_
  [ZAWiW] [gemeinsamlernen] [LiLL]
_ _ _
  Dreieck nach obenGemeinsamLernen  
_ _ _
  Dreieck nach obenSelf-organised Learning Groups in Europe
_ _
  _Experience Reports
_ _ _
_
_ < Page 4 of 11 >
_
_ home
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ _ Introduction
_ _
_ _ Arnhem Group
_ _
_ _ Budejovice Group
_ _
_ _ Granada Group
_ _
_ _ Lyon Group
_ _
_ _ Ulm Group
_ _
_ _ Vicenza Group
_ _
_ _
_ _
_ Summary of Results
_ _
_ _
_ _

Summary of Results

Stand:


print print

3. Seniors work together on subject „Eating culture: Bread“ and „Housing and Living Spaces“

3.1. Did you find the subject „Eating culture: Bread“ interesting?
This subject was generally liked, ranging from medium to much. “Much” was noted by the groups who worked on this theme in the first year (Ulm, Vicenza, Ceske Budejovice) and identified with it. The other three groups (Granada, Lyon, Arnhem) who initially worked on the subject “Housing and Living spaces” have found the exchange of subjects in stage II difficult. Difficulties encountered were: not identifying with the subject, not enough time to get “to grips” with the new theme and not all members of the group wanting to work on it. Suggestions for improvement were working on one subject only, exploring more the issue of virtual communication, general reduction of the work load.

3.2. Did you find the subject „Housing and Living Spaces“ interesting?
The choice of subject was very much liked by all groups, the reasons given were that it affects people and is a modern dynamic topic (Budejovice). The possibility that the first subject to be studied could have influence on the interest was also noted (Granada). Proposals for improvement came from the three groups who started to research this subject in stage II (Budejovice, Ulm, Vicenza) and reflect some of the difficulties (namely the lack of time to get “to grips” with the subject) as also experienced in point 3.1. by the other three partner groups with the subject “Bread”: the new field was found too large and proposals for improvement were: reducing the subject to a smaller area to be researched in greater depth.

3.3. Did you find the method effective? (Qualitative researches, exchange of the 3 questions, exchange of subjects)
The method was found very effective by two of the groups (Ceske Budejovice and Vicenza). It was found good as it made possible to compare the approach to problem solving of the various groups and provides possibility for communication. However, it was also found difficult, confusing (Vicenza, Lyon) and only theoretically appropriate (Granada). Proposals for improvement were more interaction between the groups, involving the groups in deciding upon a method, keeping things simpler.

3.4. Did you learn something?
With the exception of Vicenza, where medium predominated and Lyon with 50% for much and 50% for medium, all other groups reported large learning effect. Areas learned were language, computer knowledge, communication, thematic and methodical facts. It was also pointed out (Granada), that the learning effect was more recognised by those who did not have previous experience of research.

3.5. Were you satisfied with the results of stage I of the project? (until the exchange of subjects)
The degree of satisfaction was high, criticism included not enough time to finish research and difficulties in planning the appropriate workload in the group (Granada, Budejovice, Vicenza, Arnhem), too many diversions slowing down the process (Ulm). Suggestions for improvement included: better and earlier information about the forthcoming processes (to help to select the workload better), keeping to a work plan, greater concretisation of work subjects, keeping the field of research narrow, but studied in depth.

3.6. Were you satisfied with the results of stage II of the project? (after the exchange of subjects)
There was a general satisfaction with the results of stage II. Work was more effective due to greater experience, the partners’ contributions enriched own work. Suggestions for improvement have included strict formulation of tasks, reduction of work load and reduction of the number of thematic subjects, more communication, improvement of group-working to avoid drop outs.

3.7. Do you think you could advise seniors in other similar groups which may be starting?
Replies were 3x perhaps (Lyon, Granada, Budejovice) and 3x definitely (Arnhem, Vicenza, Ulm), some hesitation was experienced in relation to familiarity with the method.

3.8. Would you take part in a similar project again?
With the exception of Lyon with the answer “perhaps”, all partner groups replied “definitely”.