Presentation November Trier

341 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
341
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
11
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • For example they were asked how cooperation in the network has been, which sticking points they detected and how they have solved them, what kind of results were produced and how the learning network itself functioned. For example they were asked how cooperation in the network has been, which sticking points they detected and how they have solved them, what kind of results were produced and how the learning network itself functioned.
  • Presentation November Trier

    1. 1. From facilitation to self-governing learning networks What are the factors that influence the continuation of a learning network? Miriam Goes
    2. 2. Evaluation of a network <ul><li>The Consortium vmbo-mbo is a covering organisation that supports projects </li></ul><ul><li>about learning continuity pathways from preparatory secondary vocational </li></ul><ul><li>education (vmbo) to senior secondary vocational education (mbo) in the field of </li></ul><ul><li>health care and social welfare. </li></ul><ul><li>RdMC performed an evaluation study on what factors from the participants’ </li></ul><ul><li>perspective make a learning network effective so it can be self supporting. </li></ul><ul><li>The research questions we addressed are: </li></ul><ul><li>What are the success and hindering factors and how can they contribute to the self supporting of the learning network? </li></ul><ul><li>What is the organisational form of this learning network and is this effective? </li></ul><ul><li>How does the participation on the learning network contribute to the professionalization of the participants? </li></ul>
    3. 3. Method <ul><li>Design </li></ul><ul><li>We worked with the multi-method treatment (De Laat, Lally, </li></ul><ul><li>Lipponen, & Simons, 2006) as a result of which you can get your </li></ul><ul><li>information on several ways and from various information </li></ul><ul><li>sources. </li></ul>
    4. 4. Procedure and instruments <ul><li>The research was done in three stages. </li></ul><ul><li>first stage </li></ul><ul><li>Interviews with several participants of the learning network. </li></ul><ul><li>Thereby a study of relevant documents describing the policies and strategies of the projects that are part of the learning network to contextualise the interview data. A questionnaire is constructed based on the results of these interviews and the document analysis. </li></ul><ul><li>second stage </li></ul><ul><li>Distribution of the questionnaire among the active group (94) of the learning network Consortium vmbo-mbo Stimuleringsinitiatief. The aim of the questionnaire is to validate and scale the findings of the first stage. Response till now is 34 %. </li></ul><ul><li>third stage </li></ul><ul><li>SNA-visualizations will be made of the active member networks based on the interviews. This way we are able to paint a picture of the level of interaction that takes place within this consortium and how this geographically is spread over the various participating clusters . </li></ul>
    5. 5. Results <ul><li>A list of success and hindering factors and recommendations for continuing the network after stimulation has stopped </li></ul><ul><li>A description of the organization of the network, what activities had taken place and what was the contribution of this activities. </li></ul><ul><li>SNA-visualizations of the active member networks and of key figures within the networks based on the interviews. This way we are able to paint a picture of the level of interaction that takes place within this consortium and how this geographically is spread over the various participating clusters . </li></ul>
    6. 6. Respondent 1 of cluster K (Kandinsky) has relationships with 2 persons from cluster CP (members of the own project) and 1 team of cluster CP and with 1 team from cluster CO (persons from the own organisation) Respondent 2 of cluster K has relationships with: 7 persons from cluster CP, 3 teams from cluster CO (one the same as respondent 1) and 1 person from cluster R (Roelof van Echten etc.) 1 person from cluster P (Petrus Canisius etc) 1 person from cluster O (Oostvaarderscollege) Visualisation of relationships within the consortium TCP TCO K1 1CP 1CP TCO K2 1CP 1CP 1CP 1CP 1CP 1CP 1CP TCO 1R 1P 1O

    ×