...
The order of the interviews with the key informants and actors is the following:
- Reference Group members:
- Ministry of Education and culture of Finland: Tomi Kytölä with his collagues
- Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment of Finland: Kari Rintanen and Teija Felt
- Partners:
- EDUFI: Erja Nokkanen, Annika Grönholm, Ulla Kauppi, Raakel Hiltunen, Minna Taivassalo, Paula Borkowski, Pauli Sutelainen and Laila Puranen
- University of Oulu: Hanni Muukkonen and Egle Gedrimiene
- Gradia: Jaana Virtanen, Hanna Rajala and Rauni Gyldén
- Associated partners representing education providers in Finland (14.3. Helsinki):
- The Oulu Region Joint Authority for Education OSAO
- Rovaniemi Municipal federation of Education Redu
- Associated partners in other EU-countries
- Die EU-Geschäftsstelle der Bezirksregierung Köln, Germany
- the Cooperation Organisation for Vocational Education, Training and the Labour Market (SBB), the Netherlands
- other countries via innoVET network (via Gradia) – meeting in March 2019
Themes and subjects to be discussed during the evaluation process:
Themes | Subjects (Topics) of Discussion | Descriptions and Definitions |
1. Strategic Level | ||
1.1. Related architectures | Can you identify and name architectures which have or should have been mentioned? |
|
1.2. Drivers | Are the identified drives valid and can you identify some not yet named drivers? | A driver represents an external or internal condition that motivates an organization to define its goals and implement the changes necessary to achieve them. |
1.3. Capabilities | How should we gain or acquire these identified capabilities? | A capability represents an ability that an active structure element, such as an organization, person, or system, possesses.
|
1.4. |
Requirements | Can you identify other requirements beside these? | A requirement represents a statement of need that must be met by the architecture. |
1.5. Leading and steering | How should we lead this kind of EU-level development based on common framework architecture? |
|
1.6. Architecture principles | Have we paid enough attention to the architecture principles? | A principle represents a qualitative statement of intent that should be met by the architecture.
|
2. |
Learner path (Business architecture level) | ||
2.1. |
Learner path | Validation of the |
Learners path | Aim: Common understanding of the EU level |
learner path | ||
2.2. (Business) Services | How should we gain these services? | A business service represents an explicitly defined exposed business behavior. |
Have we focused on right selection of development targets? Are we missing any other important development targets? | ||
3. Information | ||
3.1. Conceptual model and information flows | Discussion about the conceptual model and information flows | Aim of the discussion: common and shared understanding |
4. Implementation/realisation solutions of the services | ||
4.1. Initiatives and |
Projects | Do you already have some initiatives or projects for deploying and improving these |
kinds of services in your country or area? | |
4.2. |
Implementation models and solutions | Discussion on the implementation models of services and their principles and interoperability. Which one models should be integrated into the CompLeap mapping service? | Will the implementation of mapping services be purely EDUFI's responsibility, or will e.g. private third-party actors be involved? |
Are enough methods disclosed from a guidance point of view? | ||
5. Learning analytics | ||
5.1 |
Risk management | Can you identify any risks in this kind of use of learning analytics as |
a guidance tool for learners? | |
5.2 |
Risk management | How to prepare and control the risks? |