9.00-9.10 | Round of presentations of the Review’s attendees |
9.10-9.30 | General introduction to:
|
9.30-9.45 | Q&A no comments |
9.45-10.30 | Requirements and architecture design (WP2) what are used approaches for identifying competence needs? how are competences evaluated, is ESCO used in the background? Advice: make it more visible in the documents what were the concrete activities that you came up with this framework for the services, stakeholders contacted? coherence of the process : have stakeholder needs been collected, what has been the activities, what they have said, their feedback? And how it's been used? Which criteria were used to select these services? How is stakeholder involvement and feedback documented? Advice: show the track record of the process, the criteria, stakeholder needs collected, plans validated by references groups, what tehy have added new and how thery tooks the initial sketches, and evidenced. Description in the deliverable, user scenarios, how and what kind of feedback from reference group, how was the design changed based on it, new ideas from the defence groups. Description of the process in more detail so it can be used e.g., in Italy in a similar process. APIs? use of various data, lot of work. Where in this framework is the work that you do in the pilots? → not the entity of the framework within this project, framework is a vision? What does the right to study entail? National context details, important to highlight them, make visible the different layers. Two different concepts vision of the ecosystem, another element is the framework that every country could use, need to provide very clear indicators for it. Used as interchangaeable, but they are not, need to separate and specify. Crucial to describe the cooperation, use of ESCO and Europass and linkage to them. Requirements description, what is the process of deciding which requirements are dropped and which are advanced? Is there a way to track this, somewhere described? Learning analytics: Other target groups than teachers and students, when have they been involved, what are the plans to involve them? Paper reporting at EU?→ provide details of the conceptual review paper and the interview study, what interview question where used, documentation. Designing the visualization and getting feedback from the end-users on the prototype > a little bit late, should have been started already. If presented with detail this could be stateof-the-art , need to have more detail and test with the end-users use of the prototype. Relying on the deliverable was not enough to understand, needed to look into e-duuni, but there is a need to take key elements out of there to present the full ecosystem and teh achitecture framework. Not just explain the end-results, but also the way you got there. |
10.30-10:45 | Q&A |
10.45-11.15 | Prototype development (WP3) How user select the education competences→ where is mapped to? Identified vs unidentified, mapping free text to study profile? new, unidentified user, how to support, provide value, and "catch" such user? What is the jobs section? Concern: have the mock-up, why do you need the html, if the data is also mock-up? WP3 is late, this is a concern, what is the plan for going forward? Updating the project roadmap. With the delay, what is the plan B? What is the Beta version? Now planned to be ready in M18, if not, how is it going to affect the other activities? Is there a risk that the prototype will not be deliverd by the end of the project? Will be checked if they are achieved. Especially concerning objectives three and four. Exemplify each part of the system in the running prototype. Advice: Map which element are included in the prototype, e.g. 4 elements, why these respesent four most important, e.g. "the self-awareness", "selection of learning opportunities (including learning analytics)". The criteria links to the proposal, builds upon the elements in the exiting system (in Finland), but what is feasible in the timeframe. Clarify this role, key functionalities should be in the prototype. Results: The schematic architecture and its theoretical description and the visalized version in the beta prototype. important to combine as the output. Be applicable to some other countries, how these things here can be mapped to other countries. Describe the existing conditions, elements of the achiteture, where other potential partners can link to, provides a roadmap for other countries. What is available beyond Finland, especially associate partners? This provides also another possible criteria: Grant agreement, what is available in Finland, and what is available with teh other countries, especially teh associate partners. Agree on slide of learner plan modules slide 31 as the objective. on Deployment and evaluation (WP4) How to ensure the commitment of associate partners? The German associate partner, what kind of activities have been deployed there? Specific needs or rules, contrains, what are the chellenges related there? Is there a plan to extend the associate partner list? Also look for potential countries that have already systems in place and could serve as an early adopter. (Use the Europass network?). Commitment to deployemnet not just piloting. Roadmap: Specific activities, what kind of formal agreement, how to show they have carried out the deployment? "piloting is more feedback" deployment is something else, see Grant agreement. Deployment will have to be explained more, how an associate institution will engage with the framework, not deep needed, but willingness and work to map of existing services against the system in Compleap. An activity that another institution is able to link into the prototype. what kind of porcess tehy took and and what challesges were present. IAsking teh question is it something that could be done, what problems should be solved before actual use? A partner in the Europass network? What are the steps they need to follow? |
11:15-11.30 | Q&A |
11.30-11.45 | Coffee Break |
11:45-12.15 | Deployment and evaluation (WP4) |
12.15-12.30 | Q&A |
12.30-13.00 | Dissemination, communication, eploitation (WP5) |
13.00-13.15 | Q&A |
13:15-14.00 | Lunch Break |
14.00-14.30 | Project management |
14.30-14.45 | Q&A |
14.45-15.15 | Deliverables |
15.15-15.30 | Q&A |
15.30-15.45 | Coffee Break |
15.45-16.15 | Finance, Use of resources |
16.15-16.30 | Q&A |
16.20-16.50 | Private meeting between the Reviewers and the Project Officer – Outcome of the review |
16.50-17.00 | Feedback and recommendations from the Project Officer and the Reviewers |
Overview
Content Tools