Wiki Wiki

Meeting Minutes

eQNet Partners Face-to-Face Meeting Minutes

Lisbon, Portugal - 8 May 2012


Hans De Four (Klascement) Peter Karlberg (Skolverket) Christina Szekely (Skolverket) Lisbeth Gregersen (Centre for ICT) Eugenijus Kurilovas (ITC) Antonella Turchi (exIndire) Elena Shulman (EUN) Astrid Leeb (BMUKK) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Jose Moura Carvalho (DGE) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Daniel Tochacek (DZS) Robert Ondrejkovic (SK)


  • 1. Elena described work that still needs to be done for the end of the grant period. She asked all partners to send her any evidence of their dissemination work related to eQNet for the final report and the final eQNet newsletter.
  • 2. Financial: Elena asked all partners to review their current budget to understand if they are within their budget allowances or have funds left to carry out other dissemination activities.
  • 3. Dissemination activities: Discussion of possible activities/workshops with teachers before September 30, 2012.
a. Elena asked partners to propose ideas for national level dissemination and to consider how another pan –European event can be organized before the end of the grant period in September, 2012. b. Elena described the progress of reaching out to stakeholders through online questionnaire and at the EdReNe meeting.
  • 4. Discussion of translation required in all partner languages of the final TW criteria and channels for disseminating the translated TW criteria (final newsletter in all languages, other venues of partners, etc.) Partners agreed to translate the TW criteria themselves and then to distribute the TW using their national dissemination channels. Elena will inform the partners of how to proceed with these steps during the summer.
  • 5. Planning for WP 6 questionnaires : Discussion of requirement for WP6
  • From D.6.1 Quality Assurance Plan p. 6-8
– Working with other project partners, WP6 will prepare and administer two online (first has been completed) questionnaires for practitioners in the eQNet teachers’ network. • Teachers will be asked to complete a second, more detailed questionnaire in M27 (December 2011). This will include questions from the original survey in order to assess how the project has responded to and addressed any problem areas highlighted in the first critical self-assessment report. It will also include other questions related to how teachers have worked on and then applied the ‘travel well’ criteria being developed in the project. Data from these questionnaires will then feed into a further critical self-assessment exercise, the results of which will be included in the final project report. – During the second half of the project period, WP6 will also organise a number of online discussions with teachers in order to identify quality issues and problems that national coordinators may possibly not pick up on in their regular contacts with their eQNet teachers – WP6 will prepare and administer two online questionnaires for Ministries of Education or agencies representing Ministries in the project (first has been completed). • Partners will be asked to complete a second, more detailed questionnaire in M27 (December 2011). This will include questions from the original survey in order to assess how the project has responded to and addressed any problem areas highlighted in the first critical self-assessment report. It will also include some additional questions particularly related to how each partner is working in the second half of the project to disseminate and mainstream eQNet project results at national level. Data from these questionnaires will then feed into a further critical self-assessment exercise, the results of which will be included in the final project report. – Within dissemination activities and/or in collaboration with relevant projects developing crosscultural learning resources, WP6 will also carry out interviews with up to five teachers in the second half of the project in order to obtain a broader range of feedback on project results and the eQNet collection of ‘travel well’ resources.
  • Antonella Turchi (Indire) described the plan for the questionnaires. Partners asked her to provide specifics on the time needed for teachers and what kind of teachers should be participating (determined that it was teachers from within the network).
o Partners agreed to nominate one teacher for this work. o Daniel T. agreed to help coordinate this work with National coordinators when necessary.
  • When Silvia P. returns in June2012 she will send out further information and coordinate this work.
  • 6. Elena asked partners to consider how they will help in the exploitation of eQNet results and to send her their thoughts on lessons learned in the course of developing t*e TW criteria, working with teachers, improving the LRE, etc.
  • 7. Elena also asked partners to send her their thoughts on what they learned and recommendations for network building based on their experiences in eQNET. She will then integrate this feedback in the final reporting documents.

16 April, 2012 eQNet Partners Meeting

Recording of the meeting is available here:


Elena Shulman (EUN) Bernhard R. (Austria) Fernando Campos (Portugal) Antonella Turchi (Italy) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS Czech Republic) Natalija (Lithuania) Alma T. (Sweden) Lisbeth G. (Norway) Jim A. (EUN) Daniel T. (Czech Republic)

  • 1. Elena updated the partners on the completion of deliverables for WP2 - which included the final TW criteria and the last report on innovation. All deliverables are available on the eQNet wiki.
  • Partners should refer to the TW criteria in the final deliverable as the authoritative version of the criteria (this will become important shortly when the criteria have to be translated in the languages of all partners)
  • Two more deliverables for WP4 are necessary:
    • 4.4.2 - A deliverable documenting the production of newsletters and other news items about eQNet disseminated since the mid-term report. Elena is currently gathering evidence of various news/dissemination activities from the last year for the deliverable.
    • 4.4.3 Planned for September - an eQNet newsletter translated by EUN in all partner languages and that will contain the translated version of the TW criteria.
  • 2. Antonella (Indire) described the work plan for WP6 which involves several questionnaires for partners and teachers as well as an online focus group of 5 teachers to discuss issues of quality. The work is not expected to take more than a few hours. Not all teachers need to be involved. More about this work will be described at the face to face meeting in Lisbon.
  • 3. Partners reported on TW criteria/LRE dissemination activities with teacher taking place this Spring. Austria, Lithuania, Czech Republic and KlasCement are conducting activities in the next several months.
  • Elena asked all partners to send to her any materials generated by these activities so we can document them, i.e. powerpoints, announcements, photos, etc.
  • Fernando asked about the progress of responses to questionnaire for publishers/repository owners. Elena reported that only 7 people responded so far but that she plans to ask participants at the EdReNe seminar to provide responses after being introduced to the TW criteria (they are the right target audience for the questionnaire).
  • 4. Partners discussed plans for EdReNe/eQNet seminar - deciding on the format of the eQNet session and who will be presenting eQNet results.

--Partners also discussed the agenda for the face-to-face meeting on May 8th. --Some of the items to be discussed will be the final deliverables and possible future dissemination/exploitation activities. Elena distributed a draft agenda for this meeting on April 24, 2012 -- Jim A. suggested as dissemination activity that EUN create a webinar perhaps as part of the IMS Global webinar series. Elena will investigate the possibilities. -- Other possibilities proposed by Fernando is to produce a short video explaining the criteria and including teacher videos. Elena suggested discussing this idea further at the face to face

eQNet partners meeting 27 February, 2012.

A recording of the meeting is available here:


Alma Taawo (Skolverket) Peter Brimioul (EUN) Jim Ayers (EUN) Elena Shulman (EUN) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Daniel Tochacek (DZS) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Karl Lehner (BM:UKK)

  • 1. Elena reported on the status of current work to complete the numbers of resources for TW review for each partner. Daniel reported that most partners have reached their targets for the project of 350 total TW evaluated resources.
  • 2. Elena reported that we have 5 publishers/content providers answering the questionnaire distributed thus far. At the request of partners, Elena distributed an invite to the google doc that has the questionnaire results to partners wishing to see them. Since the questionnaire is anonymous, she could not say for sure who had filled out the questionnaire thus far and she asked partners, if possible, to remind their own contacts among publishers about our invitation to participate in the questionnaire.
  • 3. Elena asked partners to consider possible events they will have in the near future where TW criteria can be introduced and disseminated to teachers. Partners reported on events at national levels where eQNet TW criteria will be disseminated/applied:
Fernando Campos reports that DGE made a webinar presenting LRE among other things related with OER here: ; Karl reports that BM:UKK is organizing a Meeting with teachers in Austria is April 23.04.-24.04.2012 where they will apply TW criteria to content in the LRE; Alma reports that Skolverket will have a large event for teachers in mid-May where she will consider organizing a workshop that includes TW criteria and the LRE. There are events with teachers reported by Barbora that will include TW criteria.
  • 4. Partners discussed various approaches to taking into account teachers work posting to discussion forums, working with colleagues on questionnaire. Elena asked partners to communicate to her directly how they want to proceed to address this question based on their local needs.
  • 5. Discussion of how often partners should meet virtually now that main task with teachers is coming to an end. All agreed that next meeting date will 3-4 weeks before the partners last face-to-face meeting.
  • 6. Elena informed partners about the two deliverables due at the end of March (TW criteria v.3 and the last Annual Report on Innovation). She will circulate the last version of the TW criteria that we wills submit at part of the deliverable D2.1.3 and asked partners who contribute as much as possible to the work of ITC and EUN in producing the Annual Report on Innovation with any information they may have about initiatives and projects of interest to eQNet (criteria on quality of digital learning objects, Open Educational Resources, any relevant work on standards).
  • 7. Elena reported that work on planning an eQNet event was in progress. Currently, eQNet is in a discussion with EdReNe about the possibility of a joint event in Lisbon in May (exact date TBD). This could also be a good opportunity to host our last face-to-face partners meeting (along with a separate eQNet event held in conjunction with EdReNE). Elena will inform partners as soon as more information becomes available.

eQNet Project Partner Meeting January 16, 2012


Elena Shulman (EUN) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Daniel Tochacek (DZS) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Bernhard Racz (BM:UKK) Karl Lehner (BM:UKK) Lisbeth Gregersen (Senter for IKT)

  • 1. There have been personnel changes for INDIRE and Slovakia. New representatives were not in attendance. Mr. Robert Ondejkovič from the Information Systems Division, The Slovak Ministry of Education will replace Ms. Viera Blahova.
  • 2. Daniel reported that most of the partners have completed the task due on January 15, 2012 requiring 70 resources to be evaluated. Elena asked that those who have not completed be given an extension of one week to complete all activities for the first task of year 3. As soon as the work is completed, Elena will circulate the results of this activity.
  • 3. EUN and INDIRE created a questionnaire for distribution to other stakeholders like content providers and publishers. Elena asked everyone to distribute the questionnaire to their own contacts among publishers and content providers so we can gather a broad range of reactions on TW criteria. Fernando asked that more information be added to the questionnaire to make the context clear (this is now done). Questionnaire for distribution can be accessed here through February: Partners agreed to support this initiative by distributing the questionnaire. (BM:UKK has already done so).
  • 3. eQNet offers incentives to publishers/vendors to participate by submitting their resources for evaluation by eQNet teachers - See Elena reported that already one content provider was very interested in eQNet's offer to have teachers evaluate their resources. This work will be task 2 of year Elena will develop the evaluation activities as content providers request them.
  • 4. Elena reported to partners that we will not move forward with translating the DGIDC produced Creative Commons tutorial because it will require a major revision to the eQNet work plan and it would be more efficient to focus our efforts on producing and disseminating resources on this important topic in other ways.
  • 5. Elena reported that funds are available under Scientix Project to translate learning resources created with EU Commission funds and that have creative commons license allowing for derivative works. Elena asked partners who are aware of digital learning resources that meet this criteria to please let her know of such collections they would like to see translated.
  • 6. Bernhard and Barbora reported that they will be running workshops with teachers in the Spring and would be able to present eQNet to them and involve them in evaluating LRE resources using TW criteria. Elena asked them to send her a list of subjects that would be appropriate for these groups of teachers and she will provide a list of resources for evaluation.

eQNet Partner Meeting Notes , 21 November, 2011



Silvia Panzavolta (exIndire) Elena Shulman (EUN) Bernhard Racz (BMUKK) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Daniel Tochacek (DZS) Karl Lehrer (BMUKK) Peter Brimioul (KlasCement)

  • 1. New Task for teachers has begun on November 15 and lasts until January 15, 2012:
  • Elena summed up the objectives and structure of the current task. No one reported any issues or problem with the task. Some of the teachers have already begun work evaluating the resources.
  • 2. Copyright Education event held at EUN offices:
  • Elena reported on the interesting lectures/discussions provided by two lawyers with expertise in copyright and creative commons licenses held at the offices of the EUN on November 7, 2011. The event was recorded on video and once the video has been edited it will be made available as a learning resource discoverable through the LRE. Elena will notify all partners when it is ready. The slides from the two speakers are already available on the eQNet website in the eQNet presentations folder. Questioned posted by partners on the LRE community forum were presented to the speakers and a summary of their answers has been posted by Elena on the forum: The questions and answers are also part of the video recording.
  • Elena asks partners to send her metadata for any other digital resources on this topic for inclusion in the LRE if they have not done so yet. The LRE is highlighting a collection on this topic from all partners:
  • 3. Report on findings from questionnaire distributed to non-expert teachers (Silvia)
Silvia discussed the report she circulated earlier in the day summing up and analyzing the findings from the survey of non-expert teachers. The questionnaire demonstrated that there was no significant differences in the rankings of criteria between expert and non-expert teachers. Also found that there were no significant differences in the level of sharing of resources or using resources outside national contexts between expert and non-expert teachers. One significant outcome was that non-expert teachers used their national portals and that it would be most productive to connect the LRE to the national portals so that teachers have full access to all the resources at the portal where they are most comfortable and not having to search across many portals themselves.
  • 4. Discussion of how to organize the questionnaire for other stakeholders like vendors and publishers
Elena and Silvia asked all partners for suggestions on the kind of questions we should provide to other stakeholders and they will no begin to create a draft questionnaire to circulate. Elena will contact Eugenijus again to see how he wants to structure this questionnaire.

In a follow up email after the meeting: Jim A. suggested:

a. Maybe we could ask them to look at some examples of TW resources along with an explanation of which of the criteria has led to them being selected and then ask them to rank whether they agree with this being a TW resource? OR, see 'd' below.

b. It would also be good if they could rank the specific criteria in terms what they see as their order of importance. And whether there are other criteria that they think should be included.

c. For publishers: It might be good to know whether they can see themselves applying the criteria to their own content. If not, why? Because: the process would be too time consuming; they have no one who could do this etc? Would they be prepared to submit their resources for review after the end of the project: if we offered a TW quality check as a free LRE service; or if there is a small charge to have their resources reviewed by teachers?

d. It may be very difficult to motivate people to fill in a questionnaire. Would it be an idea to first offer (as a free service) to review x number of resources from their collection and then ask them to complete a short questionnaire once we have given them the results? This way there is some added value for them before we ask them to do anything.

  • Jim and Elena will work on a flyer to distribute at BETT inviting stakeholders to participate in questionnaire.
  • 5. Event planning/opportunities to explore for future: Elena reported that there have been no significant developments on possible large scale event for eQNet. She asked partners to also recommend opportunities to engage stakeholders (teachers, vendors, repository owners, educational technology suppliers, etc.) Jim A. will attend BETT 2012 on 11-14 January 2012 where he will engage in eQNet dissemination activities.
  • 6. Translation options for Creative Commons tutorial. Fernando has obtained a quote on what it will take to create a translated tutorial based on the one DGIDC had created.

Participants in the meeting were interested in 1st option for creating a translation. Elena suggested that EUN can translate from Portuguese to English to make it easier for the other partners to then translate into their own languages. The EUN project support team recommends that Elena speak with the Project Officer to receive permission for subcontracting given the special circumstances of translating this tutorial. Elena will contact the Project Officer and report back ASAP.

Proposal for translating tutorial: The content is owned by DGIDC but the source code is copyright of the company so we asked for a proposal with several options. Please find the translation below. Option 1 – Translation for each independent language That means a new swf file for each language. The translation has to be made by the partner. Cost – 275 Euros Option 2 – Adapt the flash for additional Languages, including a flag of the language in question. That means : Navigation by language in the actual flash Creation of a new file by language; Delivery of swf files to a new publication site; Cost 450 euros Option 3 – Turning it into a multilingual product Development in order to support additional languages in the same flash including Portuguese and one additional language.

  • Adaption to support Multilingual navigation
  • Structure to support several languages
  • Loading of text file by each partner
  • Final delivery of files in swf format

Cost – 800 euros The cost doesn’t include Writing the texts Translation to foreign languages Buying additional types of letter (if necessary) VAT to be added Payment 100% - 30 days after delivery The proposal is valid for 30 days starting 17.11.2011

A recording of the meeting is available: Meeting:

eQNet Face-to-Face Meeting Minutes – October 12, 2011 – EUN Offices

Brussels, Belgium


Peter Karlberg (Skolverket) Jim Ayre (EUN) Eugenijus Kurilovas (ITC) Silvia Panzavolta (exIndire) Elena Shulman (EUN) Bernhard Racz (BMUKK) Reinhold Hawle (BMUKK) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Jan Sperl (DZS) Peter Brimioul (Klascement) Viera Blahova (SK) Lisbeth Gregersen (Centre for ICT)
  • A. Overview of eQNet Project Activities since last face to face (EUN) - Recent Tasks for eQNet - Elena Shulman Presented results of Teachers’ Activities - July 20 – October 1, 2011-11-04
    • 1. Teacher’s Applying TW criteria to evaluate LRE resources
– Voting on TW or non-TW – Indicating which criteria apply 2. Gathering feedback on criteria from a variety of teachers (expert and non-expert) using questionnaires 3. Gathering feedback from eQNet teachers on their experiences with digital resources in discussion forums 4. Addressing the need for clear information on copyright and IPR issues for educators – Event at EUN – 2 PM November 7, 2011 5. Following Achieve, Inc. – U.S. Common Core Standards/Quality rubrics
  • B. eQNet Task Results to October 2011
    • 1. Phase II – Task I: Teachers recommended TW collections
a. LRE team reviewed the recommended collections b. LRE Harvested collections when possible c. TW resources recommended by teachers in LRE: d. Resulting in high quality collections in the LRE e. New LRE Content Providers presented 2. Recent activity in voting on LRE Resource a. Total of 1545 Votes from Teachers on LRE Resources b. Number of Votes Per Criteria c. Number of Votes without Image Dominated Collections (INDIRE and FNBE) d. Resource with Most Agreement
  • C. Discussion of results and TW criteria based on completed tasks
a. Partners presented reflections on the work with teachers and suggestions for ways to improve the LRE based on new types of content and user needs identified during tasks. i. LRE should make it easier for users to understand that certain content requires the download of a player (Silvia Panzavolta and Fernando Campos) 1. LRE should have a button that links directly to player download 2. Discussion of ways to present players that require payment vs. Open standard/open format – improve user experience so that teachers find exactly what they need instead of stumble on content they cannot use on their systems without fees. 3. Discussion of content for Interactive White Boards – a. LRE team is investigating the type of content that will be made available and how to best present paid content and fee based players ii. Partners described the process they use in working with teachers and teacher feedback on the task process (Viera Blahova) 1. Teachers meet with coordinators to review the task and provide feedback on their progress 2. Teachers were motivated by seeing how others were voting on resources and wanted to see more of that kind of social data on the LRE resource view – LRE team is investigating whether it is possible to make this social data more visible for the next phase of the tasks. a. Teachers can already view their activities and activities of other using the social data reporting interface: b. Discussion of TW criteria based on the results of Phase II, task 2 and inconsistencies revealed in the way the criteria were applied. i. Decisions to make some criteria mandatory, to combine the two interactivity criterions into one and to modify the wording on some of the criteria to make it easier to understand with better examples. (All) 1. Partners decided that three of the criteria must be present for an object to have TW potential a. Now Mandatory: Criteria 1: Transnational Topic, Criteria 2: Language independence, Criteria 8: Clear License Status ii. Decided not to rank criteria in order of importance or ‘strength’ for TW but rather require three criteria to be present iii. Edited criteria with new wording and new examples are available as a pdf for distribution to teachers and download from eQNet site (also available at end of these minutes). c. Meaning of 'interactive' to mean objects intended to respond to users actions in an online environment? i. Example from another project on digital learning object quality rubrics: ‘This rubric is applied to objects that are designed with an interactive component. It is used to rate the degree and quality of an object’s interactivity. “Interactivity” is used broadly to mean that the object responds to the user, in other words, the object behaves differently based on what the user does.’ (Achieve, Inc., "Rubrics for Evaluating Open Education Resource (OER) Object ) d. Discussion of importance of keeping Criteria: Clear License Status i. Partners agree that although teachers have a difficult time understanding how to apply this criterion and what it means it is very important to keep this criterion to help teachers navigate and learn about the complex issues of copyright surrounding digital materials and educators. ii. For the upcoming task teachers will not be asked to evaluate the license status because license status is already clear on the new LRE resources. But for the TW criteria more generally, this will be a mandatory criterion that must be present for the resource to have true TW potential. e. How can teachers really know if object is software neutral? i. Decision to remove this criterion from the evaluation exercise for teachers but retain it as part of TW criteria because it is critical for content providers to consider this issue when offering and creating resources.
  • D. Discussion and planning of tasks for the final year of the project (All)
a. Reaching other stakeholders to gather their feedback on the TW criteria i. Eugenijus Kurilovas proposes that it is critical to reach out to content providers, policy makers, ministries and publishers to have their input on the TW criteria now that we have gathered feedback from teachers from two questionnaire produced by WP6. 1. There should be questions for ministries (public entities) and questions for private companies (vendors and publishers). a. Ask them to consider if other criterion should be present b. Ask them to consider if criterion should be weighted by order of importance from their point of view 2. Eugenijus Kurilovas, Silvia P. and Elena Shulman will develop the questionnaire 3. eQNet partners agree to distribute the questionnaire to their contacts among publishers and content providers and to follow up encouraging that the questionnaires are completed and submitted for analysis by WP6.
  • E. Discussion of next tasks
a. Validation of new content in the LRE i. All partners must validate 140 resources in the final year of the project ii. Phase III, task one will require teachers to evaluate 70 resources (per partner) from among the new content in the LRE which was added as a result of teacher recommendations. 1. Teachers will select resources from a prepared list so that we have evaluations from multiple teachers on the same set of resources for better data. 2. Teachers will be able to select resources based on their teaching subject 3. LRE resources will be preselected for evaluation by LRE team based on subjects and their status as new resources recommended by eQNet teachers. iii. Task will begin in November 15 and last through January 15th.
  • F. Discussion and planning for eQNet role in the events aimed at various stakeholders (All)
a. Educational Publishing Futures (Jim A.) i. Publishers have expressed interest but no commitment to taking an active role in the next such event. If the event takes place it will be in the second half of 2012. Discussion are ongoing but nothing is certain at this point b. Discussion of possible other events and ideas from Partners (All) i. eQNet results should be presented to teachers at other events such as the eTwinning event at the end of March 2012. ii. Possibly present eQNet at a Scientix conference iii. Work will continue to identify events where eQNet can be presented to stakeholders including teachers, vendors and publishers.
  • G. Next conf-call has been scheduled for November 21st, at 3 PM Central European Time.
  • H. eQNet partner approved full set of TW Criteria with examples –

Partner ConfCall meeting Notes September 26, 2011

Meeting recording:


Eugenijus Kurilovas (ITC) Silvia Panzavolta (exIndire) Elena Shulman (EUN) Bernhard Racz (BMUKK) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Jim Ayre (EUN) Peter Brimioul (Klascement) Viera Blahova (SK) Lisbeth Gregersen (Centre for ICT) Alma Taawo (Skolverket)

1. Discussion of current task progress (All)

Elena asked all partners to report on whether there have been any changes to the number of teachers that are working on current task. Partners reported no change in numbers. Partners agreed that now extensions will be made for the current due date of evaluation activity so that there is time to evaluate the data before the meeting of October 12, 2011

  • You can see task results here:
    • By person you can click on openID you can see how many resources the person has evaluated and how
    • By resource you can see which resources have been evaluated, which provider they belong to and who evaluated them.
      • If you do not see the openID of your teacher(s) in the list of persons that means they have not started on this task.
If you have a firewall blocking access to the report please inform Elena and she will provide you with a spreadsheet of results.
  • Please note that some of the collections evaluated in the current task have images as part of the collection. Although teachers were asked to avoid images in previous tasks when they were recommending collections, we are now applying the TW criteria to LRE content which includes images. There are interesting results on the Travel Well potential of images we should discuss.

IMPORTANT: Evaluations of resources from providers not assigned to your teachers should not be counted toward their goal on this task. Please check that all teachers have evaluated the assigned content providers.

2. Report on progress on questionnaire of non-expert teachers.

Silvia reported that the work is progressing on the questionnaire that is due on October 15.

3. Report on progress of copyright/IPR initiative to create a collection in the LRE on this subject Elena demonstrated how some of the partners recommendations for resources on copyright were now in the LRE and asked partners to send more resources for inclusion.

Elena asked partners to post questions to the LRE Community forum on copyright and IPR issues. The questions will be forwarded to copyright experts invited to present lectures and workshop at EUN with the support of eQNet. Several partners have already posted questions on the forum.


4. Report on new TW collections now in the LRE based on teacher recommendations Elena demonstrated to partners some of the new collections now in the LRE and how to find them. Lisbeth G. noted that some of the collections she recommended were now in the LRE.

5. Questions to resolve (potentially at face to face meeting) now that we can see how applying criteria is working in the LRE Elena asked partners to prepare for discussion at face to face to work on issues we have emerging during the current task. Possible questions to discuss on October 12, 2011 will be:

  • Does having just one TW criteria mean the object is TW?
  • Do different kinds of objects need to have specific criteria present to be TW?
  • Do some of the criteria need further clarification? There is some clear inconsistencies in the way they are being applied now that suggest a problem. For instance, maybe clarify the meaning of 'interactive' to mean objects intended to respond to users actions in an online environment? Otherwise we have objects such as being tagged as 'interactive'
  • What is the approach in case teachers disagree about the TW potential of an object?
    • If an object has one vote as TW and one vote as nonTW do we still consider it as TW?
    • If an object has more votes as nonTW than as TW do we consider it as nonTW? What is the formula?

6. Discussed agenda for face to face meeting in Brussels on October 12, 2011. A draft agenda was circulated prior to conf call. No changes to agenda were requested by partners.

7. Update on plan for Educational Publishing Futures event Jim reports that there will be a meeting with publishers on 6 October to see what sort of synergies can be developed with them and to discuss whether EUN should have another large Educational Publishing Futures' seminar in February/March 2012 along the same lines as this years' event. Other options to be explored include a series of smaller workshops.

Elena asked all partners to consider the kind of role they would like to take in the event and what they would like to see addressed. The event will likely focus on issues of content quality which eQNet will be able to directly address.

Partner ConfCall meeting Notes August 22, 2011

Meeting recording:


Silvia Panzavolta (exIndire) Elena Shulman (EUN) Bernhard Racz (BMUKK) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Jim Ayre (EUN) Peter Brimioul (Klascement) Viera Blahova (SK) Daniel Tochasek (DZS) Karl Lehner (BMUKK) Alma Taawo (Skolverket)


Report on current teacher task - Elena Elena reported that activities have been very low on the current task but expects things to pick up once the school year resumes for most partners in the coming month. Elena asks all partners to check with their teachers whether they have completed the first task due earlier this summer (not all have done this on the LRE Community forum) and to encourage them to begin the second task so that the LRE can start generating data on which resources have been tagged as travel well and which have been evaluated by teachers as not having travel well potential. This data will then be made available to LRE-subcommittee members in time for the next LRE subcommittee meeting (October 2011) who are also content providers for the LRE.

Meanwhile, the LRE team has been evaluating the collections recommended by eQNet teachers during the first task in this phase. New collections have already been added to the LRE and more are on the way. Some examples of new collections include: Animfyzika demonstrating the physics behind common machines; the Wolfram Demonstrations Project:; games and simulations based on Nobel Prize-awarded achievements:: and Geogebra

Discussion of next face-to-face meeting: Elena suggested that it would be most effective to have the meeting in Brussels during the same week as the next LRE-subcommittee members meeting since some of the personnel overlap. The exact day of the meeting is still to be confirmed but the provisional date is October 12, 2011 for the eQNet meeting to be held in Brussels. Elena will report back as soon as there is confirmation so that partners can make arrangements.

Report on work in progress developing questionnaire to be distributed to colleagues by eQNet teachers. Silvia P. has reported that together with EUN we have created instructions for teachers and the questionnaire to be facilitated by the teachers with one volunteer colleague. The questionnaire is intended to gain feedback on TW criteria from teachers who are not highly advanced in their use of ITC in the classroom. Silvia is waiting for feedback from partners on the instructions and questionnaire before proceeding to distribute to eQNet teachers. This activity will take place in September/October and require approximately 30 minutes from eQNet teachers.

Discussion of initiative to better inform teachers about IPR and copyright issues in the e-learning domain: Elena presented some ideas for providing teachers with tutorials on the question of copyright and creative commons. During the last meeting of the partners, DGIDC offered a resource in Portuguese as a possible example of how this can be done. Some of the partners expressed an interest in translating this resource. Subsequent discussions of how to proceed with this initiative have led to another proposal of creating an LRE page where resources produced by ministries and third parties on IPR, copyright and creative commons issues can be made discoverable. The LRE will create this dedicated page and we can begin including the resources indicated as useful by eQNet partners. Resources found particularly useful can be translated into other languages if necessary by eQNet partners and urls pointing to those translated versions will be included in the LRE as well. All partners have were allocated 400 euros for translations under 'other operation costs' so that these funds can be used for translation of this material if necessary.

As part of eQNet activities related to IPR issues, EUN in conjunction with eQNet will host an event with presentations on copyrights and legislation in the European context in relation to educators on October 4, 2011. The presentations will be recorded and made available as a webcast for anyone to view. The recording will become a learning resource for professional development in its own right and will be discoverable on the LRE page dedicated to the subject of copyrights.

Discussion of plans for eQNet's participation in the Educational Future's Publishing Event in early 2012. Jim Ayre described ongoing plans for the event and discussions with publishers on how they will participate. A meeting with publishers is planned for October 2011 where their role in the event will be discussed. At that time EUN can set a date for the event.

NEXT MEETING: A meeting booking has been made for 26-Sep-11 at 14:00 (GMT +0100) and lasting 119 minutes:

Partner ConfCall meeting Notes July 11, 2011

Meeting recording:


Silvia Panzavolta (exIndire) Elena Shulman (EUN) Bernhard Racz (BMUKK) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Alma Taawo (Skolverket) Jim Ayre (EUN)


Report on progress of current eQNet task by teachers using the LRE Teacher Community Platform (Elena) - Task one of Phase II is now complete. EUN is looking at ways to include collections recommended by teachers into the LRE portal. Several collections are already in the portal based on teacher recommendations during this task. Automating the process of adding TW collections is helping the project stay on track in terms of target numbers of identifying 3500+ TW resources. Currently, there are 1701 resources in the LRE that have been identified as TW by eQNet teachers.

Report on eQNet workshop at the eTwinning workshop in Vilnius in June and other presentations of eQNet criteria (Elena/Silvia). Silvia reported on a successful workshop with more than 50 teachers completing questionnaires on TW criteria. This group of teachers considered technical features of a learning object to be the most important TW criteria. Fernando raised the issue of whether we need to also broaden the potential participants in such surveys to teachers that are less familiar with digital learning objects than the teachers at the eTwinning event and to include the opinions of other kinds of stakeholders such as publishers. Two suggestions were put forward: 1. Ask eQNet teachers to recruit colleagues that were not advanced online tool users to review the TW criteria and provide their feedback in an online questionnaire. Silvia and Elena will discuss how to create and distribute this questionnaire. 2. Disseminate information about TW criteria and elicit feedback from different stakeholder by engaging educational publishers using the publishers newsletters. Jim Ayer and Elena will work on a short article to be placed in publishers newsletter describing the work of the eQNet project and soliciting publishers feedback on the criteria. Both activities listed above will be implemented in early October.

Report on recent LRE feature enhancements, translations are in progress, new collections - there are 5 new collections, voting feature, etc. (Elena) Elena reported that the LRE portal will be translated into the languages of the LRE-subcommittee by early August.

Planning and timeline for next task on evaluating resources in the LRE for their travel well qualities (or lack of TW qualities) Elena explained the next task for Phase II and asked partners to review the instructions for teachers she will distribute by July 20, 2011. Teachers will review resources in the LRE beginning with three providers assigned to each partner. The number of resources reviewed in this task will equal the number still left to do for the second year of the project (this number varies by partner). Partners will also take into account the amount of time teachers spent on task one (identifying 2 collections of TW) and give teachers appropriate credit for time spent. The next task will begin on July 20 and continue until October 1, 2011.

Discussion of eQNet future events and activities (All)

Discussion of potential event to help teachers better understand IPR and copyright issues when it comes to digital resources. Elena proposed a webinar on the subject that teachers could access from the eQNet site. EUN is also organizing a workshop on IPR and Copyright in October and Elena suggested that this event could also be co-sponsored by eQNet and made accessible to eQNet partners who are able to attend and/or as a webcast (also as a recording available for later viewing). A lively discussion followed on the need for information and training for teachers on this subject. Fernando shared with the group an online tutorial on the subject of Creative Commons licenses created by DGIDC.

The question was raised whether eQNet partners would be able to pay for translation of this material into the partner languages. Elena asked all partners to check their translation budgets to see if this can be accomplished.

Second discussion of future events focused on the location and date for the next face-face meeting. Elena proposed that the meeting be held in October in Brussels hosted by EUN. The exact date is still to be determined. Several of the partners indicated an interest in hosting the next meeting: DGIDC could potentially host, Skolverket could potentially host, and DZS expressed an interest in hosting the next face to face meeting. No decision was taken on this issue. The meeting date and place will be on the agenda for the next conf call scheduled for August 22, 2011 (see details of booking below).

NEXT meeting:

The following booking has been made. These details have also been emailed to you: Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2011 14:00:00 +0100 Duration: 119 minutes Number of People: 9


This meeting will be recorded

Partner ConfCall meeting Notes, May 30, 2011

Attending: Silvia Panzavolta (exIndire) Elena Shulman (EUN) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Bernhard Racz (BMUKK) Viera Blahová (MS SR) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Jim Ayre (EUN) Meeting recording: Report on completion of tasks for May 2011 (Elena) As of May 30, 2011 only Lithuanian, Slovak, and Czeck teachers have been able to complete the tasks. Problems with access to the unilearning portal where the upload must take place have kept a number of teachers from completing. To accommodate those with access problems, the due date for the task has been extended on a case by case basis. (Access for all teachers reporting problems was restored by June 1st, 2011) and work has resumed in task completion. Discussion on how the next task will proceed (all) Jim Ayre – Suggesting that the next tasks focus on the content in the LRE which is now ready for use by eQNet teachers rather than only finding resources outside of the LRE. The feedback from eQNet teacher on the potential of their content to travel well will be reported to the content providers and used to improve the overall quality of content. Discussion follows – participants support the initiative to apply travel well criteria to existing LRE in the next task and to also continue identifying resources that meet TW criteria for inclusion in the LRE. Elena Shulman proposes two activities starting on June 14, 2011 through October 10, 2011. There will be 2 stages. Stage 1: Teachers Community Forum and New TW Collections: eQNet teachers will use the LRE teachers’ forum to identify collections that have at least 20 resources which meet travel well criteria. The guidelines and precise task steps will be circulated by Elena Shulman week of June 7, 2011. Teachers will no longer upload each resource by hand. Once collections are identified and reviewed by LRE team, they will be harvested by the LRE. The LRE team will determine which collection to ingest based on the technical difficulties of harvesting some of the collections or copyrights that will make them ineligible for the LRE. Proposed dates of activities for stage 1 are June 13, 2011 – July 15, 2011 to be confirmed. Each teacher will be asked to identify 2 collections with more than 20 resources in each. The url to the recommended collection will have to be accompanied with 5-6 sentences (min) written by the teacher explaining why this collection meets the TW criteria, which criteria are most appropriate for this collection and which criteria they found to be difficult to apply when searching for collections. Each teachers will be asked to comment on the collections identify by another teacher on the LRE teacher community forum. Stage 2: Evaluation of LRE content per provider – July 6, through October 10, 2011. Each teacher will be asked to evaluate current content in the LRE provider by provider. For each resource they examine (the number of resources they need to review TBD) they will indicate whether the resource has the potential to TW and/or meets the quality criteria developed in eQNet. They will be able to use the LRE to indicate whether a resource meets the criteria yes/no. If yes, they will be able to indicate which of the criteria applies to the resource making it TW. All instructions will be made available to teachers by July 1, 2011. Their criteria choices will be saved as tags in the LRE. They will work as registered users of the LRE and the work of teachers will thus be documented. Fernando Campos asked how partners can track work completed by teachers with this change of emphasis. Elena Shulman will work with any partner to help in adopting their work reporting to the new set of tasks. The group supported the modification of the emphasis to focus on the LRE after the tasks and functionalities were explained in greater detailed. Proposed changes to the criteria teachers will use to identify collections: Group discussion concluded that avoiding language learning resources is unnecessarily restrictive for future work. Teachers can identify these types of resources in the next task. They will still be asked to avoid images for consideration as travel well resources. Report on June workshop plans: Elena S. and Silvia P. reported on the plans for the upcoming eTwinning PDW - Web 2.0/eQNet workshop in Vilnius. Silvia is developing a questionnaire for teacher participants in the workshop to evaluate the effectiveness/applicability of the eQNet criteria. Four teachers from the eQNet project will be attending the workshop and will participate in the presentation and work of the event. eQNet partners will be asked to evaluate/comment on the proposed task guidelines (to be circulated week of June 6, 2011)

Next meeting of partners:

A meeting booking has been made for 11-Jul-11 at 14:00 (GMT +0100) and lasting 149 minutes.

to access the event:

Meeting May 14, 2011 between LRE technical team (David Massart, Elena Shulman, Quentin Temerie) and Klascement (Hans De Four and Thomas Corthals) Re: eQNet and LRE harvesting and social data

Discussion of solution to improve the metadata harvested for the LRE

  • Issue: Klascement no longer collects copyright/restrictions metadata - Creative Commons is shown as having no restrictions which should be corrected. Agreed to improve the rights/copyright information metadata can be easily achieved with a global change to the appropriate LOM field.
  • Issue: Quality of thumbnails harvested by the LRE - No clear solution at this stage because teachers upload images unconnected to the resource they have created and these are low resolution.
  • Issue how to harvest and aggregate social data from eQNet including tags for TW criteria. Solution: eQNet developer will meet with D. Massart to understand how to implement the LRE v4.5 metadata Application Profile for exposing eQNet metadata to the LRE. Some of the vocabularies in use by Klascement will be mapped to the LRE for better discovery in the LRE. A sample metadata record of an eQNet resource will be provided (tbd Elena) to illustrate how the metadata should be structured for harvesting.

Meeting between Elena S. and Silvia P. May 3, 2011

Topic: 90 minute workshop during the PDW of eTwinning


Independent evaluation of TW criteria and how well they are applied to resources

Teachers use Web 2.0 tools to carry out this work

Schedule and Content Outline

Introduction – 25 minutes

a. Why web 2.0 tools for teachers b. eQNet Project – Why cross border re-use c. Demo and sign in for LRE

Present examples of TW resources – 15 minutes

Present criteria used to create TW tag – 20 minutes - Use criteria and examples from wiki

Participants evaluate a TW tagged resource - 10 minutes

Participants complete questionnaire on criteria – 20 minutes – (Questionnaire to be developed by Silvia)

Response Cases for working with a TW resource in the LRE

a. Select 1 resource out of 20 provided and evaluate whether it is TW based on the criteria just presented

b. Use star rating system and comment system to capture their opinions on how well a resources tagged with TW in LRE meets the criteria presented by eQNET. Star rating scales – strongly disagree = 1 star, somewhat disagree = 2, hard to determine = 3 stars, agree = 4 stars, strongly agree = 5

c. In each case, participants also leave comments describing the reason for the rating.

NOTE: Subset of the preselected TW resources in the LRE will be ready to show to participants

TO BE DETERMINED: Teachers to facilitate the workshop

Elena will create a google doc with plan

Meeting with Elena S. and Riina V. April 28 2011

OpenID procedures are currently being redesigned based on user feedback. In the meantime, we ask all partners to login using the current OpenID system.

The LRE portal can host the teachers forum.

Elena will meet with Silvia P. on May 3rd to begin planning workshop in June, 2011

Next partners meeting: May 30th:

A booking has been made for 30-May-11 at 13:50 (GMT +0100) and lasting 149 minutes.

Go to the following address for full details and to access the event:

Next partner meeting agenda:

  • Has the task for May been completed? (Daniel)
  • Decide on how the next task will proceed
  • Discuss teacher forum plans
  • Report on June workshop plans (Elena/Silvia)
  • What to do about resources now being tagged travel well that not meet the agreed upon criteria in the tasks (i.e. avoid language learning)?

Meeting between LRE and Klascement requested for technical teams to insure that resources tagged with 'travel well' and other social data in unilearn will appear with social data in LRE via harvest.

The difference between the search results based on using the tag 'travel well' and the travel well subset on the eQNet project postcard: Searching by 'travel well' tag produces only records that have the 'travel well' tag. Browsing the Travel Well Carousel results in almost double the amount of resources because the carousel contains records with both 'travel well' and 'eqnet' tagged resources. The address on the eQnet postcard with a 'travel well' subset also points to resources that have both tags. This explains the discrepancy in the numbers for different searches.

NOTE: It is important for teachers to check in the LRE to see if the resources they find in other repositories are not already in the LRE before they upload them to unilearning. There is no need to register in the portal to conduct a search in the LRE so even if teachers are having problems registering, they should still do a search of the LRE portal to make sure we are not building up duplicate records.

You can access the recording of the last meeting by following this link:

eQNet Partners face-to-face meeting in Florence, Italy 11-12 April, 2011

Attending :

Peter Karlberg (Skolverket) Jim Ayre (EUN) Eugenijus Kurilovas (ITC) Silvia Panzavolta (exIndire) Elena Shulman (EUN) Bernhard Racz (BMUKK) Reinhold Hawle (BMUKK) Fernando Campos (DGIDC) Barbora Grecnerova (DZS) Daniel Tochacek (DZS) Peter Brimioul (Klascement) Viera Blahova (SK) Lisbeth Gregersen (Centre for ICT)

eQnet Critical self-assessment (Silvia Panzavolta and all partners):

Analysis and discussion of the results of the questionnaire that were distributed to all project partners: Problems in communication between teachers in teachers‘ network were reported and very similar problem in case of project partners (national coordinators) Resolved : It is necessary to support the communication of teachers and select one more suitable environment for communication via internet (options: eQnet website, Klascement, e-mails, LRE portal) The same is necessary for national coordinators – It was agreed that all the partners will meet more frequent (except summer holiday about in one or two month(s) and before and after all new tasks) in virtual meetings (Flash meeting)

problem of „real“ teachers‘ community – there are no funds to support face-to-face meetings of the teachers in the network. Possibilities: send some teachers to eTwinning meeting in LT (using eTwinning funds) and ask teachers to discuss draft of TW criteria in virtual community discussion (on project website) Sometimes there were problems with understanding what and due dates for particular tasks (only in case of some partners, O.K. in other cases) Resolved : guidelines and instructions for partners and teachers must be clearer and easy to understand for everyone. National coordinators must explain all important in task to the teachers/members of (national) team and they have to help them in case of need Discussion about the environment(s), in which new tasks will take part in First Klascement will be used for the first new task and later for all other tasks new LRE will be used Specific plans for next task(s) : many details… e.g. for next task we will by not interested in images and digital learning resources for the support of foreign language lessons; teachers will be asked to identify used TW criteria (from the list provided to them by WP coordinator and all the partners/national coordinators) during their upload (on Klascement) or selection (on LRE) of TW resources

TW criteria (all partners)

Discussion about deliverable D 3.3 and about the concept of TW and quality criteria with regard to similar concepts from various EUN and non-EUN projects aimed on digital learning resources: There are 3 target groups of TW criteria concept: stakeholders / policy makers authors of the content / developers teachers Question ? – it is useful to have only one same set of criteria for all 3 groups or it will be more useful to have more than one different set(s)? Specific modifications and changes in definitions and explanations of the various TW criteria in D 3.3 – pages. 6-7 were discussed: trans-national topics must be inserted to the list of criteria these criteria all the partners wants to have in the set of TW criteria: TW quality:

  • universal/common topic/subject/theme (1)
  • knowledge of used language is not needed… (4)
  • methodological support is not needed (5)
General quality:
  • intuitive operation (easy to use) (2)
  • interactivity, strong visual element (3)
  • possibility of immediate feedback (6)
question – what to do with (how to do the evaluation of TW feature of…) resources like e.g. images etc. and digital learning resources for the support of foreign language lessons? question – what is the difference between interactivity and immediate feedback? question – what are the differences between TW (quality) criteria and general quality criteria? For the teachers in eQnet network and for all users of LRE (also for those that are not in the project) we must prepare set of examples of TW resources that correspond to every single TW criterion teachers in the project will be asked during next tasks to not only mark TW and non-TW resources but also link this resources with the TW criteria and explain their selection

0 Attachments 0 Attachments

Average (0 Votes)