Benchmark: Previous Networks

From Benchmarking-Tel

There have been many previous attempts to address the issues of fragmentation in Technology Enhanced Learning. Indeed, in 2001 two Networks of Excellence were set up by the EC to help to unify this disparate field. Both of the Kaleidoscope and Prolearn Networks of Excellence used a four-year programme of integration events to build their own unique views of the structure of TEL in Europe. Both provided a set of distinct and powerful programmes for TEL, one focused in the pedagogical uniqueness of European TEL (http://www.noe-kaleidoscope.org), the other focused on its technological excellence in professional learning (http://www.prolearn-project.org).

As both these networks provide an important basis for the future development of STELLAR we would like to give a short overview of the strengths and weaknesses of both these networks of excellence and derive some opportunities and threads for STELLAR from this analysis. The results presented in this combined SWOT analysis primarily rely on the final review reports of PROLEARN and KALEIDOSCOPE as well as some supportive documents and the personal experience of some key players involved in these networks.

PROLEARN	KALEIDOSCOPE
Strengths Increased visibility of European research in Technology Enhanced Professional Learning Roadmap and future vision for TEL Joint research (papers, projects, etc.) Shaping (new) topics and taking leadership in Europe: e.g. social software in education, personalisation, etc. Specific instruments: EC-TEL conference, PROLEARN Summer School, journal, standardisation contribution, joint infrastructure (e.g. Flashmeeting, Conzilla, Confolio)	Strengths Increased visibility of European research in Technology Enhanced Learning Theoretical/philosophical base and scientific vision Approximation of different disciplines Shaping (new) topics and taking leadership in Europe: e.g. CSCL, mobile learning, etc. Specific instruments: TeLearn Open Archive, Virtual Doctoral School, Seed grants
Weaknesses Relationship with stakeholders: industry & policy makers Sustainability Limited interdisciplinary: some disciplines under represented (e.g. behavioural sciences, organisational sciences, etc.) Network enlargement (little involvement of associated partners)	Weaknesses Relationship with stakeholders: educational practitioners Sustainability Too much administrative efforts Outreach: visibility of research outcomes to others Core partnership too big

STELLAR

Opportunities Build on existing structures/instruments (e.g. Summer School, Conference, etc.) Increase international visibility and impact Further strengthen interdisciplinary research in TEL Shape future research agenda in TEL Build on current established infrastructures and reach broader penetration

Threats Limited mechanisms for discourse with stakeholders: industry, policy makers, educational practitioners Chronically low profile of Technology Enhanced Professional Learning as a field of research Remaining a closed club for core members Strength of earlier Networks may mean they remain separate within STELLAR Possible competition between the earlier Network sustained instruments and established associations

A significant challenge for STELLAR now is to further work on strengthening the strengths coming out of both networks and to get rid of the weaknesses. One of the core challenges that can be deduced for STELLAR from the above analysis is to overcome the core weakness identified in both networks, namely the relationship with specific stakeholders. It will be important for STELLAR to establish well functioning discourse mechanisms with stakeholders, such as industry, policy makers and educational practitioners.

Both networks have also created associations EA-TEL (http://www.ea-tel.eu/) (coming from PROLEARN) and TELARC (coming from KALEIDOSCOPE), so it will also be important for STELLAR to follow the development of these associations.