Sales presentation ring binders ebay,make video for your website,promo codes for lush cosmetics,what do teenage guys look for in a relationship quiz - Test Out

The visit was planned quite some time ago as a field visit to get feedback data on the ongoing pilot testing with the Learning Toolbox (LTB).
The visitors (Lars, Stefan and Markus) were pleased to see that their talks with the Bau-ABC trainers Markus Pape (Zimmerer = carpenter) and Lothar Schoka (Brunnenbauer = borehole builder) were well-timed and informative. In this respect they both could give informative reports on what is going on and what is to be expected in the near future. In addition to their own experiences and plans for piloting they had some urgent requests for the LTB developers.
2) For trainers and apprentices it is important to have a notification function that alerts the apprentices when new learning materials have been made accessible and informs the trainers when apprentices have accessed the information.
4) At the moment the LTB has been designed for Android phones and tablets – which are mostly used by the apprentices. Form a small working group or interest group – this could be formal or informal, stand alone or tied to their existing evaluation network. Undertake some small-scale trials with specific tools – to see whether the ideas do cross over from the areas I work in to Regional Policy.
Run a couple of one-day training events on Evaluation 2.0 focusing on some real hands-on workshops for evaluators and evaluation unit staff rather than just on information giving. Check out with people responsible for evaluation in other DGs whether there is an opportunity for some joint development (a novel idea!) Unlike other ‘perspectives’ it is not tied to content or any particular theoretical approach. Think about developing some mobile phone apps for evaluators and stakeholders around content specific issues – I can easily think of 5 or 6 possibilities to support both counterfactual, quantitative approaches and theory-based qualitative approaches. Ring fence a small amount of funding to support one-off explorations into innovative practice and new ideas around evaluation.
When you left Heathrow yesterday to come to Brussels, I do hope you waved to the English Rugby team arriving home from the Rugby World Cup in New Zealand. Firstly, the use of social media gives stakeholders a real voice – irrespective of where they are located.  Stakeholders can create and publish evaluation content.
Secondly, I think it is challenging our perceptions of who are evaluators.  Everyone is now an evaluator. I did an evaluation of a community capacity building project in an inner city area recently and spent quite a long time before I went to the first meeting walking around the streets, checking out the community facilities, the state of the housing, local amenities and so on, to get a ‘feel’ for the area – except I did it on Google Earth and with street-view on Google maps.  There are about 20 or so other applications I use a lot in evaluation but maybe they will have to wait for another edition! Fourthly, I think the potential of Web 2.0 changes the way we can visualize and present data.  Why are we still writing long and indigestible text-based evaluation reports? So do you think all evaluators will have to move down this road or will there always be a place for evaluators using more established methods? There will always be a role for the evaluator but that role will be transformed and the skills will be different.
The rules of engagement are also changing – in the past you engaged with a client, now you engage with a community.  We also have to think how stakeholder created content might change our ideas about copyright, confidentiality, ownership, authorship.
Late last year Jenny Hughes made a keynote presentation on Evaluation 2.0 for the UK Evaluation society.
One major problem in judging the impact of new technologies on teaching and learning and on pedagogical approaches to teaching and learning is the need for metrics for judging such impact.
Integrating Curriculum is where the uses of technology are applied to current curricula and organisation of teaching and learning. Transformational Curriculum is based on the notion that what we might know, and how, and when we come to know it is changed by the existence of the technologies we use and therefore the curriculum and organisation of teaching and learning needs to change to reflect this.
In terms of general approaches suggested by research literature, most Further Education colleges in the UK are still approaching pedagogy and curriculum design from the standpoint of an operational curriculum, and although there are some examples of an integrating curriculum, there is little evidence of using technology for transformation.
One of the main points made in feedback to us from the reviewers was that a 360 word abstract is too short to make a proper judgement. In other words, it is not appropriate to ask academic reviewers to bring their expertise the material, and to then neuter that expertise with overly perspective statement of criteria. Following the completion of the reviews, the conference organising committee met (via Skype) to discuss the outcomes of the process. We referred nine of the proposals, in the main case because whilst they seemed interesting proposals we did not feel they has sufficiently addressed the theme of the conference ie Personal Learning Environments. I am still concerned with how we can develop common understandings and standards between reviewers.
The task of providing clear feedback and judgement about proposals whilst still proving constructive and helpful feedback to proposers is not easy. Having said that – in terms of format in seems to me that some of the submissions as full conference papers would have been better made under other formats. Submissions have been managed through th open source Easychair system, hosted by the University of Manchester.
Relevance to the themes of the conference although this does not exclude other high quality proposals. However, when I sent out the papers for review, whilst I provided a link to those guidelines, I failed to copy them into the text of the emails asking for reviews. Even with such explicit guidelines, there is considerable room for different interpretation by reviewers. In addition we asked reviewers to state their degree of confidence in their review ranging from 4, expert, to 0, null.
In over half the cases where we have received two reviews, the variation between the reviewers is no more that 1. In any case, we will organise a further review procedure for those submissions where there are significant differences. Pekka Kamarainen noticed the queries on Twitter and kindly provided me with an English translation, reproduced above.
Whether this is through an intranet, the internet, multimedia, interactive TV or computer based training, the growth of e-learning is accelerating. E-learning is also one of the areas that attracts the most research and development funding.
The Capitalisation report on the Leonardo da Vinci 1 programme, one of the biggest sponsors of innovative e-learning projects in European VET, also identified the lack of systematic evaluation as being the major weakness in e-learning projects. However, whilst some have been desperately seeking answers to the question ‘What works and what doesn’t work?’ and looking for ways of improving the quality of e-learning, the response by a large sector of the community of e-learning developers and practitioners has been a growing preoccupation with software and platforms. We will broadcast on Friday, Saturday and Sunday (2nd, 3rd and 4th of August) from San Marino. According to the TES teachers in the UK “are more likely to work unpaid overtime than staff in any other industry, with some working almost 13 extra hours per week, according to research.


It finds funding and oversight bodies have been slow to address emerging financial and educational risks, with current oversight arrangements leading to confusion over who should intervene and when. Skills Panorama, they say,  turns labour market data and information into useful, accurate and timely intelligence that helps policy-makers decide on skills and jobs in Europe.
The new website will provide with a more comprehensive and user-friendly central access point for information and intelligence on skill needs in occupations and sectors across Europe. International Shipping - items may be subject to customs processing depending on the item's declared value. Your country's customs office can offer more details, or visit eBay's page on international trade. Estimated delivery dates - opens in a new window or tab include seller's handling time, origin ZIP Code, destination ZIP Code and time of acceptance and will depend on shipping service selected and receipt of cleared payment - opens in a new window or tab. This item will be shipped through the Global Shipping Program and includes international tracking. Will usually ship within 1 business day of receiving cleared payment - opens in a new window or tab. Unibox offer the finest corner pads, we stock these in red white and blue, but other colours are avaliable. On Friday some LL colleagues had a chance to make a follow-up visit to Bau-ABC, while the others were having a meeting in ITB with the visiting delegation from Singapore Workforce Development Agency. Now that I got the chance to listen to the recordings of the interviews in Bau-ABC, I came to the conclusion that it is worthwhile to discuss some points of the Bau-ABC trainers in greater detail. Since the LL teams of ITB and Bau-ABC could send only one participant to the LL consortium meeting in Toledo, our LL colleagues from the University of Innsbruck (UIBK), Stefan Thalmann and Markus Manhart, came to Bremen have planning meetings with us and to make field visits. Both trainers had made further efforts to familiarise themselves with the LTB Beta version.
Yet, about one third is using iOS-phones, so it is essential to proceed to iOS-versions or find alternative solutions to involve them in the pilot testing. Now that I have got access to the recordings, it is interesting to have a a glimpse at some of the points made by the trainers and to relate them to our earlier interviews and discussions with them.
I have mostly used Evaluation 2.0 stuff in the evaluation of education projects not regional policy. We are already using the power of the semantic web in evaluation to mash open and linked data, for example.
At its simplest, it’s about using social software at all stages of the evaluation process in order to make evaluation more open, more transparent and more accessible to a wider range of stakeholders. Think of the software that you use every day for on-line shopping from Amazon or Ebay or any big chain store. Apart from anything else, our clients of the future will be the digital natives – they will expect it. I think a key job for the specialist evaluator will be designing the algorithms that underpin the evaluation.
And pretty quickly we were getting requests for the paper of the presentation and the presentation slides.
This chat really deals with Web 2.0 and the different ways we are developing and sharing knowledge, the differences between expert knowledge and crows sourced knowledge and new roles for teachers, trainers and evaluators resulting from the changing uses of social media. This might be using an online library of visual material, using a virtual learning environment to deliver a course or part of a course.
They reflect an instructivist perspective, and a theory-based (universalists, abstractivist) perspective.
But I am still concerned with how we reach some common understandings or standards for reviewing, especially in a multi-disciplinary and multi national context. We did not have time to properly consider the results of all 166 reviews and in the end accepted to unconditionally accept any paper with an average score of two or more (reviewers were asked to score each submission on a scale ranging from plus to minus three). These we have asked to resubmit the abstract and we will review the proposals for a second time. However, present university funding requirements demand full papers and inhibit applications for work in progress or developing ideas in more appropriate formats. The system is powerful, but the interfaces are far from transparent and the help somewhat minimalist!
We produced detailed guidelines for submissions based on the Creative Commons licensed Alt-C guidelines.
In retrospect, I should have attempted to produce a review template in EasyChair incorporating the guidelines.
I am not sure that in our community we have a common understanding of what might be relevant to the themes of the conference or a contribution to scholarship and research into the use of PLEs for learning. Whilst too late for this conference, as a community we are reliant on peer review as a quality process and collective learning and reflection may be a way of improving our work. The project took place between 2002 and 2005 and was sponsored by the European Commission Leonardo da Vinci programme. However, what is known about these innovative approaches to training has been limited by the shortage of scientifically credible evaluation.
If this investment is to be maximised, it is imperative that we generate robust models for the evaluation of e-learning and tools which are flexible in use but consistent in results.
The development of models and tools for the evaluation of e-learning can help in improving the quality of e-learning and in informing and shaping future development in policy and practice.
Rosanna de Rosa, from UNINA, will present the philosophy and challenges behind the EMMA EU project and MOOC platform developed with the idea of accommodating diversity through multilingualism.
Contact the seller- opens in a new window or tab and request a shipping method to your location.
Since I was involved in the meeting in ITB, I can only report on meeting on the basis of the information from my colleague Lars Heinemann.
However, given the very recent field visit (with the newly published Beta version of LTB), we felt that the evaluation talks were somewhat rushed. They had also made concrete plans for engaging their apprentices later in the autumn as users of LTB in their training projects. As I see it, via such examination we learn a lot, how the fieldwork of the LL project has made progress during the years of co-design and pilot activities. And my recent experience of the Cohesion Fund, ERDF, IPA or any of the structural funds is minimal.
Maybe, instead, it is worth feeding in to the Evalsed site that DG Regio maintain, which currently provides information and support for their evaluators.


At a theoretical level, we are trying to push forward and build on Guba and Lincoln’s ideas around 4th generation evaluation which is a constructivist approach incorporating key ideas around negotiation, multiple realities and stakeholder engagement. If I want to buy a particular product I check out what other people have said about it, how many of them said it and how many stars it has been given.
I keep their evaluation website up to date so they get evaluation information as soon as it is available. The evaluator will also need to be the creative director – they will need skills in informatics, in visualizing and presenting information, the creative skills to write blogs and wikis.
Lacking an audience and just speaking to the slides, it was coming over as stilted and horribly dry. It is also not impossible to count how many teachers are using a particular piece of technology. The nature of the subject and institution of learning is essentially the same, but technology is used for efficiency, motivation and effectiveness.
The purpose of having academics do the review is that the academics can evaluate the work on its own merit, not against a check-off list. In a small number of cases we have recommended a change of format, particularly for research which is still at a conceptual stage which we felt would be better presented as a short paper, rather than a full proceedings paper.
Abstracts are difficult to write (at least I find them hard) and perhaps our 360 word limit constrained many.
The strong response, I suspect, was due to three reasons: the interest in PLEs in the Technology Enhanced Learning community, the attraction of Barcelona as a venue and our success in using applications like Twitter for virally publicising the conference. I have struggled to get the settings in the system right and some functions seem buggy – for instance the function to show missing reviews seems not to be working. Many of the reviewers have commented that this is too short to judge the quality of the submission. I suspect this is the same for many conferences: however, the issue may be more problematic in an emergent area of education and technology practice. This suggest significant differences in understandings by reviewers of the criteria – or the meaning of the criteria. A  number of people commented that they did not understand German and furthermore, because the file was uploaded as an image, they were unable to use online translation software. Darco Jansen, from EADTU (European Association of Distance Teaching Universities), will talk about Europe’s response to MOOC opportunities. The stream URL to play in your application is Stream URL or go to our new stream webpage here SoB Stream Page. Ed, has trained dogs for over 40 years, beginning with a family Sheltie she took to "Show and Tell". If you reside in an EU member state besides UK, import VAT on this purchase is not recoverable. After all, the trainers had only made their first experiences  in making their own stacks, pages and tiles in the LTB (to be used by other users).
According to their information, the amount of apprentices to be involved in such pilots would be ca. However, the ideas are generic and if people think that there are some they could work with, that’s fine! But this is the first part of the journey – ultimately, I believe that e-technologies are going to revolutionise the way we think about and practice evaluation. Then I would try and interpret it and draw some conclusions about what it meant.  Now I set up a web page for each evaluation and I podcast the interviews using audio or video and put them on the site. These are called recommender systems and I think they will have a big impact in evaluation. They will need networking skills to set up and facilitate online communities of practice around different stakeholder groups and the ability to repurpose evaluation objects. And Jen, like me uses most of her canvas space for pictures not bullet points on her slides. Each of the remaining proposals was reconsidered by the seven members of the organising committee in the light of the feedback from the reviewers.
We also decided not to use the automatic functionality of the EasyChair system for providing feedback on the proposals. I wonder if we should have scoring for each criteria, although this would make the review process even more complicated. We have moved from the paradigm of the ‘expert’ collecting and analyzing data into a world of crowd sourcing – harnessing the potential of mass data collection and interpretation.
This makes the presentation much more attractive but it is difficult sometimes to gleam the meaning from the pictures alone. One tool which could prove useful in this respect is the iCurriculum Framework (Barajas et al, 2004), developed by the European project of the same name.The framework was intended as a tool that can be used by educators to record the effects of their learners activities.
So I have attached a PDF (1.1MB) version of a Guide to the Evaluation of e-Learning to this post.
As advance measure they had collected a list of volunteered users to start testing with LTB before that actual pilot. It is based on seeing pedagogic and curricula activities along three dimensions – an Operational Curriculum, an Integrating Curriculum and a Transformational curriculum.
30 of the proposals were accepted but we have asked the proposers to resubmit their abstract, feeling that improvements could be made in clarity and in explaining their ideas to potential participants at the conference. Whilst many of the reviews were very helpful in that respect, some were less so and thus we have edited those reviews. It is possible to approach pedagogies for using technologies for learning for the same subject and for the same intended outcomes on any one of those three dimensions. Harline continued to compete with theA  Danes in obedience, rally and the breed ring, as well as training for beginning agility with "Hattie" and "Ellie", and partnering with "Quinn" as a working therapy dog team.
Considering the costs of implementing ICT based training, is there a positive return on investment?



Free christian romance short stories
Free email directory of worldwide importers
Free new zealand immigration assessment