Netwerkleren - Agri Pro Focus

462 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
462
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Netwerkleren - Agri Pro Focus

  1. 1. 13 October 2011 Partos Plaza Angelica Senders – Fair and Sustainable Roel Snelder – Agri-ProFocus Learning in Networks
  2. 2. Programme <ul><li>Objective </li></ul><ul><li>Get inspired on what Learning Networks can do for you and how they can work (or not) </li></ul><ul><li>Programme: </li></ul><ul><li>Hot Chair </li></ul><ul><li>Some theory </li></ul><ul><li>Two cases </li></ul><ul><li>Wrap up </li></ul>
  3. 3. Learning Networks Theory
  4. 4. Level Agenda Reach Individual Own drive and agency I googled Nancy and found the video and applied some of it to my presentation Community Bounded / mandated group Compromise / Gets things done Network Intersecting interests / participation fluid Embraces diversity / opportunity to deepen and go to scale
  5. 5. <ul><li>WHY/ Objective </li></ul><ul><li>Improve practice </li></ul><ul><li>Action oriented </li></ul><ul><li>Start with questions not knowledge </li></ul><ul><li>WITH WHOM? </li></ul><ul><li>Members share same/similar practice and domain of work </li></ul><ul><li>Credibility (who says so?) </li></ul><ul><li>Trust </li></ul><ul><li>Reciprocity </li></ul><ul><li>Leadership/ facilitation </li></ul><ul><li>Linkages with other networks </li></ul><ul><li>WHAT / type of learning </li></ul><ul><li>Sharing horizontally amongst practitioners </li></ul><ul><li>Input from expert (vertical) </li></ul><ul><li>LC is not a training or e-course </li></ul><ul><li>HOW </li></ul><ul><li>Communication face to face (f2f) </li></ul><ul><li>E-tools: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fast: interactive and informal </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Slow: depository for resources </li></ul></ul>Learning Networks / Communities
  6. 6. Case Set-up <ul><li>5 min. story telling including one dilemma the facilitators is confronted with </li></ul><ul><li>5 min. Q & A to get more clarity </li></ul><ul><li>10 min. analysis as if you were in the position of facilitator (3 – 4 people) formulate one advise / way forward </li></ul><ul><li>10 min Sharing and reflection </li></ul><ul><li>Write advises on card (one per card) </li></ul>
  7. 7. The ICCO Alliance Learning Community on Private Sector Cooperation <ul><li>Steps taken </li></ul><ul><li>The concept of LCs centrally introduced within LA </li></ul><ul><li>Invite members and make ‘Dgroups’ (emailist) for communication (27 people registered) </li></ul><ul><li>Identify needs and interest (via e-survey) </li></ul><ul><li>Create commitment (3 Skype conversations for agenda setting) </li></ul><ul><li>Members present themselves and one key experience (via Dgroup) </li></ul><ul><li>Case analysis in 4 groups (Skype and e-mail) </li></ul><ul><li>Create depository for resources (wiki); Upload the 4 cases (Burkina Faso shea, Albert Heijn Foundation, Bio fuel Kenya, BDS Kyrgistan) </li></ul><ul><li>Plenary e-discussion on cases integrated in forthcoming e-discussion on Partnerships (use Partnership Box PrC as extra input) </li></ul><ul><li>Introduction of Facebook-Twitter-like new tool (Yammer) to make e-tools ‘more fun’ </li></ul>
  8. 8. <ul><li>Successes </li></ul><ul><li>E-survey for needs assessment </li></ul><ul><li>The presentations in Dgroup of the members </li></ul><ul><li>Skype sessions for agenda setting and ownership </li></ul><ul><li>Work in small group on cases was a good idea leading to concrete results. The level of the discussions was high. </li></ul><ul><li>Skype conversation contribute to people getting to know each other </li></ul><ul><li>Wiki has potential to be a depository of experiences </li></ul><ul><li>Less successful </li></ul><ul><li>During the case work the Dgroup was very silent and not all members had registered for sub-groups </li></ul><ul><li>Time planning: people are busy so all phases took longer then expected </li></ul>
  9. 10. GVC Learning History
  10. 11. Lessons <ul><li>Lesson one: By creating a core group with neutral facilitation we established continuity and legitimacy </li></ul><ul><li>Lesson two: Case based internal learning created a light process which facilitated a genuine group feeling to emerge as well as commitment to put in time and effort </li></ul><ul><li>Lesson three: As we valued questions it enabled us to look better at gender in value chains. And while the number of questions rose, it gave us the structure to hence focus our interests. </li></ul><ul><li>  Lesson four: jointly organizing face to face meetings for a wider audience build our confidence to articulate lessons learned and engaged others to link up </li></ul><ul><li>Lesson five: Combining gender and value chain expertise in the group as collaborators rather than as ‘outsiders’ levelled the playing field to built trust and expertise </li></ul><ul><li>Lesson six: Promoting learning involves a missionary attitude and framing to make sure participants are easily linked up. </li></ul><ul><li>Lesson seven: Action-learning not only requires good cases but also resources for coaching and commitment for reflection </li></ul><ul><li>  Lessons eight : She / he who dares wins </li></ul><ul><li>Lesson nine: Online tools and networks are invaluable to create transparency and to let new initiatives emerge </li></ul>
  11. 12. Dilemma <ul><li>We have a great set of resources; but a limited core. How can we establish further action at field level without having to facilitate everything ‘ourself’ </li></ul>
  12. 13. Wrap up <ul><li>Have you changed you mind? </li></ul><ul><li>What are you taking with you? </li></ul>

×