self-concept).

Adults are most interested in learning subjects having immediate relevance to their

work and/or personal lives (Readiness).

Adult learning is problem-centered rather than content-oriented (Orientation).

Adults respond better to internal versus external motivators (Motivation).

ISFOL7 study “La personalizzazione dei percorsi di apprendimento e di insegnamento”8

describes the main factors for a personalized course:

The learners has a central position in the educational system;

The expected outcomes are the acquiring of competencies;

The previous acquired knowledge and skills must be recognized at the beginning of the

course;

The learner must be autonomous in the educational process;

The courses must be articulated in modules, according to educational objectives;

Learning is to be intended as self-directed learning;

A main role is played by the educational contract;

The individual interacts with the group;

A stage in enterprise must be considered.

Kolb

David A. Kolb, an American educational theorist, put his focus on experiential learning, the

individual and social change, career development, and executive and professional education.

In the early 1970s, Kolb and Ron Fry developed the Experiential Learning Model (ELM),

7 ISFOL - Istituto per lo Sviluppo della FOrmazione dei Lavoratori8 Montedoro C., (a cura di), La personalizzazione dei percorsi di apprendimento e di insegnamento. Modelli, metodi e strategie didattiche, Milano, Franco Angeli, 2001.

19


composed of four elements:

1. concrete experience;

2. observation of and reflection on that experience;

3. formation of abstract concepts based upon the reflection;

4. testing the new concepts.

These four elements are the essence of a spiral of learning that can begin with any one of the

four elements, but typically begins with a concrete experience. He named his model to

emphasize its links to ideas from John Dewey, Jean Piaget, Kurt Lewin, and others writers of

the experiential learning paradigm. His model was developed predominantly for use with adult

education, but has found widespread pedagogical implications in higher education.

Kolb is renowned in educational circles for his Learning Style Inventory (LSI). His model is built

upon the idea that learning preferences can be described using two continuums: active

experimentation-reflective observation and abstract conceptualization-concrete experience.

The result is four types of learners: convergent (active experimentation-abstract

conceptualization), accommodator (active experimentation-concrete experience), assimilator

(reflective observation-abstract conceptualization), and divergent (reflective observation-

concrete experience).

Pedagogy of contract

"The pedagogy of contract is that which organizes learning situations where there is an

agreement negotiated during a dialogue between partners who recognize as such, to achieve a

goal, whether cognitive, methodological or behavioral "(Halina Przesmycki).

In this definition, the term "learning" is interpreted broadly, it This is the objective of achieving a

knowledge or expertise, but also know-being.

Halina Przesmycki defines differentiated instruction as:

a) An individualized teaching that recognizes the student as a person with its own

representations of the training situation;

b) A variety of teaching which opposes the myth of identity model unique cultural and education

uniform.

It takes into account different learning rates, different cognitive processes in acquiring

knowledge, and psychological differences and socio-cultural students.

Through differentiated instruction, the fight against school failure and success students are

made possible through the realization of three fundamental objectives:

1. Improving the relationship taught / teachers. Differentiated instruction, through which

the teacher is more close to its individual students, leaving the field open to the

20


emergence of such emotions.

2. Enhancing the social interaction. Indeed, each student placed in a group may benefit

from a wealth of interaction with other classmates, allowing it to flourish and acquire

knowledge and sustainable know-how.

3. Learn self. The training framework of differentiated instruction is a flexible and secure,

in which students receive a scope of freedom where they have the right to choose,

decide to innovate and take responsibility. Reviews and more autonomous, more

students are creative and imaginative, which promotes their cognitive development and

facilitates their learning.

Personalization: an integrated SystemIn an Lifelong Learning System inspired to the learning personalization logic, we can suppose

an adult could have a counseling service to be oriented, introduced in and guided through a

personalized learning pathway where will find personalized courses and trainers/teachers

adopting learning personalization strategies.

In such System personalization need to be applied with the same attention to three levels:

- at a learning level: involving as key variables the competences of adult learners (self

orienting competences, learning skill set, personalization competences, self learning

attitude, previous learning experiences, previous personalized learning experiences)

and their potential area of improvement;

- at a teaching level: involving as key variables the competences of trainers of adult

learner (andragogic competences, personalization competences, attitude to apply to

himself/herself adult learning strategies being a fully autonomous lifelong learner);

- at an organizational level: involving as key variables the organizational (calendar,

courses’ time table, courses’ duration, recruitment of teachers and trainers, etc.);

managerial capability of the Institution for Adult education; quality of resources, for ex.

the disposability of professional resources such as Instructional designers, LPT,

teachers and trainers expert of adult learning, equipment, endowment, structures,

relationships with the local territory, etc.

In other term it is not possible to imagine an effective personalization model focused

exclusively on the learners attitudes or on the trainers attitudes, since both these actors

(learners and trainers) operate and interact within an educational Institution that is part of an

educational System that follows specific educational policies. Neither it is possible to refer the

personalization function only to the Learning Personalization Trainer, as a professional figure

isolated from the educational System, in such a vision the educational personalization aim for

adult learners will be inevitably doomed.

21


We can suppose the existence, within a Lifelong Learning System, of several Educational

Institutions addressed to Adults, offering different learning opportunities.

In the perspective of a personalized Lifelong Learning System these Adult Education

Institutions should have a flexible oriented organizational approach as concern the courses’

calendar, the courses’ duration and time table or the courses’ structure itself.

With specific reference to the courses, it appears decisive that their structure is designed both

according to adult learning requirements and a flexible curriculum.

These conditions will allow the LPT to orient the adult learners within the multiple training offer

and to guide the learner in the choice of courses and curricula, co-designing a personalized

learning pathway.

22


Once the adult learner will be involved within one of these courses, that represents a part of

his/hers personalized learning experience and pathway, he/she will interact with trainers

applying both Andragogic (Anthropogogic) and Personalization strategies.

Adult learners to LPT

LEADLAB Model designs an ideal framework, highlighting the core and decisive elements in

order to implement and adult educational system authentically inspired to personalization.

This ideal framework must be applied to the real national contexts and adult educational

systems, where probably there will not all the hoped features and requirements in order to

23


enact the LEADLAB model. Referring to the ideal purpose of LEADLAB framework of

personalization it will be probably necessary to identify, within the different Countries and

educational Systems, the “weak link” where to start the implementation of a personalized

educational approach, to change the overall supply of training, by small steps, by introducing in

the traditional educational devices the dimensions of the personalization.

All the variables involved at the three levels – learning, teaching, organizational – will influence

the efficacy and the depth of a personalized educational experience and its results.

Within the frameworks designed by the all the possible match of these variables in the real

educational contexts we can foresee three different levels of personalization:

Basic;

Medium;

Advanced.

At a basic level we can suppose that the personalization is referred to the best arrangement of:

– duration of the educational experience;

– educational materials;

– educational methods;

– educational models (constructivist, behaviorist, cognitivist, complex,…);

– educational communication models (one to one, one to many, many to many) and

styles (cooperative, collaborative, didactic, horizontal, hierarchic …);

– evaluation models, tools, strategies;

– educational environments;

– educational interaction: at a distance or in presence, one alone or in a

small/medium/large group;

better in keeping with the detected learning skill set, learning strategies, learning styles,

learning attitudes;

– as well the best arrangement of:

– contents;

– didactic units;

– curriculum;

– difficulty level;

– suggestions for deepening;

better in keeping with the detected learner’s priorities, motivation, learning needs, learning

request, previous knowledge, previous learning experiences, previous competences, potential

development area.

24


This level of personalization could be also computer based and entrusted to an automated

system.

At a medium level, the identity and the biography of the learner come into play next to the

specific learning features recalled in the basic level. At this level personalization is settled as a

customized educational experience, supporting the self realization of the learner, in which:

– representative biography and masterly instinct are valorized for the solution of relevant

issues or practical problems, also shared with other learners or people;

– elements of his/hers previous learning experiences, competences and knowledge

better linked with the new learning experience are recalled;

– resources brought by the learner are integrated within the pathway;

– learning effort is oriented towards an experience focused on themes and problems

significantly connected to the real life, useful and usable in the daily life.

At an advanced level, personalization is intended:

– as a gradual process of acquiring of awareness by the learner about his/hers learning

skill set and meta cognitive competences;

– as a gradual process of acquiring of autonomy in the capability of choice, as well as of

the development and co-planning of new learning experiences.

At this advanced level the organizational variables appears particularly decisive, since in order

to allow this advanced level of personalization is requested an high level of organizational

flexibility. This latter can be driven up to the re-negotiation, within the formative contract, of:

– learning challenges;

– curriculum;

– resources;

– tools;

– experiences;

– duration;

– of the group of learning and of the educational interaction;

– courses,

– etc…

At an advanced level we can indeed suppose that the learner has a good level of awareness

and autonomy and that the use of material and resources, as well as the interaction with the

actors of the learning experiences and the assessment process can influence, in a deweyian

25


transactional perspective, the development of the learning experience itself. It can happen that

the learner realizes that he/she need to include in the learning pathway something that was

excluded at the beginning, that the chosen challenges are too much high or low, that the

necessary time is more or less than the duration foreseen. Then, in a personalized perspective,

the flexibility itself can vary from a basic to an advanced level, but always according to the rules

defined in the formative contract and respecting a pedagogic rigor.

From an organizational point of view, within the described model, it is then requested also the

interaction, direct o indirect, of three professional figures:

Learning Personalization Trainer (LPT): co-plans, interacting with adult learners,

personalized learning pathways, guides, motivates, empowers the learning process9;

Instructional Designer (ID) : designs macro instructional processes, flexible curricula

and courses structures (modules, units, activities, contents, etc.) oriented to adult

learning requirements;

Trainers/Teachers: expert of contents, apply learning personalization method and

strategies within the single and specific adult courses.

Personalization: an integrated contextThe implementation of the described model must to be included in a real context with at least

three levels of engineering, again implying the Educational System, the Educational

Institutions, the Individual variables, respectively at a Macro, Meso and Micro level. In a meta

analysis, oriented to the placing of the ideal LEADLAB model within a real context, it is possible

to highlight the practical implications of these three levels as exemplified in the following table.

9 Tasks and role of the LPT are detailed in the two documents “LPT job profile” and LPT Map of competences”.

26


Personalization in term of engineering

Macro Meso Micro

Public Defining public: opening to all or to specific categories of public

Candidates recruitment: by prescribers’ recommendation or by individual approach?

Contract constructed from a learning project of the learner, from the learning profile, from the learners’ achievements, his resources and constraints.

Access to training and territory

How to access to training : home, resource spaces

Territorial distribution of resource spaces

Financial conditions for public access: free of charge?

Partnerships with agencies responsible for employment, vocational training, guidance, popular education, continuing education.

Temporal dimension: possibility to choose the dates of entry, exit and rhythms.

Places dimension : home, resources spaces

Coaching / Accompaniment Trainer status / Trades definition / Trainer financing method

Trainer positioning: facilitator, methodologist assistant, content expert, …

Possibility for the user to benefit from different functions of support: path determination (which leads to the contract), methodological support, on content acquisition, on reflective analysis.

Resources / Educational Methods Institutional Funding / Resources pooling

Institutional funding, independent resources creation, allocation of national resources / path design by resources articulation

Methods: individual use of media with coaching / participation in educational activities on a group basis

Material: diversity of functions (communication, didactic, regulation, evaluation)

GovernancePublic organization at the State level / Call for Tender / networking on the basis of an educational label

Steering Committee with localpartners / sponsors and learners

At the individual level: path self-regulation / device evaluation

At the collective level: quality control

27


Trying to summarize the several levels integrated within the design of the LEADLAB model it is

possible to recall:

An integrated meaning of personalization;

An integrated experience of personalization at an European level;

An integrated theoretical paradigm including adult education, self learning and

personalization issues;

A structured educational system addressed to adult learning and inspired to

personalization logic where professional figures (LPT, ID, Trainers/Teachers),

specialized in adult education and personalization, interacts;

An integrated context (Macro – Meso – Micro).

MODELPED

AG

OG

ICA

L FRA

MEW

OR

K

Personalization shared meaning

Personalization shared practices

Theoretical Paradigm

Learning models

Pedagogical strategies

Pedagogical Tactics

PEDA

GO

GIC

AL FR

AM

EWO

RK

Personalization shared meaning

Personalization shared practices

Theoretical Paradigm

Learning models

Pedagogical strategies

Pedagogical Tactics

ENVI

RO

NM

ENT

MAC

RO –

MES

O -

MICRO

ENVI

RO

NM

ENT

MAC

RO –

MES

O -

MICRO

AC

TOR

SRoles and tasks of the actors involved

in the personalization

processLPT – ID –

TRAINERS ADULT LEARNERS

AC

TOR

SRoles and tasks of the actors involved

in the personalization

processLPT – ID –

TRAINERS ADULT LEARNERS

Learning

outcomes

Learning

outcomes

Learners’ activities

Learners’ activities

28


Design of personalized curricula and coursesWithin the range of possible personalization stages (basic, medium, advanced), according to

the LEADLAB model, the personalization process involves both the personalization of the

whole learning pathway and the personalization of each single course combining the

personalized curriculum, where the adult learner will interact with expert trainers/teachers

adopting adult learning and personalization strategies.

LEARNING PERSONALIZATION TRAINER ADULT LEARNER

PERSONALI

ZED

PATH

PERSONALI

ZATION

PROCESS

INTERVIEW

NEEDS

ANALYSIS

INFORMATION

Who is the learnerHis previous knowledgeHis experienceHis learning style

What the learner is looking forWhat kind of course, where, how much long, what level, which strategy

Learning opportunities and resources

TO NVAE SYSTEM

Cou rse A

Co ur se

B

Mus

eu

m

cour

se

Popu

lar

Uni

vers

i

ty

Seco

nd

oppo

rtun

ity

scho

ol

So ci al

ne tw or k

….

Co-design of the learning challenges and co-planning of learner’s curriculum

29


In order to apply the personalization design, it is requested an high level of flexibility to the

Adult Educational System and to the Adult Educational Institutions. In other words curricula and

courses must be designed to be combined and eventually re-combined dynamically.

30

COURSE

RESOURCES

EVALUATION

PERSONALI

ZED

PATH

Course

A

Course

B

Museu

m

course

Popula

r

Univer

sity

Library

Second

opportunity

school

BA

CK

TO

LPT

ALIGNEMENT MODULE

EVALUATION

31


Such specific and professional design should be entrusted to the specific professional figure of

the Instructional Designer, also specialized in adult learning and personalization.

In a personalization perspective for adult education, for example, a course need to be focused

on themes and problems instead of contents and disciplines; need to adopt a situational

approach instead of theoretical approach; must include concrete tasks; must indicate a usable

application also referable to the daily life; need to be developed in a contained elapse of time

eventually articulating a complex process in modules and clusters of simpler sub-activities.

ID outlines the educational macro process and designs the courses’ pathway according to this

adult learning requirements and towards the personalization logic. On this base, for each

course, the ID will:

arrange eventual alignment module;

select activities, contents, materials, resources, media, supports;

suggest didactic methods, strategies, approaches;

indicate assessment strategies and tools;

plan course calendar and schedule;

develop course’s map, module/units.

32


INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNER

CONSIDERadult learning

requirements and personalization

perspective

CONSIDERadult learning

requirements and personalization

perspective

SELECTactivities, contents, materials, resources,

media, supports


media, supports

SUGGESTdidactic

methods, strategies,

approaches.

SUGGESTdidactic

methods, strategies,

approaches.

ARRANGEeventual

alignment module

ARRANGEeventual

alignment module

INDICATE assessment

strategies and tools

INDICATE assessment

strategies and tools


media, supports


media, supports

DEVELOPCourse map

Modules/units

DEVELOPCourse map

Modules/units

PLANcourse

calendar and schedule

PLANcourse

calendar and schedule

33


Learning and teaching activities and strategiesAccording to the proposed model that integrates the care of the adult learning features and the orientation to a personalized vision of adult learning, teaching methodologies and learning strategies, should be selected according to these requirements and to be based on:

the psychological profile of learners; the culture of adult learner; the biography of adult learner; the learner priorities.

Then learning and teaching methodologies should: include the biographic method; focus the intervention on a perspective o themes and problems, instead of contents

and disciplines; adopts a situational approach; focus the intervention on concrete tasks; promote reflection in action; valorizes and supports the autonomy of the learner; valorizes the masterly instinct of the learner; preserves a flexibility margin in the development of the educational experience.

34


Within the wide scenario of the well-known and applied strategies we try to suggest, as an example, some better suitable to the purposed approach.

Individual self-directed learning According to the shared vision of personalization the self-directed learning can be implemented

form a basic to an advanced level.

At a basic level we can suppose to involve the learner one alone in a self-instruction

experience, generically called tutorial, including individual self-directed learning activities,

supplying contents, materials and resources, according to a modular and flexible approach.

Self directed learning is oriented, at this level, for example to the customization of learning

times and rhythms, difficulty level, kind and amount of contents etc.

The tutorial can be also web based and realized by using different technological supports,

including:

a course structured on sequential units, subdivided in modules, with assessment at the

end of every module or unit;

lessons;

DIRECTED INSTRUCTIONS

Mastery lectureDrill and Practice

Didactic questionsDemonstrations

Guides for reading, listening, viewing INDIRECT LEARNING

Problem solvingCase studies

InquiryReflective discussion

Concept mapping

INDEPENDENT LEARNING

EssaysReports

HomeworkResearch projects

Assigned questions

EXPERIENTIAL LEARNING

Conducting experimentsSimulations

Field observationsRole playing

Model buildingSurveys

INTERACTIVE LEARNING

Role playingDebates

BrainstormingPeer practice

Laboratory groupsCooperative learning

35


learning Objects: elementary and reusable components structured in a learning

objective, learning contents and earnings assessment;

knowledge units: unit of reduced dimensions regarding the Learning Object, composed

of main didactic content, deepening materials, multimedia contribution and link to

external resources;

At an advanced level we can suppose to involve the learner in a highly developed process,

consisting in a progressive acquirement of mastery of the self-learning dynamics.

Here we refer to the “@ model of self-learning” 10, where the key elements are identified in the:

Reflection

Includes the reflective practices11 applied to the actions in the real contexts, generating new knowledge and new competences. Reflection is the common denominator of core components of the self-learning process such as the acquiring of awareness, the autobiography, the observation, the self-evaluation.

Self realization

Includes all the emotional and affective elements of the self-learning experience. The self-realization represents indeed the aim where all the motivational energies are addressed, inducing the strength and the constancy in the learning.

Self directionRefers to all the components of coordination and management of the learning experience, through the use of specific learning methods and strategies. It implies a self-awareness of the metacognitive competences.

Autonomy Refers to the mastery and maturity as concern the task of self learning.

Reflection, Self-realization, Self-direction, Autonomy represents the axes of the self-learning

process.

The Reflection is the starting point of this process that is characterized by the following stages:

acquirement of awareness: there are meaningful themes and problems able to activate

in the adult the perception of learning needs and to stimulate the search of pathway

that allow to meet them;

autobiography: it represents the matrix where to install the new learning experience, it

is up to the learner to identify the representative elements of his/hers previous

experience and knowledge and competences, useful for the new learning experience;

observation: it is a key element of the reflection attitude in order detect strength and

weakness and to became aware of the learning needs;

self-evaluation: it is a self regulation process allowing the learner to monitor the

development of the learning experience and verify the learning results.

10 The described approach of self learning is fully described in Beronia G., Autoformazione. Un approccio globale, Roma, learning Community, 2008.11 D.A. Schön (a cura di), Il professionaista riflessivo, Bari, Dedalo, 1993.

36


The Self-realization is the engine supporting the constant development of the self learning

process, it includes:

self-motivation as the necessary attitude to afford the inconstant fluctuation of the

learning behaviour, thanks to the volition, curiosity and intentionality;

personal responsibility as the capability of the learner to take on the consequences of

his/hers choices and to maintain a taken commitment.

The Self-direction implicates:

self-setting of the aims to be achieved;

attention and concentration, as the attitude of the learner to effectively address his/hers

tensions, emotions and efforts to the achievement of the learning aims, in an

ergonomic and strategic key of adaptation to the continuous changing of environments

and contexts;

self-planning, as the necessary attitude to organize the learning experience as concern

the timing as well as the choice of the learning strategies;

self-monitoring and comparison refer to the attitude of the learner to evaluate the

quality of the learning experience and to identify the better learning practices and

solution, also referring to the experiences of other learners.

Autonomy is the final step of the process including the acquirement of the self-studying mastery

and the complete maturity about the management of the self-learning process. At the same

time it is the new starting point of a new learning experience as the result of a self-

transformation process: the new awareness and acquired autonomy represent again a

implementation and a transformation of the previous perspective. It implicates a new

disorienting dilemma generating a new development need. Then the self-learning process can

be represented in a three-dimensional vision of a continuous and dynamic process that can

have an individual as well as a collective connotation.

Then it is possible to imagine the development of the self-learning process also within a group.

37


Group self-directed learning Activities of self directed learning could be also carried out through the collective interaction in

a group. In a learning community a personalized pathway will give to everyone the possibility to

express their own competences and biography, the acquired good practices, ideas, doubts and

solutions in order to realize a common result. The collaborative approach will allow the adult

learners to interact actively constructing new meanings and making direct experience.

The collective dimension of the self-learning process is well highlighted also through the

development of the @ of self-evaluation (previously cited within the practices of

perosanlization) that is the starting point of the @ of self learning as can be argued from the

next table:

Macro-area @ of self learning @ of self evaluation

REFLECTION

Acquiring of awareness of a needs of development and

of improvement

Focus brainstorming

Focusing on the topic skills

Autobiography

Introduction of the

representative biographies

Socialization among the

members of the group, sharing of information and

of personal interests and

attitudes

ObservationSharing of the self evaluation

culture

Creation of a learning context encouraging the self evaluation

cultureSelf evaluation

SELF REALIZATION

Self motivation

Motivation and valorisation of the group of

work

-

Personal Responsibility

Explication of previous

knowledge

Individuation of the area of

interest, common aims and

creation of the learning

community

SELF DIRECTION Self setting of of learning aims

Transformation of knowledge

in competences

First release of a collective

product by several groups of

workAttention/

38


Concentration

Self planning

Integration

Fusion of the project idea and

of previous results in a

common plan

Project planning

Project implementation

Self monitoring and e comparison Benchmarking

Improvement of the project

thanks to the practices

acquired through the

benchmarking

AUTONOMY Self studyingIdentification

of the best practices

Comparison of the realized

project with the identified best practices and

perfecting of the project

SELF TRANSFORMATION Self improvement and change

focus group of cognitive

agglutination

Achievement of self awareness of

the group of learning,

evolution of the learning

community towards the

community of practice

We propose a directory of activities and strategies supporting the development of such a

individual or collective learning process, able to allow the expression of the potentiality of the

adult learners.

Project work

During the face-to-face meetings will be planned and developed the project work. Participants

will identify a common objective. The result of the project work will be a concrete professional

project to be realized in the course lifetime. For Target 1 this project will regard the modalities

of management and animation of the Community of Learners; for Target 2 it will regard the

adaptation and/or the development of a OS software for the non profit Sector. The project work

39


is a collaborative methodology based on the active involvement of the participants, divided in

groups, for the realization of a product through learning by doing.

Workshop

The division of the participants in groups is necessary in order to start effective collaborative

activities, otherwise, it appears equally important that the entire community continues to

interact joined. The workshop represents the activity that allows to the participants to continue

to perceive themselves as a joined community, looking the work in progress of the different

groups and to being encouraged to the interaction in order to share doubts, ideas and

solutions.

The workshop is therefore a moment of comparison whose general objective is to start a style

of common work where different competences and sensibility can interact in the community.

Participants are invited to exchange their point of view and their experiences, to discuss their

ideas and initiative; all participants play a role of experts. The results from the workshop are

therefore the starting point for the deepening of the activities of every group.

40


The project work activities and workshop can be carried out with different collaborative

strategies.12

Self group assessment13

The “@” model for learning self-assessment is an attempt to use organizational learning in the

assessment field.

The idea came from the use of the Audit methodology in organizational learning to try to re-

elaborate and re-use models that already have been experimented and have proven effective.

The “@” symbol, that corresponds to the sign used bys that already have been experimented

and have proven effective. The spiral form of the @ has been chosen for the similarity with the

recursive ness and cyclicality of the described process.

A new awareness and organization gradually come forth from the facilities and systems to

which the model is applied. The self-assessment “@” is the symbol of the path that leads and

directs towards consecutive surfacing levels of internal and external aspects of knowledge and

competences, in a steady, recursive and progressive spiral growth.

This may also be an individual passage. Self-assessment brings into play the meta-cognitive

and critical reflection skills that allow verifying the efficiency of one’s own learning strategies

and, if necessary, changing them. The main self-assessment tool is the person himself/herself,

and he/she has an active and self-responsible role.

The model focuses however on the results reached by the group before those reached by a

single individual. The group assesses objective attainment and the processes implemented to

achieve them, through a qualitative and holistic meta-reflection on the strategies adopted to

attain skills and competences. Self-assessment is a group of reflection in which everyone is

asked to describe his or her own behaviour and attitude (how did I work, how did I interact and

communicate with others, what other criticalities have surfaced, etc.). Thus self-assessment

plays a central role, it deals with the communicative, emotional and social areas as well as its

contents. The goal is therefore to assess, more precisely self-assess, the work group’s efforts.

As said before, the analysis of the procedural course considers both the operational and

thematic passages and the perceptional aspect alike and is tied to individual internal checking.

Two aspects are analyzed:

contents: regarding the mandate and the specifically operative part of the group;

emotional aspect: regarding a set of tried out and experimented emotions.12

13 The @ of self evaluation has been ideated and developed by a group of experts in educational processes led by Marco Guspini, who has been adjunct professor at the Second and at the Third University of Rome, faculty of Science of Education, teaching Pedagogy of the work and Learning Psychology for 15 years. The @ Model is presented and described in Guspini M. (a cura di), Learning Audit. Autovalutazione per l’istruzione e la formazione nell’era della conoscenza, Roma, Anicia, 2003, pp. 159-166.

41


Regarding the “@”procedure, the items of the outline are all included below in order from 1 to

10.

SELF-ASSESSMENT @: PATH REPRESENTATION

1. Focus brainstorming;2. Introduction of representative biographies;3. Sharing the self-assessment philosophy;4. Skill manifestation;5. Transforming skills into competences;6. Integration;7. Project or design;8. Outside learning or benchmarking;9. Good practice identification;10. Focus group.

@ of the self assessment: the path levels

Level Definition Description

42


1

2

Focus brainstorming(focusing on the topic skills)

Introduction of representative biographies

Contents: general presentation of the laboratory and of the manner in which the shared and group activities are carried out; illustrating topics discussed during the meetings; an agreement whose final aim is to have the animators/facilitators and participants come to an understanding about their reciprocal commitments.

Contents: establishing the work groups; first meeting with the internal tutor, who has the goal and the task of guiding the group during the fine-tuning of the first mandate; members socialization, information exchange and sharing of personal aspects.

3 Sharing the self-assessment philosophy

Contents: initial moment to create an environment that fosters sharing a series of choices that involve self-assessment.Presenting the first product and comparing:

Within the group, to see if the product is considered satisfying by the components;

Outside the group, therefore comparing with other groups, to see if the product achieves a satisfactory acknowledgement with reference to the mandate and if it falls under the minimum general conditions of the other products.

4 Skill amplification

Contents: designing. To complete the mandate one must necessarily refer to even if only instinctive designing skills. The tutor’s involvement may be instrumental: he/she must guide the search for areas to create the project, divulging his/her skills and encouraging the creation of a “learning community”

5 Transforming skills into competences

Contents: actually creating the piece. Specifically, a series of skills must be at first shared, then transforming them, putting them into action, into specific competences for the mandate.

6 Integration

Contents: union of the various group pieces to assemble one document. This stage, is carried out only by the tutors in two steps:

First comparing various projects Integrating them to create only one document

that is shared by the group.

7 Project or design

Contents: completing the collective piece and presenting it to the plenary session of the groups, above all to those who did not participate in the previous stage.Reuniting all macro-group level forces, a core of competences within the project, spawning an “enlarged learning community.”

8Outside learning

orbenchmarking

Contents: fundamental support is collected from the indications given by the animators/facilitators and the material drawn from a certain number of documental sources (with intensive ICT use, that is Information and Communication Technologies) about organizing the layout of the piece to improve the collective document.

9 Good practice identification

The document is compared to the other already specifically organized documents to gauge the content and stylistic differences and to develop their potential integration.

The final focus group represents a cognitive agglutination

43


10 Cognitive agglutination Focus group

stage in which it is possible to identify the passage from the learning community to the practices community and that is from a coherent learning group to a complex group-system. The various subjects begin to reveal different aspects compared to the beginning learning stage because their cognitive perception and self-awareness start to come forth and become part of their shared experiences knowledge.

Role playing

It can help to understand how the concepts can be applied in concrete and experiment real

situations; it allows to acquire the skills to think and act in different roles and to foresee how the

other persons would behave in similar situations. It can also support the development of the

critical thought thanks to reflection, discussion and detection of shared solutions to problems.

Simulation

It’s similar to the role playing, but it is different because it is more closely correlated to the real

life; it consists in making a working task in order to develop the correlated competences. It can

be a simple discussion on a task based on complex activities.

Case study

It is the narration of situations that the student has to explore critically, or that he has to create

in an independent way. It can be different from the point of view of the form and the complexity,

and may include discussions, questions, resources. The process in which the answer is

reached is more important than the answer itself; the competences acquired concern the

decision making.

Questions to stimulate discussions

Discussion concerning course materials and contents are collaborative activities. Tutor propose

the topics and moderates the discussion asking different kinds of questions:

- demand to demonstrate something, aiming to stimulate the critical thought and the

feedback between students of a collaborative group.

- demand for clarifications: it stimulates the feedback and the metacognitive reflection.

- open questions: to stimulate the online interactions.

- linking or extension questions: help to develop the topics emerging from discussions

and to detect the links between the topics.

- hypothetical questions: are used in role playing, simulations and case studies (what

you would make if…)

44


- questions on the nexus cause-effect: used in the case studies, help to define potential

scenarios and solutions.

- questions on summary and synthesis: help the students to understand what they have

made working.

Collaborative dyads

They can represent a first bridge towards the constitution of the collaborative group: the

students who are not used to collaborative activities can familiarize with the support of a

colleague. The number of people who collaborate can increase gradually, as an example

passing from the dyad to a group of four.

Small project group

It is one of the most used collaborative forms and it allows a great involvement of participants in

the activities; students are encouraged to expand their own work and their own thought,

engaging themselves in the development of the learning issues, they have the possibility to

produce in concrete a collective product. The focus is on the collaborative dimension.

Jigsaw

It is a good method in order to speed up the development of contents: the student is asked to

become expert in a topic and to teach his peers in the group. In this way the knowledges of

everyone is recomposed in a jigsaw.

Blog

A blog (weblog) is a personal website with link, comments and messages, where readers can

add their comments. This form of communication can be realized only on the web and it is often

used to develop online communities. Blog is different from a discussion hierarchically organized

(e.g. a forum) because the contributions are not answers in the threads, but are ideas starting

from the studied materials; students can collaborate reflecting on the contents through the

brainstorming.

Virtual Teams

The activity in virtual teams helps the students to find common solutions and to engage

themselves in developing discussions; enterprises and educational organizations use the

virtual teams as integration to their activities, since they allow to improve strategic skills about

distributed work. It can be useful to create little discussion groups in simulations or in the

45


fulfilment of the project; they are used in the training courses, where the students can learn to

train and develop a team.

Debates

Debates help the students to interact and at the same time to develop critical thought and to

prepare materials in order to support their ideas. They can start from individual ideas or can be

arranged by the trainers, the tutor or the experts. In particular the discussion should cause a

debate but not a flaming; roles and guide lines must be defined in advance in order to make

possible that the communication is effective and goal-based.

Aquarium

It consists in a group of students making some activities while they are observed by other

students; the idea is to realize a kind of “watertight chamber” in which it is allowed to do

mistakes and to be criticised in a positive way. It can be a group that interacts with the tutor or

whose members interact each other while other students are observing. The observer must be

able to remain in silence and pay attention.

Learning cycles

Learning cycles are activities used in order to take advantage of the different learning styles

and to realize different forms of collaborative activities within a wider project. Cycles consist in

subdividing activities in steps, each one concerning a topic or a problem and finalized to the

development of specific skills. Once the skills are acquired it’s possible to proceed to the

following steps. With learning cycles students can scaffold each other in an independent way.

Web quest

Web quest is a structured search activity on the Internet; it can incorporate different

collaborative tasks supported by software applications.

Personalized learning environment According to the concept of personalized adult learning, the learning environment is the result

of an integrated building realized through different spaces, learning experiences, technologies

and media; a personal, wide and customizable learning space, where the learners, enhancing

their own awareness, became more and more able to furnish with contents, tools, resources

useful in order to meet the settled learning challenges.

46


The learning environment, as well as the learning process is no more developed on the base of

a standardized and packed platform, or within the classroom’s boundaries, both limited to static

functions, predisposed by someone other, and impossible to be modified by the learner.

The fulcrum of the planning process moves from the instructional agent to the learner, who

assumes a wider control of the learning process, including also the arrangement of the learning

environment or, better, the learning environments.

The learning environment is composed by several ambient, including informal contexts

dynamically interacting, where the learner can express functions of choose, scheduling, self-

assessment, identifying and development of resources. A learner-centred environment where

the learning interlocutors and the actors have the opportunity to express their potentiality, their

inclinations and attitudes, their personality and previously acquired knowledge.

The personalized concept of learning environment expands the learning perspective enriching

it with a multiplicity of actors, resources, communication forms and means, where the result is

bigger than the sum of each single component.

This wide and rich vision of what can be a learning environment includes both the concrete

learning places and the ideal learning space intended as the learning experience itself. The

implementation and building of such a vision of learning space follows the same line of the

progressive and shallow implementation of increasing levels of personalization of the learning

process and of the evaluation process, from a basic level up to an advanced level.

According to the shared meaning of personalization the adult learner is involved in the co-

planning of learning challenges, learning pathway as well the learning environment. The

enhanced capability of an adult learner to set and to organize the learning environment is one

of the results of a personalised learning experience. It can start from the simple choice of

didactic tools that can be furnish his/hers learning place, fit to his/hers detected learning

strategies, learning styles, learning attitudes, up to the inclusion of informal learning spaces or

virtual learning spaces. The learning environment is intended as active and ubiquitous; learner

builds a personalized space using all the tools and resources (human and technical) for

research of information, communication, publishing, collaborating, and acting and interacting in

the experience of learning. At the same time the whole learning environment, made of people,

resources, tools, etc. is intended as a system that helps learners take control of and manage

their own learning, to enhance the learners’ control over how they learn. This includes providing

support for learners to co-set learning challenges, manage learning process, select contents,

communicate with others. In line with the shared idea of personalization, from a technological

point of view, the arrangement of the learning environment could be entrust to a computer

based system form a basic level of adaptivity to an advanced level of adaptability concept.

47


The educational interactionsIn the perspective of a personalized learning experience the educational interactions are

oriented towards the expression of the potentialities of the adult learner and to the progressive

development of his/hers autonomy within the learning tasks.

The educational interactions are oriented to sustain the self realization of the learner, that is an

adult learner, then as the teaching and learning strategies should carefully respect the:

psychological profile of learners; culture of adult learner; biography of adult learner; learner priorities.

Then the educational interaction should at least: include the biographic method; focus the intervention on a perspective o themes and problems, instead of contents

and disciplines; adopts a situational approach; focus the intervention on concrete tasks; promote reflection in action; valorizes and supports the autonomy of the learner; valorizes the masterly instinct of the learner; preserves a flexibility margin in the development of the educational experience.

To have all these features, the educational interaction can’t be didactic, directive or deductive,

but it should encourage inductive processes of knowledge, explorative and research attitude as

well as self-orientation.

It seems to be fundamental the role of trainer or the LPT, who has the job of sustain a

development process through assiduous and continuous interactions, offering scaffolding and

well-timed feedback to the learner and motivating him/her through the construction of an

encouraging space.

In such a personalized learning model a “classical” tutoring interaction would be unsatisfactory,

because on the contrary of standard or usual courses, in such a personalized learning pathway

are blended different environments, tools and actors of the process toward an extreme

integration within a wide learning experience.

The educational interaction is aimed to guide the learners to find, analyse, select, choose, use

for their specific aims the disposable resources, both in the formal contexts and in the informal

contexts, within or outside the learning environment where a specific course is carried out.

The educational interaction is oriented to animate the learning processes, to encourage the

contextualization and the practical use of the acquired knowledge and competences within the

48


real context of action of the learners. Since a learning experience, even if personalised or self

directed, it is not necessary one alone experience, it is fundamental a custom-made training

interaction that schedules the development of valuable competencies, particularly about social

support: emotional, affective and motivational scaffolding, safeguard of a reciprocal trust

climate, stimulating collaborative activities, analysis of interpersonal relations, conflict

resolution. Then in a collective interaction tutorship and leadership could be dynamic and not

fixed ex-ante. The actors of the learning experience could be recognised, time-by-time, by the

others as expert de facto according to the specific given task. Within this group the expert or

the trainer interact as a primus inter pares participating a san animator of the learning

community.

Evaluation and assessmentThe evaluation process is a decisive and integral part of the learning personalization model. It

reflects and respects all the dimensions highlighted in the previous analysis about the ideal

framework for a model of personalization of adult learning.

Then it will apply to three levels of

learning;

teaching;

organization;

requiring the interaction of the three professional figures of

Trainer

Instructional Designer

49


Learning Personalization Trainer

involved in such a personalization inspired integrated educational system, within a:

macro

meso

micro

context.

Within each one of these levels evaluation process will be inspired to the personalized vision of

adult learning, according to the shared meaning of personalization. Consequently,

independently from levels, tools, and actors, the evaluation will involve:

all the dimensions of the learner: an evaluation inspired to the personalization

approach does not only include the cognitive dimension of the person. It has for goal

his/her development, both cognitively and emotionally, as well as social and citizen.

self-directed learning: the personalization is based on the learner self-direction, which

means that the evaluation will support the autonomous choice of the objectives of

learning (learning self-determination) and will increase the control over the terms and

means of this learning (learning regulation: place, calendar, educational approach and

material)

learner as actor and co-producer of the learning process as well of the evaluation of

learning process;

Within a personalized learning vision the trainer is a facilitator of the learning process:

the role of the teacher or of the trainer is not only to mark, but to support the learner in

evaluation of his learning.

According to the same variables implied in the personalization process at the three levels –

learning, teaching, organizational – also the evaluation could be shallow implemented from a

minimum to a maximum of self-evaluation grade. Intending for self-evaluation a tool for the

active and aware participation to the co-design of the learning pathway and of the learning

challenges.

As well as for the learning process, at a basic level we can suppose that the self-evaluation can

be referred to the test of learning skill set, learning strategies, learning styles, learning attitudes,

This level of evaluation could be also computer based and entrusted to an automated system.

As concern the involvement of the adult learner in the analysis of priorities, motivation, learning

needs, previous knowledge, previous learning experiences, previous competences, potential

development area:

50


at a basic level the adult learner could be guided to recall and become aware of the

representative elements of his/hers biography, of his/hers previous learning

experiences, competences and knowledge better linked with the new learning

experience in the perspective of the co-planning of the future learning experience;

at a medium level the adult learner could be supported to identify by him/herself the

representative elements of the his/hers biography in the perspective of the co-planning

of the future learning experience;

at an advanced level learner could be assigned to realize a self directed analysis of

his/hers biography in order to identify by him/herself the representative elements in the

perspective of the co-planning of the future learning experience.

At an advanced level the analysis of the representative biography could be realized in-group

among peers instead of in a one to one relation with the LPT or the trainer. The self-evaluation

here is intended as an advanced meta-cognitive competence, as a result of a gradually

acquired awareness by the adult learner about his/hers knowledge and competences, his/hers

own potential development area and in the learning needs analysis capability that will allow the

learner, one alone or in a group, to set by him/herself

– learning challenges;

– curriculum;

– resources;

– tools;

– experiences;

– duration;

– courses,

– etc…

Within this frame we can list some possible strategies, tools and models of evaluation suitable

for a personalized learning approach.

At the three recalled levels – learning, teaching, organization – the three professional figures of

LPT, ID and Trainer are differently involved even if under the same cultural perspective of

personalization approach.

Trainers and LPT, directly interacting with adult learners, will apply tools and strategies of

evaluation. The Trainer have previously an assessment role, LPT has previously an auditing

and monitoring role.

ID will include in the instructional design experiences and opportunities of evaluation taking

51


care that they are consistent with the personalization approach, fit with the adult learning

features and feasible within the real context of the learning experience.

The Trainer or the LPT will have the responsibility to choice the better solution according to

context and the feasible level (basic, medium, advanced) of personalization.

The monitoring and the assessment are two essential elements in the evaluation process.

Monitoring is finalized to a continuous control of the situation by the acquisition of the relevant

data. In the described model the monitoring can be referred both to the development of the

learning pathway and the achievement of the learning challenges.

Assessment of learning outputs is carried out in order to obtain a formal acknowledgment of

what it has been acquired. In a perspective of a personalized adult learning, both monitoring

and assessment promote the improvement of the performances and the development of the

personal achievement. Then evaluation tools must be administered with an approach of

negotiated assessment and with an explanation of the obtained results, to improve the learners’

awareness.

The steps of the evaluation process are:

diagnostic: carried out before the learning pathway to co-diagnose the potential

development area of the learner;

formative: is carried out during the whole learning experience and courses in order to

verify the learning processes. Operative tasks and reflection on action allow the adult

learner to check learning results, to apply additional strategies and to verify if the

learning challenges can be reached;

final: is carried out at the end of the learning experience with the purpose to evaluate if

and how the learning challenges has been met and to decide about next learning

experiences.

When evaluation is appropriately planned:

it reminds to the students that there is someone who is careful of their progresses;

clarifies which topics are more important to learn;

it addresses the efforts of the student towards some key topics;

it commits the students in activities that are appropriate to the contents;

it reveals strong points, criticality, learning styles;

it supplies a feedback for the improvement of the student 14.

Actors of evaluation

14 D. Rowntree, Designing an assessment system, http://www-iet.open.ac.uk/pp/D.G.F.Rowntree/Assessment.html

52

http://www-iet.open.ac.uk/pp/D.G.F.Rowntree/Assessment.html


In a personalized adult learning perspective, could be considered these approaches:

self-assessment: the student reflects on his learning process and on the achieved

result;

peer assessment: every member of a learning group assesses others members and

their contribution to the job of the whole group;

external-assessment: the LPT, or the trainer, or the experts, assess the achievement

of the learner or of the group;

group assessment: the group reflects on its learning process and on the achieved

results from the point of view of the social acquisition of new knowledge and from the

point of view of activated learning development dynamics.

Assessment subjects

In a personalized adult learning perspective it is important to evaluate, besides the learning

outputs, the acquisition of awareness about the learning skill set and the metacognitive

competences related to the ability to choice new learning challenges and co-design a learning

pathway.

Learning outputs are then the results of each single component (course, learning experience,

cultural travel, etc…) of a learning pathway, as well as the achievement of the settled learning

challenges through the whole learning pathway.

Learning outcomes

The assessment of learning outcomes should be carried out during the whole lifecycle of the

learning experience. Some recent assessment theories, generally called new assessment, are

focused on these methodologies and procedures:

assessment and constant monitoring of the instruction-learning process (training

assessment);

diachronic and longitudinal reading of the appraisal of product of the single

performance (rendering it thus a process assessment);

subdivision of the responsibilities of the result of the learning between trainers and

learners, in a collaborative climate;

active participation of the learners to the assessment practices (self- assessment);

involvement of the assessment in the daily practices of learning related to a specific

area.

53


ConclusionsThe LEADLAB model here described really represents an innovative perspective, integrating

cultural backgrounds, practices and theoretical paradigms, for the personalization of adult

learning at a European level.

This represents a hard challenge and requires defining a strategy and a policy of the

educational innovation both at the level of the Educational System and of the Educational

Institutions.

The implementation of such a model for the personalization of adult learning indeed requires

educational policy oriented to the personalization ideal, an organizational system able to

answer to requirements of flexibility of a personalized pathway, the recognition and training of

the innovative professional figure of the Learning Personalization Trainer, the diffusion of the

personalization culture among trainers to be trained to the use of personalization strategies for

adult learners.

Furthermore these requirements conflict with real heterogeneous contexts with a different

diffusion of the personalization culture, with a different attention to the adult learning

constraints, with a different organization of Adult education System, with a different culture of

NVAE.

What LEADLAB model tries to do is to propose a common framework to be adopted at a

European level and to be tested in the different partners’ Countries. The experimental course

will be set in order to identify the adaptation adjustments necessary for the implementation of

this framework, according to the specific requirements of each environment or Institution.

Nevertheless the highlighted constraints, it worth to test this innovative approach that shows

interesting exploitation and developing horizons, within the active aging, social inclusion of ex

detainees people, of migrants and refugees, of people with special needs, or of linguistic and

ethnic minorities.

A possible way to start the implementation of such innovation is to empower, exploit and

disseminate the existing localized experimentations, trying to find the weak point of the System

where it is simpler to start introducing the dimensions of the personalization in the existing

traditional educational devices, by small steps.

54


Main References about personalization and adult education

Italian referencesAA.VV., Progetto LAMO, Roma, Anicia, 2001.

AA. VV. I documetni del Rapporto FAURE. L’educazione in divenire, Roma, Armando, 1976.

Abate G., Del Re M. L., Aveni Casucci M. A., La terza età futura, Milano, Mursia, 1990.

Agostini M., Il formatore per adulti nelle diverse realtà lavorative, in “Professionalità”, n. 27, 1995.

Ajello A. M., Pontecorvo C., Zucchermaglio C., I contesti sociali dell’apprendimento. Acquisire conoscenze a scuola, nel lavoro, nella vita quotidiana, Milano, CEA. 1995.

Ajello A.M., La competenza, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2002.

Ajello A.M., Meghnagi S., Mastracci C., Orientare dentro e fuori la scuola, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 2000.

Alberici A. (a cura di), La parola al soggetto, Milano, Guerini e Associati, 2001.

Alberici A., L’educazione degli adulti, Roma, Carocci, 2002.

Alberici A., Serreri P., Competenze e formazione in età adulta. Il Bilancio di competenze, Roma, Monolite, 2003.

Alberici, A., Imparare sempre nella società cognitiva, Torino, Paravia, 1999.

Alberici, A., Imparare sempre nella società della conoscenza, Milano, Bruno Mondadori, 2002.

Alessandrini G., Manuale per l’esperto dei processi formativi, Roma, Carocci, 1998.

Amietta P. L., Comunicare per apprendere, Milano, Angeli, 1995.

Amietta P.L. (a cura di), I luoghi dell’apprendimento, Milano, Angeli, 2000.

Angori S., L’educazione degli adulti tra ambiguità e prospettive di sviluppo, in “Prospettiva EP”, n.2-3, 2000, pp. 11-28.

Antonietti, A., Cantoia, M., La mente che impara. Percorsi metacognitivi di apprendimento, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 2000.

Attanasio A., La formazione degli adulti nella letteratura internazionale (1990), “Osservatorio Isfol”, a. XIII, n. 2, marzo-aprile 1991, pp. 101-115.

Ausubel D.A., Educazione e processi cognitivi, Milano, Angeli,1995.

Authier M, Lévy P., Gli alberi di conoscenze. Educazione e gestione dinamica delle competenze, Milano, Feltrinelli, 2000.

Baldacci M., L’istruzione individualizzata, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1993.

Baldini E., Moroni F., Rotondi M., Nuovi alfabeti. Linguaggi e percorsi per ripensare la formazione, Milano, Angeli, 1996.

Barlacchi A. M., Adulti a scuola. I corsi serali nella istruzione professionale, in “Professionalità”, a. XI, n. 5, maggio-giugno 1991, p. 63 e ss.

Bateson G., Steps to an Ecology of the Mind, Ballatine, New York, 1972; tr. it. Verso un’ecologia della mente, Adelphi, Milano, 1976.

Batini F., Fontana A., Comunità di apprendimento. Un altro modo di imparare, Arezzo, Zona, 2003.

Bauman Z., Voglia di comunità, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2003.

55


Bauman Z., Vita liquida, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2006.

Baxter H., An Introduction to Online Communities, 2001.

Beccegato L. Santelli, “Pedagogie personalistiche: riflessioni in corso”, in Cambi Franco, Beccegato L. Santelli (a cura di), Modelli di formazione. La rete teorica del Novecento pedagogico, Torino, Utet, 2004.

Becchi M., Colasanti A.R., La promozione delle capacità personali. Teoria e prassi, Roma, CNOS/FAP, 2003.

Becchi M., Colasanti A.R., La promozione delle capacità personali. Teoria e prassi, Roma, CNOSFAP, 2003.

Bechelloni G., Processi culturali e nuovi soggetti sociali. Prospettive di educazione permanente in uno scenario mutevole, in “Educazione Permanente”, n. 2, 1990, pp. 24-38.

Beck B., Quale formazione degli adulti?, in “Professionalità”, 1995, n. 29, pp. 25-28.

Beetham H., Rewiev: developing e-learning models for the JISC Practitioner Communities, Version 2.1, February 2004.

Bélanger P., Federighi P., Analyse transnationale des politiques d'éducation et de formation des adultes: la libération difficile des forces créatrices, Hambourg, Institut de l'Unesco pour l'Education, 2001.

Bellucci A., Pero L., Organizzazione, personale e competenze, in “Sviluppo & Organizzazione”, 161, maggio-giugno 1997.

Berlini M. G., Canevaro A., Potenziali individuali di apprendimento. Le connessioni, le differenze, la ricerca partecipata, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1996.

Beronia G., Autoformazione. Un approccio globale, Roma, Learning Community, 2008.

Bertagna G., L’orientamento tra individualizzazione e personalizzazione, in “Annali dell’Istruzione, Progetto orientamento e riforma. L’indagine realizzata nella scuola italiana”, XLVIII, n. 6, Firenze, Le Monnier, 2002, p. 19 e ss.

Bertieri A. M., Papaiz C. (a cura di), L’educazione permanente tra utopia e realtà, Milano, Angeli, 1990.

Bertieri A. M., Papaiz C. (a cura di), Educazione permanente e civiltà postindustriale, Milano, Angeli, 1991.

Bion W.R., Apprendere dall’esperienza, Roma, Armando, 1972.

Blandino G., Granieri B., La disponibilità ad apprendere, Milano,Cortina, 1995.

Block J.H. (a cura di), Mastery Learning. Procedimenti scientifici di educazione individualizzata., Torino, Loescher, 1972.

Block J.H., Scuola, società e Mastery Learning. Torino, Loescher, 1977.

Bobba L., Tamborlini A., Bocca G., Transizione, orientamento, formazione permanente, “Osservatorio ISFOL”, n. 3, 1990, pp. 9-31.

Bocca G., Educazione permanente. Realtà e prospettive, Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1993.

Bocchi G.L., La formazione come costruzione di nuovi mondi, Roma-Napoli, Formez-Censis, 1993.

Boda G., Life Skill e peer education. Strategie per l’efficacia personale e collettiva, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 2001.

Bodizzoni D. (a cura di), Oltre la formazione apparente, Milano, Il Sole 24 Ore, 1984.

Bondioli A., Meghnagi S., Pagnoncelli L., Lavoro ed educazione degli adulti, Ediesse, 1991.

Bossio F., Formazione e quarta età, Roma, Anicia, 2002

Bossio F., La formazione dell’anziano, in “I problemi della pedagogia”, Roma, Anicia, a. 49, nn. 1-3, gen/giu., 2003, pp.81-107.

56


Bresciani P.G., Callini D., Personalizzare e individualizzare la formazione, in “Professionalità”, n.72, 2002.

Bresciani P.G., Callini D., Personalizzare i percorsi formativi, in “Professionalità”, n.60, 2000.

Bronfenbrenner U., Ecologia dello sviluppo umano, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1986.

Bruner J.S., La mente a più dimensioni, Bari, Laterza, 1988.

Bruscaglioni M., Il processo di apprendimento negli adulti, Collana Gli Atti, Isvor Fiat, 1996.

Bruscaglioni M., La gestione dei processi nella formazione degli adulti, Milano, Angeli, 1991.

Burza V., Formazione della persona. Il problema della democrazia, Roma, Anicia, 2003.

Butera F. (a cura di), I lavoratori della conoscenza, Milano, Angeli, 1997.

Callini D. (a cura di), Su misura. Fabbisogni di professionalità e di competenze, Milano, Angeli. 2003

Cambi F. (a cura di), Soggetto come persona. Statuto formativo e modelli attuali, Roma, Carocci, 2007,

Cambi F., L’autobiografia come metodo formativo, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2002.

Cambi F., Santelli Beccegato L. (a cura di), Modelli di formazione. La rete teorica del Novecento pedagogico, Torino, UTET, 2004.

Candy P. C., Self Direction for Lifelong Learning: a Comprehensive Guide to Theory and Practice. Foreword by S. D. Brookfield, S. Francisco, Oxford, Jossey-Bass, 1991.

Carli R., Paniccia R.M., Psicologia della formazione, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1999.

Carretta et al., Dalle risorse umane alle competenze, Milano, Angeli, 1992.

Cartoccio A., Forti D., Varchetta G., Action Learning, Milano, Unicopli, 1988.

Castagna M., La lezione nella formazione degli adulti, Milano, Angeli, 1998.

Castagna M., Progettare la formazione. Guida metodologica per la progettazione del lavoro in aula, Milano, Angeli, 1997.

Castagna M., L’analisi transazionale nella formazione degli adulti, Milano, Angeli, 2003.

Castello G., Trasmettere competenze, Milano, Angeli, 1999.

Castiglioni, M., La ricerca in educazione degli adulti: L’approccio autobiografico, Milano, Unicopli, 2002.

Catani M., Marmo C., Morgagni D., Adulti si nasce. L’educazione degli adulti tra approcci legislativi, teorici, metodologici, Milano, Angeli, 2001.

Cavalieri M.P., Continuità educativa e didattica. La formazione dell’uomo nella società complessa, Roma, Anicia, 2002.

Cede (Centro Europeo dell’Educazione), Prospettive dell’educazione degli adulti in Europa: obiettivi e strategie politiche, Roma, Armando, 1996.

Cede (Centro Europeo dell’Educazione), L’educazione in età adulta: primo rapporto nazionale, Milano, Angeli, 1996.

Cedefop, Memorandum on Lifelong Learning – Consultation: a Review of Member State and EEA Country Reports, 2001.

Ceriani A., La simulazione nei processi formativi, Milano, Angeli, 1996.

Ce.Ri.Fo.P. Centro di Ricerca per la Formazione Permanente (a cura di), Università e formazione permanente: stili e profili di formazione,. Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1995.

Ce.Ri.Fo.P., Educazione permanente ed Università, Milano, Vita e Pensiero, 1990.

57


Ceruti M., Preta L. (a cura di), Che cos’è la conoscenza, Bari, Laterza, 1990.

Chowdhury S., The Role of Affect and Cognition-Based Trust in Complex Knowledge Sharing, in “Journal of Managerial Issues”, n. 17, 2005.

Colardyn D., Le sfide della formazione professionale permanente, in “Osservatorio Isfol”, a. XIII, n. 4, luglio-agosto 1991, pp. 115-127.

Colicchi E. (a cura di), Il soggetto nella pedagogia contemporanea, Roma, Carocci, 2008.

Comitato Economico e Sociale, Parere del Comitato economico e sociale in merito al "Memorandum sulla formazione permanente", G.U. delle Comunità europee, C311, 44° anno, 7 novembre 2001.

Commissione delle Comunità europee, EUROPA 2020 Una strategia per una crescita intelligente, sostenibile e inclusive, Bruxelles, 2010.

Commissione delle Comunità europee, Educazione degli adulti: non è mai troppo tardi per apprendere, Bruxelles, 2006

Commissione delle Comunità europee, Libro Bianco. Crescita, competitività, occupazione. Le sfide e le vie da percorrere per entrare nel XXI secolo, Bruxelles, Bollettino delle Comunità europee, Supplemento 6/93, 1993.

Commissione delle Comunità europee, Libro Bianco. Insegnare e apprendere. Verso la società conoscitiva, Bruxelles, Direzione Generale XXII Istruzione, Formazione e Gioventù, Direzione Generale, Occupazione, Relazioni Industriali e Affari Sociali, 1995.

Commissione delle Comunità europee, Per un’Europa della conoscenza, Bruxelles, 1997.

Commissione delle Comunità europee, Memorandum sull’istruzione e la formazione permanente, Bruxelles, 2000.

Commissione europea, Consiglio europeo di Nizza. Conclusioni della Presidenza, 7-9 dicembre 2000.

Commissione delle Comunità europee, Realizzare uno spazio europeo dell’apprendimento permanente, Bruxelles, 2001.

Commissione europea, Consiglio europeo di Stoccolma. Conclusioni della Presidenza, 23-24 marzo 2001.

Commissione europea, Consiglio europeo di Göteborg. Conclusioni della Presidenza, 15-16 giugno 2001.

Commissione europea, Lifelong Learning Practice and Indicators, documento di lavoro, Bruxelles, 28 novembre 2001.

Conferenza sull’Educazione degli Adulti (Quinta), Dichiarazione di Amburgo sull’educazione degli adulti, 14/18 luglio 1997.

Consiglio Europeo, Risoluzione del Consiglio del 27 giugno 2002 sull’apprendimento permanente. 2002/C 163/01, pubblicata sulla G.U. delle Comunità europee del 9 luglio 2002.

Cornoldi C., Metacognizione e apprendimento, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1995.

Crozier M., La crisi dell’intelligenza, Roma, Edizioni lavoro, 1996.

Cuccurullo R., Educazione degli adulti. Linee interpretative e orientamenti, in “Prospettiva EP”, n. 2-3, 2000, pp. 47-56.

Davenport T., Working knowledge, Boston, Harvard Business School Press, 1998.

Davis A., I limiti della valutazione educativa, Roma, Anicia, 2001.

Dazzi D., La personalizzazione dell’insegnamento. La didattica tra diversità e unitarietà. Novara, De Agostini, 1997.

De Bartolomeis, F., Riflessioni intorno al sistema formativo, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2004.

58


De Geus A. P., Planning as learning, in “Harward Business Review”, March-April, 1988.

De Masi D. (a cura di), Verso la formazione post-industriale, Milano, Angeli, 1994.

De Natale, M.L., Educazione degli adulti, Brescia, La Scuola, 2001.

Delors J., Nell’educazione un tesoro, Roma, Armando, 1997.

Demetrio, D., Formazione di base degli adulti ed esperienze di orientamento, in “Scuola e Città”, a.37, n.12, dic. 1986, pp.542-547.

Demetrio, D., Bisogni scolastici ed extra scolastici degli adulti analfabeti, in “Formazione ’80”, a.1, n.1, aprile 1987, pp.14-18.

Demetrio D., L’età adulta. Teorie dell’identità e pedagogie dello sviluppo, Roma, Carocci, 1990.

Demetrio D., Tornare a crescere. L’età adulta tra persistenze e cambiamenti, Milano, Guerini e Associati, 1991.

Demetrio D., L’approccio autobiografico in educazione degli adulti, in “Scuola e Città”, a. XXXXII, n.9, settembre 1991, pp.414-20.

Demetrio D., L’educazione nella vita adulta. Per una teoria fenomenologica dei vissuti e delle origini, Roma, La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1995.

Demetrio D., Raccontarsi, Milano, Cortina, 1996.

Demetrio D., Pensare o apprendere in età adulta?, in “Skill”, n. 11, gennaio 1996, pp. 103-119.

Demetrio D., Alberici, A., Istituzioni di educazione degli adulti. 1, Il metodo autobiografico (a cura di Duccio Demetrio) , Milano, Guerini e Associati, 2002.

Demetrio D., Manuale di educazione degli adulti, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2003.

Demetrio D., Autoanalisi per non pazienti. Inquietudine e scrittura di sé, Milano, Raffaello Cortina, 2003.

Demetrio D., Ricordare a scuola. Fare memoria e didattica autobiografica, Roma-Bari, Laterza 2003.

Dewey J., Come pensiamo. Una riformulazione del rapporto fra il pensiero riflessivo e l’educazione, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1961.

Dewey J., Democrazia e educazione, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1949.

Dewey J., Esperienza e educazione, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1949.

Di Mauro M., Nuove metodologie per la formazione l’integrazione e lo sviluppo della persona, Roma, Anicia/MPI, 2001.

Ducci E., Preoccuparsi dell’educativo, Roma, Anicia, 2002.

Dunn K. e R., Programmazione individualizzata. Nuove strategie pratiche per tutti, Roma, Armando, 1984.

European Civil Society Organisations, Focus on Lifelong Learning: a Review of the Reports from Civil Society on the Consultation Process on the Commission’s Memorandum on Lifelong Learning , september 2001.

European Training Foundation, Cross Country Report. The Consultation on the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning in the Candidate Countries, november 2001.

Fabbri L., Educazione permanente: descrittori e percorsi, in “Educazione permanente”, n. 2, 1990, pp. 49-64.

Farinelli F., Meghnagi S. (a cura di), Educazione degli adulti. Politiche contrattuali, politiche istituzionali, Ediesse, 1991.

Favorini A.M., Il contratto nella formazione e nell’apprendimento: esperienze educative e didattiche con l’Analisi Transazionale, Milano, Angeli, 2004.

59


Federighi, P., “L’educazione degli adulti: misure legislative e amministrative”, in Ricerche Pedagogiche, a. 25, n. 95, apr. Giu. 1990, pp. 73-82.

Federighi, P., (a cura di), Glossario dell’Educazione degli adulti in Europa, Firenze, F&F Parretti, 2000.

Federighi P., La nuova politica nazionale nel campo dell’educazione degli adulti, in “Percorsi”, giugno 2000, pp.5-11.

Ferracuti M., Cavalieri M.P., Apprendimento e valutazione, Roma, Lucarini, 1979.

Ferri P., E-learning. Formazione, comunicazione e tecnologie digitali, Firenze, Le Monnier, 2005.

Ferri P., L’e-learning, i suoi antenati e il Complex Learning, in Nacamulli R.C.D. (a cura di), La formazione, il cemento e la rete. E-learning, management delle conoscenze e processi di sviluppo organizzativo, Milano, Etas, 2003.

Ferri P., E-learning. Formazione, comunicazione e tecnologie digitali, Firenze, Le Monnier, 2005.

Ferri P., L’e-learning, i suoi antenati e il Complex Learning, in Nacamulli R.C.D. (a cura di), La formazione, il cemento e la rete. E-learning, management delle conoscenze e processi di sviluppo organizzativo, Milano, Etas, 2003.

Festinger, A theory of cognitive dissonance, Standford University, 1957.

Fiorucci M., La mediazione culturale, Roma, Armando, 2000.

Flannery D., Applying cognitive learning theory to adult learning, San Francisco, Jossey Bass, 1993.

Flores D’Arcais G. (a cura di), Pedagogie personalistiche e/o pedagogie della persona, La Scuola, Brescia, 1994.

Fortunato I. (a cura di), Educazione degli adulti. Nuova realtà nella cultura dell’integrazione, Roma, Anicia, 2002.

Frabboni F., Dal curricolo alla programmazione, Firenze, Giunti-Lisciani, 1994.

Frey F., Teorie del curricolo, Feltrinelli, Milano, 1977.

Fumarco G., L’adulto in formazione: esperienze e problemi in sospeso, in “For”, n.31, 1997.

Gagliardi P., Quarantino L., L’impatto della formazione, Milano, Guerini, 2000.

Gagné R. M., Le condizioni dell’apprendimento, Roma, Armando, 1973.

Gallina V. (a cura di), Prospettive dell’educazione degli adulti in Europa: obiettivi e strategie politiche, Roma, Armando, 1996.

Gallina V., Lichtner M. (a cura), L’educazione in età adulta. Primo rapporto internazionale, Milano, Angeli, 1996.

Gardner H., Formae mentis. Saggio sulla pluralità dell’intelligenza, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1987.

Gardner H., Riflessioni sulle intelligenze multiple: miti da sfatare e messaggi da trasmettere, in Baldacci M., Gaspari P., Giallongo A., Marini C., Travaglini R. (a cura di), Educazione e civiltà. Studi in onore di Nando Filograsso, Roma, Anicia, 2004, pp.67-82.

Gelpi E., Educazione degli adulti. Inclusione ed esclusione, Milano, Guerini, 2000.

Goleman D., Intelligenza sociale, Milano, Rizzoli, 2006.

Goleman D., Intelligenza emotiva, Milano, Rizzoli,1999.

Gramsci A., La formazione dell’uomo, Roma, Editori Riuniti, 1967.

Granger D., Benke M., Supporting Students at Distance, in “Adult Learning”, v. 7, n.1, sep.-oct. 1995, pp.

60


22-23.

Granieri G., La società digitale, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2006.

Guerriero G.B. (a cura di), Adult education, Napoli, Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1996.

Guidolin E., Bello R. (a cura di), Educazione degli adulti ed educazione permanente nella pedagogia italiana, Padova, UPSEL Domeneghini 1991.

Guspini M.,, Funzioni e momenti della valutazione, in Pagnoncelli L., a cura di, Formazione e valutazione degli apprendimenti, Roma, Anicia, 1998, pp. 93-138.

Guspini M., Benedetti F., La didattica modulare. Un approccio sistemico e integrato, Roma, Anicia, 2000.

Guspini M., Verso il sistema integrato della formazione, in G. Alessandrini, (a cura di), Formazione e organizzazione nella scuola dell’autonomia, Milano, Guerini e Associati, 2000, pp. 135-167.

Guspini M., Processi di innovazione nei sistemi formativi di terzo livello, in G. Alessandrini, Risorse umane e new economy. Formazione e apprendimento nella società della conoscenza, Roma, Carocci, 2001, pp. 110-113.

Guspini M., Fadol. Formazione a distanza online. Rete telematica per la formazione a distanza dei formatori, in G. Alessandrini, Risorse umane e new economy. Formazione e apprendimento nella società della conoscenza, Roma, Carocci, 2001, pp. 157-164.

Guspini M., Vespa G., Progettare l’IFTS. Strumentario tecnico-pratico per il sistema integrato della formazione, Roma, Anicia, 2001.

Guspini M., et al., La progettazione dello sviluppo locale, Roma, Anicia, 2002.

Guspini M. (a cura di), Apprendere in età adulta. Contributi per la realizzazione di uno strumento pedagogico, Roma, Anicia-MIUR, 2002.

Guspini M. (a cura di), Learning Audit, Roma, Anicia, 2003.

Guspini M. (a cura di), Lo stato dell’arte sulla personalizzazione degli apprendimenti nell’Educazione degli Adulti, “Servizio Informazione Anicia”, numero monografico, dicembre 2004.

Guspini M. (a cura di), Personalizzare l’apprendimento in ambito EdA, Roma, Anicia, 2005.

Guspini M, Complex learning, Roma, Learning Community, 2008.

Harasim L., On-line education: a new domain, in Mason R.D., Kaye A.R. (eds), Mindweave: communication, computers and distance education, Oxford, Pergamon Press, 1989.

Hernandes C.A., Fresneda P.S., Main critical success factors fort he establishment and operation of virtual communities of practice, 3rd European Knowledge Management Summer School 7-12 Sept, San Sebastian, Spain, 2003.

Hoz Garcia V., L’ educazione personalizzata. Individualizzazione e socializzazione nell’insegnamento, Firenze, Le Monnier, 1982.

Hoz Garzia V., Dal fine agli obiettivi dell’educazione personalizzata, (trad. italiana, dall’edizione originale 1995), Palumbo, Palermo, 1997.

Husen, T., (1985), Educazione degli Adulti nell’anno 2000: riflessioni “futurologhe”, in “Scuola e Città”, a.36, n.1, gen 1985., pp. 40-44.

Isfol, La riflessività nella formazione: pratiche e strumenti, Roma, ISFOL, 2007.

Isfol, Innovazione, apprendimento e formazione: un’indagine empirica, Milano, Angeli, 1992.

Isfol, Glossario della didattica e della formazione, Milano, Angeli, 1992.

Isfol, Apprendimento continuo e formazione. Contributi sulle dimensioni organizzative, sociali e tecnologiche dell’apprendimento, Milano, Angeli, 1996.

61


Isfol, Il sistema degli standard formativi: unità capitalizzabili e crediti, Roma, ISFOL, 1997.

Isfol, Unità capitalizzabili e crediti formativi, Milano, Angeli, 1997.

Isfol, Unità Capitalizzabili e crediti formativi. I repertori sperimentali, Milano, Angeli, 1997.

Isfol, Unità Capitalizzabili e crediti formativi. Metodologie e strumenti di lavoro, Milano, Angeli, 1997.

Isfol, Le dimensioni metacurricolari dell’agire formativo, Milano, Angeli, 2001.

Isfol, Apprendimento di competenze strategiche. L’innovazione nei processi della conoscenza, Milano, Angeli, 2003.

Isfol, Formazione permanente: chi partecipa e chi ne è escluso. Primo Rapporto Nazionale sulla domanda, Soveria Mannelli (Cz), Rubbettino Industrie Grafiche ed. Editoriali, 2003.

Isfol, L’offerta di formazione permanente in Italia. Primo rapporto nazionale, Soveria Mannelli (Cz), Rubbettino Industrie Grafiche ed Editoriali, 2003.

Isfol, I professionisti dell’orientamento, Milano, Angeli, 2003

Isfol, L’orientamento in Europa, Milano, Angeli, 2003.

Isfol, Maturare per orientarsi. Viaggio nel mondo dell'orientamento formativo, Angeli, 2003.

Isfol, Apprendimento in età adulta. Modelli e strumenti, Roma, ISFOL, 2004.

Jarvis P., Adult and continuing education, London, Routleledge, 1995

Jarvis P., The age of learning, London, Kogan Page, 2001.

Knowles M.S., La formazione degli adulti come autobiografia, Milano, Cortina, 1996.

Knowles M.S., Quando l’adulto impara. Pedagogia e andragogia, Milano, Angeli, 1997.

Lagrasta G., Formazione degli adulti. Il metodo autobiografico, Roma, Anicia, 2003.

Lastrucci E., Valutazione diagnostica, Roma, Anicia, 2004.

Legrand L. (a cura di F. Mattei), Politiche dell’educazione, Roma, Anicia, 2000.

Lengrand P., Introduzione all'educazione permanente, Roma, Armando, 1976²

Levy P., L’intelligenza collettiva. Per un’antropologia del cyberspazio, Milano, Feltrinelli, 2002.

Libelli M., La sfida dell’apprendimento continuo, “Impresa”, n. 6, 1996, pp. 77 -81.

Lichtner M., Soggetti percorsi complessità sociale. Per una teoria dell’educazione permanente, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1990.

Ligorio B., Come si insegna, come si apprende, Roma, Carocci, 2003.

Lindemann E. C., The Meaning of Adult Education, New Republic,New York, 1926.

Lipari D., Progettazione e valutazione nei processi formativi, Roma, Edizioni Lavoro, 2002.

Maggi B. (a cura di), La formazione: esperienze a confronto, Milano, Etas libri, 1991.

Manildo, G., Progettare l’educazione degli adulti con le risorse europee, Milano, Angeli, 2002.

Maragliano R., Vertecchi B., La programmazione didattica, Roma, Editori Riuniti, 1979.

Maragliano R., Nuovo manuale di didattica multimediale, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2004.

Maragliano R. (a cura di), Pedagogie dell’e-learning, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2004.

Marchesoni N., Sistemi locali di educazione permanente, in “Formazione domani”, a.XXIII, n.s., n. 23/24, gennaio-giugno 1996, p. 133 e ss.

Mariani, A.M., Santerini, M. (a cura di), Educazione adulta: Manuale per una formazione permanente,

62


Milano, Unicopli, 2002.

Martinelli M., In gruppo si impara. Apprendimento cooperativo e personalizzazione dei processi didattici, Torino, SEI, 2004.

Martinelli M., La personalizzazione didattica, Brescia, La Scuola, 2004.

Martinoli G., Istruire non basta, Milano, Angeli, 1992.

Mason B., Dicks B., The Digital Ethnographer, in “Cybersociology”, n. 6, 1999.

Mason R., Models of Online Courses, in “ALN Magazine”, 2 (2), 1998.

Massa R. (a cura di), La clinica della formazione. Un’esperienza di ricerca, Milano, Angeli, 1999.

Mattei F., Sapere pedagogico e legittimazione educativa, Roma, Anicia, 1998.

Mattei F., Scienza Religione Filosofia. Intersezioni pedagogiche, Roma, Anicia, 2002.

McDonald D., Complex Learning Communities, Proceeding of e-Society, 2005.

McKenzie L., Adult Education and Worldview Construction, Malabar (Florida), Krieger, 1991.

Medell-Anonuevo C., Ohsako T., Mauch W., Revisiting lifelong learning for the 21st century, Hamburg, Unesco-Institute for Education, 2001

Meghnagi, S., Il curricolo nell’educazione degli adulti, Torino, Loescher Editore, 1986.

Meghnagi S. (a cura di), La competenza fra flessibilità e specializzazione, Milano, Angeli, 1998.

Meghnagi S., Conoscenza e competenza, Torino, Loescher, 1992.

Meirieu P., Méthodes pédagogiques, in Champy P., Etve C. (eds.), Dictionairre enclyclopédique de l’éducation et de la formation, Paris, Nathan, 1994.

Meyer H., Introduzione alla metodologia del curricolo, Roma, Armando editore, 1991.

Mezirow J., Apprendimento e trasformazione. Il significato dell’esperienza e il valore della riflessione nell’apprendimento degli adulti, Milano, Cortina, 2003.

Milito D., La didattica modulare, Roma, Anicia, 2001.

Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, L’educazione permanente degli adulti. Il confronto europeo e la strategia nazionale, in Studi e documenti degli Annali della Pubblica Istruzione, n. 88, Roma, Le Monnier, 1999.

MIUR, Le competenze di base degli adulti, Quaderni degli Annali dell’Istruzione, Firenze, Le Monnier, 2002.

MIUR, Le competenze di base degli adulti II, Quaderni degli Annali dell’Istruzione, Firenze, Le Monnier, 2002.

MLPS/MIUR/Conf. Pres. Reg. e P.A./ISFOL, Rapporto nazionale sul processo di consultazione relativo al Memorandum europeo sull’Istruzione e la Formazione permanente, Roma, 2001.

Mondelli G., Guida alla didattica modulare, Roma, Anicia, 2004.

Montedoro, C., (a cura di), La formazione verso il terzo millennio, Roma, Seam, 2000.

Montedoro C. (a cura di), Elementi di progettazione integrata per la formazione di qualità, Roma, Isfol, 2000.

Montedoro C. (a cura di), La personalizzazione dei percorsi di apprendimento e di insegnamento. Modelli, metodi e strategie didattiche, Roma, Isfol, 2001.

Montedoro C. (a cura di), Le dimensioni metacurricolari dell’agire formativo, Milano, Angeli, 2002.

Morelli U., Varchetta G., Cronaca della formazione manageriale in Italia 1946-1996, Milano, Angeli, 1998.

63


Morelli U., Weber C., Passione e apprendimento. Formazione intervento: teoria, metodo, esperienze, Milano, Cortina, 1996.

Morgagni E., Pepa L. (a cura di), Età adulta: il sapere come necessità. Cambiamenti e dinamiche della formazione, Milano, Guerini e Associati, 1993.

Morici R., Il Knowledge Management: approcci, soluzioni, casi, in “Sistemi e Impresa”, n. 2, Marzo 2000.

Morin E., La testa ben fatta. Riforma dell’insegnamento e riforma del pensiero, Milano, Cortina, 2000.

Morin E., I sette saperi necessari all’educazione del futuro, Milano, Cortina, 2001.

Mortari L. Apprendere dall’esperienza. Il pensare riflessivo nella formazione, Roma, Carocci, 2003.

Mottana P., Il mentore come antimaestro, Bologna, Clueb, 1996.

Munari A., Il sapere ritrovato. Conoscenza, apprendimento, formazione, Milano, Guerini e Associati, 1993.

Nicholls A. e H., Guida pratica all'elaborazione di un curricolo, Milano, Feltrinelli, 1991.

Nonaka I., Takeuchi H., The knowledge creating company, Oxford, Oxford University Press Inc., 1995.

Novak J.D., Gowin D.B., Imparando a imparare, Torino, SEI, 1989.

Nuttin J., Motivazione e prospettiva futura, Roma, LAS, 1992.

OECD-OCSE , Education at a glance, 2010

OECD-OCSE, Apprendere a tutte le età. Le politiche educative e formative per il XXI secolo,Roma, Armando editore, 1997.

Pacchiarotti P., L’educazione degli adulti come diritto, Roma, Anicia, 2003.

Pagnoncelli L., Sistema formativo e educazione degli adulti, Torino, Loescher, 1979.

Palloff R.M., Pratt K., Collaboration online. Learning together in community, San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 2005.

Pavone M., Personalizzare l’integrazione, Brescia, La Scuola, 2004.

Pellegrini Galastri D., Educazione permanente: un approccio alla formazione, “Formazione domani”, a. XXII, n. s., n. 21-22, luglio-dicembre 1995, pp. 67-69.

Pellerey M., Progettazione didattica, Torino, SEI, 1979.

Pellerey M., L'agire educativo, Roma, LAS, 1998.

Pellerey M., Educare. Manuale di pedagogia come scienza pratico-progettuale, Roma, LAS, 1999.

Pelosi G., Apprendere dalle emozioni in età adulta, “Skill”, n. 11, gennaio 1996, pp. 231-243.

Perticari P. (a cura di), Conoscenza come educazione, Milano,Franco Angeli, 1992.

Perticari P., Sclavi M. (a cura di), Il senso dell’imparare, Milano, Anabasi, 1994.

Piccardo C., Empowerment, Milano, Raffaello Cortina, 1995.

Plessi P., Teorie della valutazione e modelli operativi, Brescia, La Scuola, 2004.

Pontecorvo C., Ajello A. M., Zucchermaglio C., I contesti sociali dell’apprendimento, Milano, LED, 1995.

Preece J., Comunità online. Progettare l’usabilità, promuovere la socialità, Milano, Tecniche Nuove, 2001.

Quaglino G.P., Varchetta G., La formazione e il suo centro, Torino, Tirrenia, 1988.

Quaglino G.P., Fare formazione, Bologna, Il Mulino, 1999.

Quaglino G.P., Il processo di formazione, Milano, Angeli, 1995.

Quaglino G.P. (a cura di), Autoformazione. Autonomia e responsabilità per la formazione di sé nell’età

64


adulta, Milano, Cortina, 2004.

Ranieri M., E-learning: modelli e strategie didattiche, Trento, Erickson, 2005.

Reigeluth C.M., Instructional design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional design, Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.

Rivoltella P.C. (a cura di), E-tutor. Profilo, metodi, strumenti, Roma, Carocci, 2006.

Roberts T.S., Romm C.T., Jones D., Current practice in Web-based delivery of IT courses, paper, APWEB, 2000.

Rockwood R., Cooperative and collaborative learning, in “National Teaching and Learning Forum”, vol. 4, n. 6, part 1, 1995.

Rodriguez M.L., Orientarsi e formarsi per tutta la vita, Roma, Anicia, 2007.

Rosati L., La scoperta dell’adulto. Educare alla cittadinanza globale, Roma, Anicia, 2003.

Rosati N., Didattica modulare nelle indicazioni Nazionali per i piani personalizzati delle attività educative, Roma, Anicia, 2004.

Rotta M., Ranieri M., E-tutor: identità e competenze. Un profilo professionale per l’e-learning, Trento, Erickson, 2005.

Russo P., L'educazione permanente nell'era della globalizzazione, Milano, Franco Angeli, 2001

Salmon G., e-Moderating. The key to teaching & learning online, second edition, London, RoutledgeFalmer, 2005.

Salmon G., E-tivities, London, Routledge Falmer, 2002.

Savicky I., History of Adult Education, in ECLE, International Handbook of Adult Education, Prague, pp. 431-35, 1990.

Santoni Rugiu A., La pedagogia del consumismo (o del Letame), Roma, Anicia, 2003.

Scaglioso C., "L’educazione degli adulti alle soglie del terzo millennio" in Annali della Pubblica Istruzione, n.1/2, pp. 65-88, 2000.

Schettini D., L’educazione degli adulti, in “I problemi della pedagogia”, Roma, Anicia, a. 48, nn 4-6, lug./dic., pp. 343-355, 2002.

Schwab J.J., Lange L.H., Wilson G.C., Scriven M., La struttura della conoscenza e il curricolo, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1981.

Schwartz B., Modernizzare senza escludere. Un progetto di formazione contro l’emarginazione sociale e professionale, Roma, Anicia, 1995.

Schwartz B., De Blignieres A., Rapporto sull'educazione permanente. Documento finale presentato al Consiglio d'Europa, Roma, Editrice Sindacale Italiana, 1981.

Scurati C., La formazione permanente fra problematiche del presente e prospettive del futuro, “Vita e pensiero”, n. 9, 1990, pp. 579-586.

Selvatici A., D’Angelo, M.G., (a cura di), Il bilancio di competenze, Milano, Angeli, 1999.

Serres M., Il terzo istituto: l’educazione dell’età futura, Padova, Marsilio, 1992.

Sorge C., Gestire la conoscenza. Introduzione al knowledge management, Milano, Sperling & Kupfer, 2000.

Spadafora G., (a cura di), John Dewey. Una nuova democrazia per il XXI secolo, Roma, Anicia, 2003.

Talamo A., Zucchermaglio C., Inter@zioni. Gruppi e tecnologie, Roma, Carocci, 2003.

Trisciuzzi L., Psicologia, educazione, apprendimento, Firenze, Giunti, 1991.

65


Tyler Basic B.W., Principles of Curriculum and Instruction, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1971.

Unesco (a cura di), I documenti del rapporto Faure. L’educazione in divenire, Armando, Roma, 1976.

Unesco, Consolidated Report on the Fifth International Conference on Adult Education, 1997.

Unesco/Confintea, Adult Education. The Hamburg Declaration. The Agenda for the Future, Fifth International CONFERENCE ON ADULT EDUCATION 14-18 july 1997.

Unesco, The Right to Education. Towards Education for All Throughout Life. World Education Report, Paris, Unesco, 2000.

Varisco B.M., Portfolio. Valutare gli apprendimenti e le competenze, Roma, Carocci, 2004.

Veggetti M.S., L’apprendimento cooperativo, Roma, Carocci, 2004.

Vergani A., Casi di valutazione. Processi valutativi e azioni formative, Bologna, Il Mulino, 2004.

Vertecchi B. (a cura di), L’educazione permanente degli adulti: il confronto europeo e la strategia nazionale, in “Studi e documenti degli Annali della Pubblica Istruzione”, n. 88, 1999.

Vertecchi B. (a cura di), Una scuola per tutta la vita, Roma, La Nuova Italia Scientifica, 1991.

Vertecchi B., Formazione e curricolo, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1994.

Vertecchi B., La Torre M., Nardi E., Valutazione e istruzione individualizzata. Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1995.

Vertecchi B., Le sirene di Malthus. Pensieri sulla scuola (2001-2004), Roma, Anicia, 2004.

Visalberghi A., Pedagogia e scienze dell’educazione, Milano, Mondadori, 1978.

Visalberghi A., Insegnare ed apprendere. Un approccio evolutivo, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1988.

Vygotsky L. S., Il processo cognitivo, Torino, Boringhieri, 1980.

Warglien M., Innovazione e impresa evolutiva: processi di scoperta e apprendimento in un sistema di routines, Padova, Cedam, 1990.

Watzlawick P., Wekland J. H., Fisch, R., Change. Sulla formazione e la soluzione dei problemi, Roma, Astrolabio, 1974.

Whitfield R.C. (a cura di), Programmazione del curricolo e discipline d'insegnamento, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, 1982.

Youngs G., Ohsako T., Medell-Anonuevo C., Creative and Inclusive Strategies for Lifelong Learning: Report of International Roundtabel, Hamburg, Unesco-Institute for Education, 2001

Zonca P., Progetto e persona. Percorsi di progettualità educativa, Torino, SEI, 2004.

Finnish References‘Personalising Learning: The Opportunities presented by Technology’. Becta [2007].

Available from: http://feandskills.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=31571

‘Personalisation and Digital Technologies’. Futurelab [2005]. Available from:

http://www.futurelab.org.uk/resources/publications-reports-articles/openingeducation-

reports/Opening-Education-Report201

‘Personalised Learning? New Insights into Fostering Learning Capacity’, Järvelä, S.

[2006]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/51/37/41176687.pdf

66


‘ICT in Finnish Education: How to Scale up Best Practices?’, Lehtinen, E, M. Sinko

and K. Hakkarainen [2001]. International Journal of Educational Policy, Vol. 2 (1),

pp. 214-232.

‘Personalisation for the Information Environment (2)’. Curtis + Cartwright Consulting

[2008]. Available from:

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/amtransition/dpie2_personalis

ation_final_report.pdf

‘Personalised eLearning by Mapping Student’s Learning Style and Preference to

PELCOM Metadata’. International Journal of Emerging Technology in Learning

[2008]. Available from: http://upet.ro/annals/mechanical/pdf/2008/Annals-

Mechanical-Engineering-2008-a15.pdf

User Modelling and User-Adapted Interaction (part of the Journal of Personalisation

Research): http://www.umuai.org/

‘Towards an intelligent environment for distance learning’, Morales, R. [2009]. In:

World Journal of Educational Technology

‘A Unified Approach to Adaptive Hypermedia Personalisation and Adaptive Service

Composition’. School of Computer Science and Statistics, Trinity College Dublin.

Available from:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.102.5453&rep=rep1&type

=pdf

'Pedagogical challenges for personalisation: integrating the personal with the public

through context-driven enquiry', Deakin Crick, R. [2009]. Curriculum Journal, 20: 3,

185 — 189

‘Personalised Learning: Ambiguities in Theory and Practice’. Campbell, R.J. Robinson,

W. Neeland, J. Hewston, R. Mazzoli, I. [2007]. British Journal on Educational Studies,

Vol. 55, No. 2.

‘Personalised learning within a cultural ecological framework.’ Available from:

http://cs.mseducommunity.com/wikis/personal/personalised-learning-within-acultural-

ecological-framework.aspx

Challenge Based Learning homepage: http://ali.apple.com/cbl/

‘The State of Social Learning Today’. Jane Hart [2010].

http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/handbook/state.html

‘Grasping the TLRP nettle: Preliminary analysis and some enduring issues

surrounding the improvement of learning outcomes’. James, M., and Brown, S.

[2005]. The Curriculum Journal 16, no. 1: 7–30.

67


Finnish Educational system – background info

Education System in Finland

http://www.minedu.fi/OPM/Koulutus/koulutusjaerjestelmae/?lang=en

Why does the Finnish educations system becomes the best in the world?

http://schoolmatters.knoxnews.com/forum/topics/how-does-finlands-education

Finnish learning service providers

http://www.finpro.fi/NR/rdonlyres/1704FF79-887B-42C4-9F3B-

73D8FCA82777/13040/FLF_companies1.pdf

Introduction to Finnish Adult Education and Lifelong Learning

http://www.die-bonn.de/doks/pantzar0701.pdf

Lifelong learning in Finland

http://www2.trainingvillage.gr/download/publication/panorama/5118_en.pdf

Key competencies for lifelong learning in Finland

http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learningpolicy/

doc/natreport09/finland_en.pdf

Finnish Adult Education Association

http://www.vsy.fi/en.php

French ReferencesAvanzini Guy, L’éducation des adultes, préf. De Lucette COLIN & Rémi HESS, Paris, Anthropos, p. 182, 1996.

BERTON F., CORREIA M., MAILLEBOUIS M., LESPESSAILLES C. (éds), Initiative in-dividuelle et formation. Contributions de la recherche, état des pratiques et bibliogra-phique Paris, L’Harmattan, 2004

BESNARD Pierre, LIETARD Bernard, Que sais-je ?, La formation continue, Vendôme, PUF, 1993, 127 p.

Bibliothèque publique d’information (Paris). Colloque (2005, Paris).« Bibliothèques et autoformation : la formation tout au long de la vie : quels rôles pour les bibliothèques à l’heure du multimédia ? », Colloque organisé par la BPI le 5 dé-cembre 2005 au Centre Georges Pompidou à Paris : Bibliothèque publique d’informa-tion, 2006, 280 p.

BROUGERE Gilles, BEZILLE Hélène, De l’usage de la notion d’informel dans le champ de l’éducation, RFP, N° 158, janv., fév., mars 2007, 117-160

CARRE Philippe, L’Apprenance, Vers un nouveau rapport au savoir, Ed. Dunod, Paris, 2005, 212 p.

68


CARRE Philippe, TETARD Michel (coordonné par), Les ateliers de pédagogie person-nalisée personnalisée ou l’autoformation accompagnée en actes, L’Harmattan, Paris, 2003, 222 p.

CARRE Philippe, MOISAN André, POISSON Daniel (sous la dir. de), L’autoformation, Vendôme, PUF,1997, 276 p.

CARRE Philippe, CASPAR Pierre, Traité des sciences et des techniques de la forma-tion, Paris, Dunod, 1999

CARRE Philippe, De la motivation à la formation, Paris, l’Harmattan, 2001, 210 p.

COLIN Lucette, LE GRAND Jean-Louis (sous la dir. de), L’éducation tout au long de la vie, Paris, Economica, Anthropos, 2008, 168 p.

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES, A Memorandum on Lifelong Learning, Brussels, CEC, 2000

DANVERS Françis, 500 mots-clés pour l’éducation et la formation tout au long de la vie : 1700 ouvrages recensés, 1992-2002, préface de Charles WULF, Villeneuve d’Ascq, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion, 2003, 697 p.

DELORS Jacques, Commission internationale sur l’éducation pour le vingt et unième siècle, L’Education : Un trésor est caché dedans, Paris, Unesco, Odile Jacob, 1996, 311 p.DUMAZEDIER Joffre, Penser l’autoformation, Lyon, Chronique Sociale, 2002, 172 p.

FARIA-FORTECOËF Clarisse, Le Dif ou l’individualisation de la formation dans la so-ciété cognitive, Préface de Bernard Liétard, Collection Sciences Sociales, Ed. Le Ma-nuscrit, 2007, 315 p.

GALVANI Pascal, Quête de sens et formation : anthropologie du blason et de l’autofor-mation, Paris, Montréal, L’Harmattan, 1997, 229 p.

HAEUW Frédéric, « Individualisation et nouvelles modalités de formation : Quelles arti-culations, quel avenir ?», Actualité de la formation permanente, n° 196, Centre Inffo, mai-juin 2005, pp. 51-57

HEBER-SUFFRIN C., HEBER-SUFFRIN M., Echanger les savoirs, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1992

HEBER-SUFFRIN C., HEBER-SUFFRIN M., Le cercle des savoirs reconnus, Paris, Desclée de Brouwer, 1993

JEZEGOU Annie, La formation à distance : Enjeux, perspectives et limites de l’indivi-dualisation, Paris, l’Harmattan, 1998, 183 p.

LA LETTRE ALGORA, le bulletin des Ateliers de Pédagogie Personnalisée, Edition spéciale-N°61, inffo flash/N°654, 1er au 15 mars 2005

LE BULLETIN DES APP, Algora, mission nationale d’appui et de liaison des Ateliers de Pédagogie Personnalisée, N° 60, décembre 2004 – janvier 2005

69


Le Grand Jean-Louis « Introduction à l’Education permanente et à la formation », cours en ligne L3 Sciences de l’Education, IED Paris 8

LE MAREC Joëlle, “Les musées et bibliothèques comme espaces culturels de forma-tion : Note de synthèse”, Savoirs, N° 11, 2006, pp. 11-38

LEON Antoine, La notion d’éducation permanente : sources, promesses, ambiguïtés, L’Orientation scolaire et professionnelle, n° 3, CNAM/INETOP, 1975, pp. 217-232

LIETARD Bernard, Le Dif et les conséquences qu’il aura sur les pratiques et les poli-tiques, Conférence, CNAM (Paris), 7/12/2004

MEIRIEU Philippe, « Individualisation, différenciation, personnalisation : de l'exploration d'un champ sémantique aux paradoxes de la formation », Conférence donnée lors du colloque de l'AECSE en 1991 à Lyon. Disponible également sur le site de Philippe Meirieu : http://www.meirieu.com/

PINEAU Gaston/Marie-Michèle, Produire sa vie : autoformation et autobiographie, 1983, 419 p.

PINOT Bénédicte, Formateur APP et Autoformation, Mémoire de Master Professionnel « Ingénierie et conseil en formation », sous la direction de Hélène Bézille-Lesquoy, Université de Rouen, Département des Sciences de l’éducation, Février 2006. Dispo-nible sur le site de l’A-Graf http://www.a-graf.org/, rubrique “Textes, ouvrages, articles“/ “Textes d’étudiants“/

PREVOST Hervé, L’individualisation de la formation : autonomie et-ou socialisation, Lyon, Chronique sociale, 1994, 178 p.

Sciences Humaines, Former, Se former, Se transformer, De la formation continue au projet de vie, Trimestriel, N° 40 Hors-Série, 2003, 219 p.

SCHWARTZ Bertrand, Moderniser sans exclure, Editions La Découverte, Paris, 1994, 244 p.

SCHWARTZ Bertrand, L'Éducation demain, Paris, Aubier-Martaga, 1993SUN-MI Kim, VERRIER Christian, Le plaisir d’apprendre en ligne à l’université – Impli-cation et pédagogie, Paris, De Boeck Université, collect. Perspectives en éducation et formation, 2009

TROLLAT Anne-Françoise, MASSON Claire (sous la dir.), La formation individualisée, Conférence de consensus – Collectif de Gilly-les-Cîteaux, Dijon, Educagri, Coll. Trans-versales, 2009

TROLLAT Anne-Françoise, « La formation individualisée, Une « conférence de consensus » : comment ? pourquoi ? pourquoi faire ? », Actualité de la Formation Per-manente, n° 215, St. Denis, Centre Inffo, 2008, pp. 88-92

VANDERSPELDEN Jean, APP : Individualiser n’est pas personnaliser, ou apprendre à s’autoformer, Actualité de la Formation Permanente, N° 194, Janvier-Février 2005, St. Denis, Centre INFFO, pp. 35-43

70

http://membres.lycos.fr/autograf/

http://www.meirieu.com/


Internet resources

ANFA, Association nationale pour la Formation automobile, Individualisations : repères pour l’ap-prentissage. Disponible sur : http://www.anfa-auto.fr.

Association pour la Promotion du label APP et pour l’animation nationale du réseau des ateliers de pédagogie personnalisée. Disponible sur : http://www.app.tm.fr/.

Association des Universités Populaires de France. Disponible sur : http://www.universitepopulaire.eu/

Centre de Documentation sur la Formation et le Travail (CDFT) du CNAM : http://cdft.cnam.fr/

Centre Inffo : http://www.centre-inffo.fr/

EURYDICE, Directorate-General for Education and Culture, Non-Vocational Adult Education in Europe, Executive summary of National information on EURYBASE, Working Document, January 2007.

EURYDICE, Directorate-General for Education and Culture. EURYBASE, The information Data-base on Education Systems in Europe. [on line]. [Brussels].The Education system in France, 2007-2008. Available on: http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/eurybase_full_reports/FR_EN.pdf

EACEA, Education and Culture DG, Lifelong Learning Program, Grundtvig Project, LEADLAB – Leadling Elderly and Adult Development – LAB, WP1 – Start up, Workplan, 2009.

La Ligue de l’enseignement : http://www.laligue.org/

LAS VERGNAS Olivier, Médiations scientifiques et techniques pour l'empowerment individuel et collectif. Disponible sur : http://enviedesavoir.org/.

LAS VERGNAS Olivier, PROKHOROFF Catherine,“La cite des métiers de la Villette : un outil d’insertion professionnelle au sein d’une bibliothèque », BBF, 2009, N° 2, p. 50-55 [en ligne] http://bbf.enssib.fr/, consulté le 22 mars 2010

Office québécois de la langue française/dictionnaire terminologique. Disponible sur : www.olf.gouv.qc.ca

German References Bannach, Michael: Selbstbestimmtes Lernen, Baltmannsweiler, 2002

Beeler, Armin: Selbst ist der Schüler (Überlegungen und praktische Vorschläge zum Lernen in der Primarschule), 3. veränderte Aufl., Zug 1987

Bender, Walter: Der Wandel der Bedingungen des Lehrens und Lernens: Qualitätsmanagement. In: Grundlagen der Weiterbildung - Praxishilfen, GdW-Ph-Ergänzungslieferung Nr. 79, 5.516, Neuwied, Kriftel, Berlin: Luchterhand, S.1-16, 2008

Bönsch Manfred (Hrsg.): Selbstgesteuertes Lernen in der Schule (Praxisbeispiele aus

71

http://www.olf.gouv.qc.ca/

http://bbf.enssib.fr/

http://mapage.noos.fr/siteolv/corps_troisv2.htm

http://www.laligue.org/

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/eurybase_full_reports/FR_EN.pdf

http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/eurybase/eurybase_full_reports/FR_EN.pdf

http://www.centre-inffo.fr/

http://cdft.cnam.fr/

http://www.universitepopulaire.eu/

http://www.app.tm.fr/

http://www.anfa-auto.fr/


unterschiedlichen Schulformen), Neuwied [u. a.] 2002

Clement, Gabriele: Im Dazwischen von Testierung und Retestierung. In: Hessische Blätter für Volksbildung 3/2008, S.265-271. Franfurt: hvv-Institut GmbH,2008

Dehn, Claudia (Hrsg.) (2009): Pädagogische Qualität. Einflussfaktoren und Wirkmechanismen. Hannover 2009: ExpressumBestellung Band 15 Pädagogische Qualität Beschreibung Band 15 Pädagogische Qualität

Dehn, Claudia (Hrsg.): Raum + Lernen - Raum + Leistung. Strukturbedingungen kontinuierlicher Qualitätsentwicklung. Hannover 2008: ExpressumBestellung Band 14 Raum + Lernen Beschreibung Band 14 Raum + Lernen

Douillet, Jacques (2008): Qualifizierung des betrieblichen Ausbildungspersonals im Rahmen von LQW. In: BWP - Berufsbildung in Wissenschaft und Praxis. Zeitschrift des Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung (BIBB). 6/2008 S.28-31

Deitering, Franz: Selbstgesteuertes Lernen. Reihe Psychologie und innovatives Management. 1995. Göttingen Hogrefe 2. Auflage 2001. ISBN 3-8017-0827-6

Druhmann, Carsten: Individualisierung durch Feedback in der Weiterbildung (Arbeitsbericht Nr. 15), Augsburg: Universität Augsburg, Medienpädagogik, 2007

Eichelberger, Harald: Der Jenaplan heute, ISBN 3706513102

Erhart, Friederike; Zech, Rainer (Hrsg.) (2009): Herausforderungen meistern! Lernerorientierte Qualitätsentwicklung in Bildungsorganisationen der Wirtschaft und des Gesundheitswesens. Hannover 2009: ExpressumBestellung Band 16 Herausforderungen meistern! Beschreibung Band 16 Herausforderungen meistern!

Erhart, Maria: Selbstgesteuertes Lernen im Biologieunterricht (Entwicklung und Erprobung eines Methodenkonzepts zum Thema „Vögel“ für die 5. Jahrgangsstufe der Hauptschule mit dem Ziel der Förderung von Fach-, Methoden-, Sozial- und Selbstkompetenz), Herdecke 2005

Hartz, Stefanie: Steuerung in der Erwachsenenbildung durch LQW: Kontext- und Selbststeuerung. In: Hessische Blätter für Volksbildung 3/2008, S.220-226. Frankfurt: hvv-Institut gGmbH, 2008

Hartz, Stefanie: Steuerung in und von Organisationen der Weiterbildung durch den Qualitätsdiskurs. In: Hartz, Stefanie; Schrader, Josef (Hrsg.): Steuerung und Organisation in der Weiterbildung. Bad Heilbrunn 2008: Klinkhardt, S.251-270, 2008

Horst, Siebert: Selbstgesteuertes Lernen und Lernberatung. Neuwied: Luchterhand Verlag, 2001, 1. Auflage

Kieneke, Thomas; Schröder, Frank (Hrsg.): Qualität in der Bildungsberatung. Dokumentation zur Einführung des Lernerorientierten Qualitätstestierungsverfahrens LQW in Berliner Bildungsberatungsstellen. Berlin: zukunft im zentrum GmbH, 2008

Köck, P.: Handbuch der Schulpädagigik für Studium – Praxis – Prüfung, Donauwörth, 2000

Konrad, K. und Traub, S.: Selbstgesteuertes Lernen in Theorie und Praxis, München, 1999

Krämer, Elke: Nicht für die Katz' arbeiten: Qualität auf Dauer. Die ersten Erfahrungen der Retestierung nach LQW. In: dis.kurs. Das Magazin des Deutschen Volkshochschul-Verbandes 4-2008, S.28-30, 2008

Kremers-Lenz, Christine: Die Verknüpfung von LQW als Qualitätssicherungsprozess mit Ansätzen der Organisationsentwicklung. Qualitätskriterien für das Callcenter der Volkshochschule Berlin Mitte (City VHS) – Analyse eines Praxisbeispiels. Reihe "Erwachsenenpädagogischer Report" Band 13; Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 2008

72


Kühnapfel, Susann; LernNetz Berlin-Brandenburg e.V. (Hrsg.) (2008): Mobile Bildungsberatung - Ein Handlungsleitfaden für die Praxis. Berlin-Neokölln: Karin Kramer Verlag

Lischewski, Friedhelm; Müller, Renate: INDIVIDUALISIERTES LERNEN – MÖGLICHKEITEN UND GRENZEN IN DER SCHULPRAXIS, vorgelegte Dissertation, Dem Fachbereich Bildungswissenschaften der Universität Duisburg-Essen, 2006

Moegling, Klaus (Hrsg.): Didaktik selbstständigen Lernens (Grundlegung und Modelle für die Sekundarstufen I und II), Bad Heilbrunn 2004

Petersen, Peter : Der Kleine Jena-Plan, ISBN 3407220804

Rohde, Julia: Von der Teilnehmerorientierung zur Teilnehmerintegration. Beteiligungsmöglichkeiten von Kunden in Wirtschaft und Weiterbildung. Diplomarbeit an der Leibniz Universität Hannover, 2009

Weidemann, Wolfgang: Jenaplan-Schulen in Hessen zwischen 1945 und 1965 - eine pädagogische Aufbereitung als Beitrag zur Schuldiskussion, ISBN 3-924789-11-8.

Weinstein, C. E./Husman, J./Dierking, D.R.: Self-regulation interventions with a focus on learning strategies. In: Boekaerts, M./Pintrich, P./Zeidner, M. (Hrsg.): Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego 2000, S. 727–747

Zech, Rainer: Lernerorientierte Qualitätssicherung in der Weiterbildung. Leitfaden für die Praxis. Modellversion 3., ArtSet Forschung, Bildung, Beratung, Qualitätstestierung, Expressum-Verlag, Hannover, 2006

Zech, Rainer: Führungsqualität. Über das Management eigensinniger Organisationen. In: Erwachsenenbildung 54 (2008), Heft 3, S.127-131

Zech, Rainer (2008): Um ihrer selbst Willen gut. Wissensarbeit als Handwerk - Gedanken über gute Arbeit und Qualität. In: changeX vom 18.09.2008Zech, Rainer (2008): Gute Arbeit - Qualitätsentwicklung als Professionalisierungsstrategie der Erwachsenenbildung. In: MAGAZIN erwachsenenbildung.at, Das Fachmedium für Forschung, Praxis und Diskurs 4/2008. Online im Internet: Rainer Zech Gute ArbeitZech, Rainer (2008): Beratung und Lernen. Überlegungen zur gelungenen Beratung und zur Qualitätsentwicklung in Beratungsorganisationen. In: Kieneke, Thomas; Schröder, Frank (Hrsg.): Qualität in der Bildungsberatung. Dokumentation zur Einführung des Lernerorientierten Qualitätstestierungsverfahrens LQW in Berliner Bildungsberatungsstellen. Berlin: Zukunft im Zentrum GmbH, S.19-28

Zech, Rainer: Systemveränderung - Umbau der Erwachsenenbildung, 2008

Zech, Rainer: Handbuch Qualität in der Weiterbildung. Weinheim und Basel: Beltz, 2008 Bestellung Handbuch Qualität in der Weiterbildung; Beschreibung Handbuch Qualität in der Weiterbildung

Zech, Rainer: Selbstreflexion fördern - nicht Kontrolle ausüben! In: Weiterbildung, Ausgabe 1/2008, S.22-24, 2008

Zech, Rainer: Gelingende Bildung. Lernerorientierte Qualitätstestierung in der Weiterbildung. In: Nuissl von Rein, Ekkehard (Hrsg.): The Development of Continuing Education in the 21th Century. Hangzhou: Zhejiang University Press, S.91-97 (chinesisch), S.87-100 (deutsch), 2008.

73


Greek References

Sharan B. Merriam, Rosemary S. Caffarella, Lisa M. Baumgartner, Learning in Adulthood: A Comprehensive Guide (3rd edition), 2007.

M. Cecil Smith (Editor), Nancy DeFrates-Densch (Editor), Handbook of Research on Adult Learning and Development (1st edition), 2008.

Dorothy MacKerache, Making Sense Of Adult Learning (2nd edition), 1996.

Kokkos, A., Educating Trainers in Greece: Evaluation study of the first national Train the Trainers program, 2008.

Lintzeris P., The importance of critical reflection and rational dialogue in Jack Mezirow’s theory of Transformative Learning. 2007.

Arlin P., Cognitive development in adulthood A fifth stage?, Developmental psychology, 1975.

Kathleen Taylor, Catherine Marienau Ph.D, Morris Fiddler, Developing Adult Learners: Strategies for Teachers by, 2000.

www.inquiry.net/adult/trainer/index.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_education

This document was completed in September 2010

74

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adult_education

http://www.inquiry.net/adult/trainer/index.htm

leadlab model of personalization

Documents

adult education system

adult development labhttp

adult learnersthis project

integrated system

integrated european

integrated meaning

integrated context

main references