Grundtvig Project
Leading Elderly and Adult Development – LAB
http://leadlab.euproject.org/
[email protected]
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
EUROPEAN MODEL OF PERSONALIZATION
FOR ADULT LEARNERS
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 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 ...................................................................5
WHAT IS A MODEL? .................................................................................................................................................7
THE LEADLAB MODEL..........................................................................................................................................10
WHY INTEGRATED MODEL OF PERSONALIZATION FOR ADULT LEARNERS ....................................................................10
Personalization: an integrated meaning ...................................................................................................11
Personalization: an integrated European experience..............................................................................13
Personalization: an integrated theoretical paradigm...............................................................................17
Personalization: an integrated System .....................................................................................................22
Personalization: an integrated context .....................................................................................................27
DESIGN OF PERSONALIZED CURRICULA AND COURSES .............................................................................................30
LEARNING AND TEACHING ACTIVITIES AND STRATEGIES ............................................................................................35
Individual self-directed learning ................................................................................................................36
Group self-directed learning ......................................................................................................................39
PERSONALIZED LEARNING ENVIRONMENT................................................................................................................48
THE EDUCATIONAL INTERACTIONS ..........................................................................................................................49
EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT ..............................................................................................................................51
CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................................................56
MAIN REFERENCES ABOUT PERSONALIZATION AND ADULT EDUCATION .................................................57
ITALIAN REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................57
FINNISH REFERENCES ...........................................................................................................................................69
FRENCH REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................71
GERMAN REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................................74
GREEK REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................77
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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;
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
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.
Abstract
The 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.
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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;
-
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
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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.
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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,
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:
PHILOSOPHICAL
PARADIGM
LEARNING
MODELS
PEDAGOGICAL
STRATEGIES
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
PEDAGOGICAL
TACTICS
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
LEARNING
ENVIRONMENT
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
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
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.
1
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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.
Ivi, p. 131.
C. M. Reigeluth (eds.), Instructional design theories and models: a new paradigm of instructional
design, Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.
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.
3
4
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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 learners
LEAD-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;
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
5. it consequently implicates the interaction of three professional figures within a
personalization inspired integrated educational system:

Trainer;

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 meaning
The 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.
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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”.
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
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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;
– Achievable results are not predictable a priori.
Personalization: an integrated European experience
What 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.
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – 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).
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.
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
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;
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
-
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
“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
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, selfconfidence…).
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
Personalization: an integrated theoretical paradigm
LEADLAB intends to design a “blended” model oriented both to personalization and selflearning 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
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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,"
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
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
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).
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP

WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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),
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
ISFOL - Istituto per lo Sviluppo della FOrmazione dei Lavoratori
Montedoro C., (a cura di), La personalizzazione dei percorsi di apprendimento e di insegnamento. Modelli,
metodi e strategie didattiche, Milano, Franco Angeli, 2001.
7
8
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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 observationconcrete 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
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,
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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 System
In 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.
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
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
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;
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
better in keeping with the detected learner’s priorities, motivation, learning needs, learning
request, previous knowledge, previous learning experiences, previous competences, potential
development area.
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,
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
– 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
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 context
The 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”.
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
Personalization in term
of engineering
Public
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Macro
Meso
Micro
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.
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.
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.
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
Defining public: opening to all or to
specific categories of public
How to access to training : home,
resource spaces
Access to training and
territory
Territorial distribution of resource spaces
Places dimension : home, resources spaces
Financial conditions for public access:
free of charge?
Coaching /
Accompaniment
Resources / Educational
Methods
Governance
Public organization at the State level /
Call for Tender / networking on the basis
of an educational label
Steering Committee with local
partners / sponsors and learners
Material: diversity of functions (communication,
didactic, regulation, evaluation)
At the individual level: path self-regulation / device
evaluation
At the collective level: quality control
28
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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).
MODEL
PEDAGOGICAL FRAMEWORK
Personalization shared meaning
Personalization shared practices
Theoretical Paradigm
ENVIRONMENT
MACRO – MESO - MICRO
ACTORS
Roles and tasks of the actors
involved in the personalization
process
LPT – ID – TRAINERS ADULT
LEARNERS
Learning models
Pedagogical strategies
Learners’ activities
Pedagogical Tactics
Learning outcomes
29
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Design of personalized curricula and courses
Within 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
PERSONALIZATION PROCESS
INTERVIEW
NEEDS ANALYSIS
INFORMATION
PERSONALIZED PATH
Who is the learner
His previous knowledge
His experience
His learning style
What the learner is looking
for
What kind of course, where,
how much long, what level,
which strategy
Learning opportunities and
resources
Co-design of the learning
challenges and co-planning
of learner’s curriculum
30
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
TO NVAE
SYSTEM
Museum
Popular
course
University
Course B
Social network
Course A
Second
….
opportunity
school
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.
31
PERSONALIZED PATH
Course A
Popular
Museum
University
course
Second
opportunity
Library
Course B
school
ALIGNEMENT MODULE
RESOURCES
E
V
A
L
U
A
BACK
T
TO
I
LPT
O
N
COURSE
EVALUATION
32
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
33
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
INSTRUCTIONAL DESIGNER
SUGGEST
INDICATE
didactic methods,
strategies,
approaches.
assessment
strategies and
tools
CONSIDER
SELECT
adult learning
requirements and
personalization
perspective
ARRANGE
activities,
contents,
materials,
resources,
eventual
alignment
module
SELECT
PLAN
course
activities,
calendar
contents,
and schedule
materials,
resources,
DEVELOP
Course map
Modules/units
34
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Learning and teaching activities and strategies
According 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.
35
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
DIRECTED
INSTRUCTIONS
Mastery lecture
Drill and Practice
Didactic questions
Demonstrations
Guides for reading,
listening, viewing
INTERACTIVE
LEARNING
Role playing
Debates
Brainstorming
Peer practice
Laboratory groups
Cooperative learning
INDIRECT LEARNING
Problem solving
Case studies
Inquiry
Reflective discussion
Concept mapping
INDEPENDENT
LEARNING
EXPERIENTIAL
LEARNING
Essays
Reports
Homework
Research projects
Assigned questions
Conducting
experiments
Simulations
Field observations
Role playing
Model building
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:
36
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP

WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
a course structured on sequential units, subdivided in modules, with assessment at the
end of every module or unit;

lessons;

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 selfevaluation.
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 direction
Refers 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;
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.
10
37
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP

WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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 selftransformation 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.
38
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Then it is possible to imagine the development of the self-learning process also within a group.
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
Acquiring of
awareness of a needs
of development and
of improvement
REFLECTION
Autobiography
@ of self evaluation
Focus
brainstorming
Focusing on the
topic skills
Introduction of
the
representative
biographies
Socialization
among the
members of the
group, sharing of
information and
of personal
interests and
attitudes
Sharing of the
self evaluation
culture
Creation of a
learning context
encouraging the
self evaluation
culture
Observation
Self evaluation
39
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
Self motivation
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Motivation and
valorisation of
the group of
work
-
Explication of
previous
knowledge
Individuation of
the area of
interest, common
aims and
creation of the
learning
community
Transformation
of knowledge
in
competences
First release of a
collective
product by
several groups of
work
Integration
Fusion of the
project idea and
of previous
results in a
common plan
Project
planning
Project
implementation
Benchmarking
Improvement of
the project
thanks to the
practices
acquired through
the
benchmarking
Identification
of the best
practices
Comparison of
the realized
project with the
identified best
practices and
perfecting of the
project
focus group of
cognitive
agglutination
Achievement of
self awareness of
the group of
learning,
evolution of the
learning
community
towards the
community of
SELF REALIZATION
Personal
Responsibility
Self setting of of
learning aims
Attention/
Concentration
SELF DIRECTION
Self planning
Self monitoring and e
comparison
AUTONOMY
SELF TRANSFORMATION
Self studying
Self improvement and
change
40
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
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.
41
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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 reelaborate 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.
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.
13
42
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
Regarding the “@”procedure, the items of the outline are all included below in order from 1 to
10.
SELF-ASSESSMENT @: PATH REPRESENTATION
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Focus brainstorming;
Introduction of representative biographies;
Sharing the self-assessment philosophy;
Skill manifestation;
Transforming skills into competences;
Integration;
Project or design;
Outside learning or benchmarking;
43
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
9. Good practice identification;
10. Focus group.
@ of the self assessment: the path levels
Level
Definition
Description
1
Focus
brainstorming
(focusing on the
topic skills)
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.
2
3
Introduction of
representative
biographies
Sharing the selfassessment
philosophy
4
Skill amplification
5
Transforming
skills into
competences
6
7
Integration
Project or design
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.
Contents: initial moment to create an environment that
fosters sharing a series of choices that involve selfassessment.
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.
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”
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.
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.
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.”
Contents: fundamental support is collected from the
indications given by the animators/facilitators and the
44
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
8
9
10
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Outside learning
or
benchmarking
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.
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.
Cognitive
agglutination
Focus group
The final focus group represents a cognitive agglutination
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 groupsystem. 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:
45
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
-
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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…)
-
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
46
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
(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
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.
47
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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, selfassessment, 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 coplanning 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
48
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
The educational interactions
In 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.
49
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
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.
50
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Evaluation and assessment
The 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

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.
51
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP

WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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:

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.
52
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
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.
53
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
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;
14
D.
Rowntree,
Designing
iet.open.ac.uk/pp/D.G.F.Rowntree/Assessment.html
an
assessment
system,
http://www-
54
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP

WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
55
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Conclusions
The 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.
56
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Main References about personalization and adult
education
Italian references
AA.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.
57
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Batini F., Fontana A., Comunità di apprendimento. Un altro modo di imparare, Arezzo, Zona, 2003.
Bauman Z., Voglia di comunità, Roma-Bari, Laterza, 2003.
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.
58
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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,
59
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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.
60
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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.
61
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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. 4964.
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.
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.
62
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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.
63
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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.
64
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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,
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.
65
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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
66
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
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.
67
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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.
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.
68
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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/openingeducationreports/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
‘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
69
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
‘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/AnnalsMechanical-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-aculturalecological-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.
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
70
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Finnish learning service providers
http://www.finpro.fi/NR/rdonlyres/1704FF79-887B-42C4-9F3B73D8FCA82777/13040/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 References
Avanzini 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
individuelle et formation. Contributions de la recherche, état des pratiques et
bibliographique 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
décembre 2005 au Centre Georges Pompidou à Paris : Bibliothèque publique
d’information, 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.
CARRE Philippe, TETARD Michel (coordonné par), Les ateliers de pédagogie
personnalisée 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.
71
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
CARRE Philippe, CASPAR Pierre, Traité des sciences et des techniques de la
formation, 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
société cognitive, Préface de Bernard Liétard, Collection Sciences Sociales, Ed. Le
Manuscrit, 2007, 315 p.
GALVANI Pascal, Quête de sens et formation : anthropologie du blason et de
l’autoformation, Paris, Montréal, L’Harmattan, 1997, 229 p.
HAEUW Frédéric, « Individualisation et nouvelles modalités de formation : Quelles
articulations, 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’individualisation, 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
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
formation : Note de synthèse”, Savoirs, N° 11, 2006, pp. 11-38
72
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
politiques, 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.
Disponible 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, 1993
SUN-MI Kim, VERRIER Christian, Le plaisir d’apprendre en ligne à l’université –
Implication 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.
Transversales, 2009
TROLLAT Anne-Françoise, « La formation individualisée, Une « conférence de
consensus » : comment ? pourquoi ? pourquoi faire ? », Actualité de la Formation
Permanente, 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
Internet resources
ANFA, Association nationale pour la Formation automobile, Individualisations : repères pour
l’apprentissage. Disponible sur : http://www.anfa-auto.fr.
73
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
http://www.universitepopulaire.eu/
Populaires
de
France.
Disponible
sur :
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
Database 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-PhErgänzungslieferung Nr. 79, 5.516, Neuwied, Kriftel, Berlin: Luchterhand, S.1-16, 2008
Bönsch Manfred (Hrsg.): Selbstgesteuertes Lernen in der Schule (Praxisbeispiele aus
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.
74
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
Hannover 2009: ExpressumBestellung Band 15 Pädagogische Qualität
Band 15 Pädagogische Qualität
Beschreibung
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: hvvInstitut 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
Kühnapfel, Susann; LernNetz Berlin-Brandenburg e.V. (Hrsg.) (2008): Mobile Bildungsberatung
- Ein Handlungsleitfaden für die Praxis. Berlin-Neokölln: Karin Kramer Verlag
75
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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 selfregulation. 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.
76
LEADLAB – Leading Elderly and Adult Development - LAB
Reference: 502057-LLP-1-2009-1-IT-GRUNDTVIG-GMP
WP4 – LEADLAB MODEL
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
77