1

METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS HARMONISATION

1. SOURCE METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS

Community Service Learning (CSL) is the methodology applied by CONECTA JOVEN in Spain, and is aimed to maximize the development of individuals’

potential and their active participation to society.

At the beginning of CSL we situate the works of William James and John Dewey. James was inspired by this pedagogical procedure to substitute military

service by a peaceful aim and a civic education. It is no exaggeration to say that the source of the CSL is a clear desire to make a civics-oriented the values of

peace and non-military service to the community. As for Dewey, his contribution is epistemological, and pedagogical: activity with an aim of social benefit.

First, CSL is an activity that is well known as it should assume the definition of a problem, its study by various ways, the development of proposed solution

and finally, implementation and evaluation of proposals.

Secondly, an associated activity, what it mean is that it's made collectively and not as a result of the action of an isolated person. Individual efforts must be

added to carry out participatory projects, civic and effective.

Finally, an activity for a social benefit, therefore intended to increase welfare community and therefore open to solidarity.

CSL (in Catalan “aprenentatge servei”) is an educational initiative which combines learning with community service in a single well-articulated project. The

participants are trained while working on real needs in their community in order to make it better. Service-learning is, therefore, an educational project

with a social purpose.

Within this particular framework, the Community Service-Learning Promotion Centre (in Catalan “Centre Promotor d'Aprenentatge Servei”) is a base for

generating initiatives and different procedures with the aim of facilitating and reinforcing the CSL projects. It is made up of different institutions and

organisations which offer a public service while working independently from the Administration, with the objective of consolidating the public perception of

CSL as one of innovation and educational quality. Its main goal is to promote the study, dissemination and development of projects combining learning and

community service.

2

Participatory and Appreciative Action and Reflection (PAAR)

“The label ‘participatory and appreciative action and reflection’ (PAAR) is new and was first used by Ghaye (2005, 2008). We use it here to describe what we suggest is a necessary development from more conventional forms of action research (AR) and from participatory action research (PAR) to a more explicitly ‘appreciative’ research style. PAAR synthesizes the best practices of action research (AR) and participatory action research (PAR) by adding a third and new dimension called appreciative intelligence. Like its forebears, PAAR is a systematic and rigorous style of democratic research concerned with developing practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes. PAAR brings together action and reflection, with the participation of a range of stakeholders, in order to identify and amplify current achievements and to produce practical solutions in misalignments between values and actions. We ground PAAR in a view of the generation of knowledge informed by constructivism, critical realism, structuration theory, pragmatism and humanism. It is not simply about change. It is more about improvement and sustaining success by building on aspects of the positive present. We would argue that PAAR may be regarded as a kind of third generation action research. One fundamental way of distinguishing between AR, PAR and PAAR is by the nature of the key questions that each process asks. Some examples are shown in Table 1.

Some common ‘threads’ implicit in Table 1 and which are relevant to AR, PAR and PAAR are:

who decides which form of research is appropriate?

who participates and who is left out?

whose problem, question or success is it?

from whose perspective and which perspectives are left out?

who decides what’s important to reflect upon and to action?

whose reality is expressed, in what ways and why and whose is left out?

who can access and use what is learnt and who cannot?

3

who benefits and in what ways and who does not?”1

Therefore, PAAR is interventionist in kind and works with people, in an ethical way, to improve particular situations, processes and livelihoods. PAAR draws

a sharp distinction between change and improvement. Not all change is improvement. PAAR is a form of intentional action to improve something.

PAAR is a strengths-based methodology. It co-creates, with those involved, strength-enhancing interventions based upon an understanding of the root

causes of success and achievement, rather than of problems and failures.

PAAR draws upon the processes associated with developing and using three types of ‘intelligence’. They are (1) Appreciative (2) Social (3) Emotional

intelligences.

1 Ghaye, Tony, Melander-Wikman, Anita, Kisare, Mosi, Chambers, Philip, Bergmark, Ulrika, Kostenius, Catrine and Lillyman, Sue (2008), 'Participatory and appreciative action and

reflection (PAAR) - democratizing reflective practices', Reflective Practice,9:4,362 — 363. Article available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940802475827

4

Previous kinds of action research (AR) were ‘lacking’ in three fundamental ways. (1) The interventions were based upon acknowledging, and then trying to

solve, problems (2) Traditional AR failed to recognise that we don’t learn about success, achievement and fulfil lment by studying failure, mistakes and

frustration (3) AR lacked an explicit acknowledgment of the value and centrality, to any improvement effort, of building participant ‘positivity’, and

elevating positive emotions, in order to for those involved to have enough (a) physical (b) mental (c) emotional (d) spiritual energy to be resilient and

innovative in a context of change.

PAAR builds over the “we”. The “we”-perspective is an operationalisation of the second PAAR pillar (“appreciation”) and is an improvement from AR to PAR

(as described above). And it is a very practical way of designing learning content, as from the PAAR-perspective learning material should aim to be designed

from a “we” perspective? PAR includes the ‘we’, like PAAR, but is still focused on problems/deficits.

PAAR adds the notion of appreciative intelligence into the AR mix thus transforming the ‘we’ into a ‘we’ that starts the improvement/betterment process

from identifying strengths/successes, the root causes of them and how to amplify them (building positivity), THEN goes on into the ‘generative 2nd

question which is all about what needs to stop and what the ‘we’ needs to start doing to improve a thing, process, system etc.

5

2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

ELEMENTS # CSL # PAAR HARMONISATION

Pillars

1 Experiential Learning and Community Service Action

1 Space (how we make it, take it and shape it)

Following PAAR plot, we can think on the following pillars for the

communication situations between elderly and young people:

1. Space (PAAR) or Environment (CSL) are crucial dimensions

already considered by both didactical approaches. “Space” refers to

the concrete working/ learning place (e.g. the telecentre), while

“Environment” is a broader place which includes the “space” (e.g.

the neighborhood). All didactical materials should reflect on the

(physical/virtual /perceptual) space where the communication is

taking place in, and provide solutions adapted to each space.

2. Regarding Appreciation, the question “How far are you feeling

strengthened by this participation/ useful for society?” could be

formulated by C.J. as well, and to both target groups.

3. Both didactical settings already attempt to Empower the

participants to feel more active and ‘in control’ of their own

learning.

4. Both methodologies already support and encourage Participation

with their didactical approaches. But a specific challenge for this

participation to take place in this project is that each generational

group appreciates the “lessons” (knowledge, values, competences)

that they can learn from the other generation.

5. The Ethics perspective: both didactical settings build on ethical

values, which are mutually compatible. They both should address

2 Appreciation (how Participation strengthens not weakens us and helps us to use and develop our strengths)

2 Education for Citizenship (Civic, Ethic, Pro-social and Emotional Education, with a view to Personal Engagement)

3 Empowerment (how we feel, think and can do different and better things)

4 Participation (how the physical, virtual and perceptual Spaces effect the kind and quality of interaction and participation)

3 Centre and Environment (Equal Opportunities, Inter-generational exchange, Social Cohesion, Living together)

5 Ethics (are we acting ethically and doing social work?)

6

the questions “are we working ethically?”, “is this training aiming at

something ‘good’?”, “who benefits?” (for the elderly, the benefit is

less clear and needs to be more developed)

In those elements that are already developed in both methodologies

(e.g. participation, empowerment, ethics) there is an opportunity to

learn from each other about their conceptions and implementation

in order to enrich each side.

Effects

1 Improvement of Youth formation

Continuous Improvement

Community Service-oriented Action, Reflection and Learning Collaborative process of committed actions and reflective learning for personal and community development

2 Improvement of communication

1 Improving the situation

3 Personal development 2 Improving the process

4 Engagement 3 Improving what we do

5 Emotional education 4 Improve where we work/live

Actions

1 Experience 1 Linking action and reflection-upon-action

Learning by reflectively experiencing (CSL does by learning and learns by doing, PAAR acts and reflects to turn negative into positive) 2 Participation 2 Strengthening

3 Cooperation 3 Flip-it action

Consolidated methodology

CSL Community Service Learning

PAAR Participatory and Appreciative Action and Reflection

ILBES Intergenerational Learning in Blended Environments and Spaces This is a first attempt to build a common methodological framework without forcing the two methodologies together into some kind of unhappy 'marriage'. We identified two elements where whatever methodology we produce it should fit in: 1) intergenerational learning and 2) the spatial dimension, which in PAAR is the physical space where the workshop takes place while in CONECTA JOVEN is the environment, which combines the spatial dimension of the telecentre and its surroundings with the wider online space.

7

3. PARTNERS’ METHODOLOGIES

ATTRIBUTE CSL PAAR HARMONISATION

Aim

(1) Education in Values (ethical + emotional) through Experiential learning + Community service action,

(2) To maximise own potential development and active integration into society

The PAAR message is about: (1) building positivity, optimism and

resilience, in individuals, groups and communities by fully utilising our appreciative intelligence. Some outcomes of this is that people are more able and willing to embrace change and improvement, are more creative and prepared to take 'risks'.

(2) working supportively, with each other, to improve particular situations.

It aims to

(1) Appreciate: developing the

appreciative gaze “looking at the practice”

(2) Imagine: reframing “look

at the ‘problems’ differently”

(3) Design: building practical wisdom “thinking”

In order to (4) Act (better): action “do”

Both methodologies aim to empower individuals to improve

themselves and the community where they live. They also use

similar terminology (even if interpretations may vary).

However, each one proceeds in a different way.

The main divergence was found in the initial questions each

methodology asks:

- CSL starts from a problem previously identified by training

designers (e.g. “There is a lack of engagement of the Youth:

how can we solve this problem?”); its approach is rather

reactive and problem-solving oriented.

- PAAR does not start from a pre-conceived problem but from

the appreciation of the strengths of a situation and builds on

that (e.g. “How can we increase and sustain social participation

by the Youth?”).

While appreciate, imagine and design are central in PAAR, CSL

starts by identifying and evaluating the needs of the

environment (community), to further imagine solutions and

design a tailored project, which is the first action of an CSL

facilitator. In PAAR, instead, solutions are expected to be

collaboratively built from the strengths of the participants (see

the reflection about “we” more in advance). This leads to a

possible divergence between CSL (“starting from a problem”) and

PAAR (“what is going especially well?”).

8

To harmonise both, CSL approach can be considered the project layer

(since eScouts effectively starts from a problem to be tackled), while

PAAR can offer means to find solutions, as it is focused on the

positive elements: the strengths of participants. In other words,

while starting from a problem could lead to become locked into

problem-finding and problem-solving as the only strategies to begin

any change, betterment or improvement process (which is deficit-

based thinking), PAAR’s strengths-based thinking could help to start

focusing on engaging in a conversation about what people can do

and wish to do, by identifying, using and developing their strengths,

gifts and talents.

On the other hand, in all “action-based” methodologies there is a

tension between the individual and group dimensions. Thus, it is

proposed to (a) carefully define who the ‘I’ and ‘we’ are (b) To be

open to the need to oscillate between the ‘I’ and the ‘we’ action

when appropriate. Enabling this ‘movement’ is crucial and

problematic sometimes, but is preferred to a dichotomist thinking

(either “I” or “we”). The harmonised methodologies should work out

how to amplify both the individual and collective strengths. However,

change/improvement might be achieved and sustained if it

represents collective, rather than individual actions/views. For this

reason, group/collective reflection (done publically, rigorously and

systematically) rather than self-reflection (only) should be promoted

(as PAAR already does).

Guiding Values

(1) Autonomy (2) Empathy (3) Active Citizenship (4) Sustainability (5) Cooperation (6) Participation (7) Inter-generational exchange

(1) Knowing (2) Relating (3) Acting (4) Organising TO (5) Enhancing human flourishing

Both methodologies share positive values guiding their training in order to make individuals better persons, with an ethical sense and more engaged with the development of their groups, organizations or societies of reference.

9

Target Groups

In Conecta Joven, CSL is applied to the training of young people (15-19 years old) to become digital literacy trainers of adults in telecentres, libraries, civic centres, residences, etc.

PAAR is an inclusive approach and has been used in different socio-cultural contexts with different groups, among which Elderly. In relationship with Elderly and ICT, PAAR was used in a learning project on the use of mobile technology for caring purposes

- Youth profile: "People between 16 and 25 years who are active Internet users, willing to engage in social/intergenerational voluntary work as digital trainers of the Elderly, and to prepare themselves to join the labour market and assume the responsibilities of the adult life”

- Elderly profile: "People over 55 years who are retired from the labour market or who have been made redundant and therefore excluded from the labour market, and are willing to learn digital competences”, a few of which need also to be “willing to engage in social/intergenerational voluntary work as mentors of the Youth in their path to work and adult life”

Main Processes

Community service learning, fieldwork in/with the environment, interest-oriented approach, time for reflection and for leisure (sport, free playing, etc)

There is a well-defined 5 steps/20 activities path which structures the Process:

(1) Preparation of the facilitator/s

1.1 Analysis of group and each individual

1.2 Analysis of needs, opportunities and transitions

1.3 Formal conditions of curriculum

1.4 Planning the project

(1) SPACE: in communication situations (elderly-young), “space” should be considered and reflected by the didactical approach. All didactical materials should reflect on the space that the communication is taking place in and provide solutions for different spaces.

(2) PARTICIPATION: implement participatory elements between elderly and young in didactical approaches

(3) APPRECIATION: Implement the question “How far are you feeling strengthened by this participation and using your gifts and talents?”

(4) EMPOWERMENT: didactical settings should try to

Regarding the training path, CSL is more focused on the training (with a view to satisfy already identified needs of the community), while PAAR is more focused on the follow-on act (better).

Reflecting on the different training instances of eSCOUTS, there is consensus on valuing:

- the use of R-cards developed by RL to evaluate each training session in order to improve learning for the following session (this requires studying if it could be useful to the project).

- CSL-based Conecta Joven training curriculum and consolidated experience running it.

Additionally, as eSCOUTS is aimed to produce some kind of impact at Community level, both methodologies are encouraged to take seriously into account the “territorial” & “environmental” dimensions, e.g.:

- Considering each territory needs from the very beginning, even for local awareness raising activities designed to attract potential participants (e.g. communication to potential LSOs in

10

(2) Planning with the group 2.1 Motivation and context

analysis 2.2 Project definition 2.3 Work organisation 2.4 Reflection: lessons learnt

from the planning process

(3) Execution with the group 3.1 Execution of service 3.2 Context relations 3.3 Registration, communication

and dissemination 3.4 Reflection: lessons learnt

from the execution process

(4) Evaluation with the group 4.1 Balance of service results 4.2 Reflection and final balance

of lessons learnt 4.3 Future projections and

perspectives 4.4 Celebration

(5) Evaluation of the facilitator 5.1 Evaluation of the group and

each individual 5.2 Evaluation of the networking

with the participating organisations

5.3 Evaluation of experience gathered with CSL

5.4 Self-evaluation of the

empower the participants to feel more active and powerful

(5) ETHICS: didactical settings should address the questions “are we working ethically?” and “is this training aiming at something ‘good’?” Answer the question “who benefits?”

Le Marche, Italy)

- Adapting the contents to each territory where the project intervenes, taking into account the specificities of each local context (e.g. expected participation of a number of young people with migrant/ethnic minority background in Spanish pilot)

- Linking “civic engagement” goal with the features and needs of the local context or environment. Even when both methodologies state their interest to promote this dimension, it does not emerges clearly from the available documentation how “civic engagement” can be promoted in relationship with the problematic of young and elderly population in each territory. CONECTA JOVEN pursues to make people be aware of the reality where they live in order to get it better, but awareness does not necessarily lead to a “civic engagement” expressed in a (better) action.

During Barcelona’s meeting, an Intergenerational Learning Circle diagram which connects all the expected training activities was drafted. It will be improved inside the Methodological group and then shared with the rest of partners before/during Dortmund’s meeting (July 2011).

11

facilitator

Impact

On the trainees:

(1) Educational: increased cognitive skills, motivation, performance and school retention

(2) Civic: improved political, civic and social understanding; increased engagement in public and social affairs and voluntary commitment to community service

(3) Vocational and professional: increased awareness of vocational options and better preparation for the job market (including own skills and ethical issues)

(4) Ethical and moral: broader viewpoints and perspectives, readiness to act ethically

(5) Social: better ability to work in teams and / or with others

On the trainers: improved leadership, self-esteem, resiliency

PAAR assess Impact in 5 ways, depending on the particular method PAAR uses. Asking positive questions lead to:

(1) Release positive vocabularies: it re-focus the attention away from problems and towards possibilities for action

(2) Help us valuing others: it enables us to appreciate others value and perspective

(3) Foster good relations: it invites to reflect upon their practice and to think on own core values and commitments, facilitating the connection with others.

(4) Help building a sense of “community”: it creates a context of empathy, care and mutual affirmation

(5) Generates social innovation: It builds positivity which, in turn, enables individuals and groups to broaden the way they (normally) think and act

IMPACT as reported by Esplai and RL seems to be more of qualitative nature. However, an effort to define Quantitative indicators and measure them is necessary to be done during the Design of the training paths (WP4-5) in order to demonstrate the short-term and long-term contribution of this project to its direct and indirect beneficiaries (young and elderly participants, eFacilitators, local stakeholder organisations, project partners) and to the objectives of the Lifelong Learning programme.

As for the evaluation of that Impact, the MEANS model will be adopted for its evaluation by L’Apis (WP10). The Ex-ante Evaluation deliverable defines the variables and indicators to measure in Section 4. The Quality notion and dimensions/variables /indicators, particularly inside its tables (p.21-23).

During discussions in Barcelona, the need of distinguishing between Impact, Outputs and Outcomes emerged. A clarifying document was produced, which is distributed separately. It consolidates the definitions used by the MEANS model together with other partner’s contributions.

Good Practices

CONECTA JOVEN www.conectajoven.net

MyHealth@Age

Reflect-OR Project

eSCOUTS (we hope so!!)

12

4. TRAINING COURSE SESSIONS

“Conecta Joven” (inspired in CSL)

Training path (Steps/Activities) PAAR methodology Training path (Questions)

HARMONISATION

Pre-training: Encouraging participation in “connected youth” Encourage participation Make a brief diagnosis of the group & community Explain the project

Pre-training 1. Who decides which form of participation

is appropriate? 2. Who participates and who is left out? 3. Whose problem, question or success is it? 4. From whose perspective and which

perspectives are left out? 5. Who decides what’s important to reflect

upon and to take action on? 6. Whose reality is expressed, in what ways

and why and whose is left out? 7. Who can access and use what is learnt

and who cannot? 8. Who benefits and in what ways and who

does not?

The challenge for the harmonisation process is twofold. (1) To understand the development, values, principles and processes associated with each approach (2) To try to retain the integrity of each approach yet taking the ‘best’ from each to achieve eScouts project goals.

At the initial stage of eScouts, there is an already developed Conecta Joven training path structured in terms of Steps and Activities. With PAAR there is a set of basic Questions guiding the learning process, and four concrete steps formulated in PAAR’s big ‘R’ diagram.

Being PAAR more of socio-psychological nature, its structuring into concrete “blended” training steps that are clear enough to be transmitted to partners who are not familiar with the methodology, requires a major effort.

While applying/informing blended learning with PAAR is an innovation (as PAAR has not worked on-line and digital as it has been developed with face-to-face interaction and inter-relationships in mind), applying the basic PAAR principles to Conecta Joven would be a good way to get a well-based framework for blended learning.

Additionally, the project aim asks for Web 2.0/social media implementation to support the production of user generated

1. Facilitating contact/meeting between young people Meet the comrades Join the group Increase confidence

1. What’s successful right now?

(Appreciate)

13

2. The Digital Divide To demonstrate the effects of the digital divide Meet our potential to decrease the digital divide society Knowing the tools

2. What do we need to change to make a

better future?

(Imagine)

content. eScouts should try to empower young and elderly people to create their content online. “Content” in this case is not only digital text, picture and video, but “communication” at all. This represents a challenge even for Esplai, as they would enlarge their training resources towards user generated content, incorporating more interactive applications (e.g. forums, wikis) and competences (e.g. facilitation of forum, motivation).

In practical terms, there is a need of agreement between Esplai and RL particularly regarding “HOW” the activities are shaped by combining face-to-face and internet-mediated training/mentoring sessions (i.e. which classroom and online tools will be used -and to what extent- in each one of the 5 training paths planned).

From the point of view of the project, there is a need to document in a standardized way the 5 training paths of the intergenerational learning cycle to produce, i.e.:

1. Training of eFacilitators to train Youth and Elderly (Made by FE [+RL])

2. Training of Youth (as Digital Literatcy trainers) by eFacilitators (Made by FE)

3. Training of Elderly (in Digital Literacy) by Youth (Made by FE )

4. Training of Elderly (to be mentors) by eFacilitators (Made by RL)

5. Mentoring of Youth by Elderly (Made by RL [+FE])

See a draft image of the intergenerational learning cycle in next page.

At this scope, we propose to document the Training paths adapting the form developed by TU DO in the

3. Social Skills Improve and enhance social skills To demonstrate the usefulness of social skills in interpersonal life

3. How do we do this?

(Design)

4. The adult world Start the Approach to the adult world Breaking stereotypes Knowing the social and developmental stages of adult seniors

4. Who takes action and with what

consequences?

(Act)

5. Planning sessions. “Practical computer” (online course) Learn to plan Plan a meeting Knowing the “Practical computer”

6. Communication Strategies Be aware of physical changes in public speaking Learning to communicate Simplify our language

7. Simulation Take the role of trainer Work empathy Knowing the advantages and difficulties we have as trainers

14

8. Distribution of teamwork To fix the course materials and adult Establish working groups Distribute tasks

framework of SME ACTor project funded by EC’s Leonardo programme (see 4.1). This is expected to help the transfer of eSCOUTS methodologies and training paths to those partners who are less familiar with these methodologies.

The intergenerational learning cycle

15

4.1 Proposed tool to define each Training Course session in details

SME network facilitator

Module #: Title of module

Time What for

(Learning aims)

What

(Learning content)

How

(Methods)

How

(Instruments,

materials)

Who

(Actors,

partners)

Date Duration

16

5. TOWARDS THE TRAINING DESIGN AND PILOTING (WP4-6)

Following step in the project is to design the Strategic and Operative plan for each target group. L’apis has prepared the following table that will be useful to start thinking on that.

Individual Elements Open issues Possible solutions

Pilot Youth

(face-to-face workshop of

Barcelona and 20-30

eLearning)

- Criteria of selection of the eFacilitators (very important, as they will be the

key-actors of the whole training process)

- Exact contents of the eLearning path and learning pace (in learning weeks?

With tutors to assist?)

1. Try to identify the best profiles for the eFaciitators to be

described well and be put in the “contract” with these key-

professionals, with the estimated hour s for their

engagement, their duties and rights, etc.

Youth to Elderly

(14 young facilitators per

partners in pair to train 10

elderly each pair in a 3-

months course about

digital literacy)

- 3-months-duration? How many sessions per week? How much face-to-face

and eLearning?

- Again, what could be the best profiles of the expected 14 young volunteers?

How to form the couples who will work together with the group of elderly?

- Which are their expected tasks?

- How much do they will operate within the training path, how much in

external activities inside of the local communities (if any)

2. Try to identify the best profiles for the young people to

be trained to be facilitators to be described well and be

put in a sort of “contract” with these key-professionals,

with the estimated hour s for their engagement, their

duties and rights, etc.

3. Is there the need to accompany the training activity

with external action?

4. Try to adapt to each context of implementation the

proposed learning/mentoring and the materials

Selected Elderly to mentor

Youth

This seems to be the most unclear sequence of the whole training path

- How to select the elderly? Which profile? What kind of engagement? For

how long? Which are their expected tasks? Range of them (from … to…)

- How many face-to-face sessions in all and per week?

- How to select the themes (civic and work-related) to dialogue with the

young people. This seems to be a key-issue, as attracting elderly and young

people to stay together and find beneficial this is not automatically easy to

achieve.

- How much do they will operate within the training path, how much in

external activities inside of the local communities (if any)

5. Try to identify the best profiles for both the elderly to

mentor young people and for these ones. Define also their

kind of engagement, etc.

6. Try to also identify the most interesting and motivating

topics (civic and work-related) to be faced during the

meetings)

7. Is there the need to accompany the training activity

with external action?

8. Try to adapt to each context of implementation the

proposed learning/mentoring and the materials