1. This project has been funded with support from the European Commission partner logo INCOM – VET INCOM – VET Products evaluation by internal experts and proposals for improving the work (Maria Giovanna Onorati – UNIVDA)  IV Transnational Meeting  Kokemäki, 9/10 February 2015

2. This communication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Nr. LLP-LDV-TOI-2013-LT-0145  Evaluation tool A structured YES/NO questionnaire PROPOSED CHANGES E. g. HANDBOOK FOR METHODOLOGY §. 1YESNODON’T KNOW REMARKS TRANSVERSAL DIMENIONS YESNOPARTIALLYREMARKS E.g. HANDBOOK FOR METHODOLOGY §. 1YESNODON’T KNOW REMAR KS §. 2YESNODON’T KNOW

3. This communication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Nr. LLP-LDV-TOI-2013-LT-0145  WHAT TO ASSESS: Conformity Verify the coherence of the 4 fundamental OUTPUTS of the Project 1). HANDBOOK FOR METHODOLOGY 2). DEVELOPMENT OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCES FOR TEACHERS AND TRAINERS 3). DEVELOPMENT OF INTERCULTURAL COMPETENCES HANDBOOK FOR STUDENTS 4). WEBISTE I WOULD ADD A 5 TH OUTPUT: 5). Verify the coherence / pertinence of the experimented methodology (the LivingLabs) method with the Project’s aims, Handbooks, Vet context

4. This communication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Nr. LLP-LDV-TOI-2013-LT-0145  COHERENCE ◦ Coherence with the initial model to be transferred = ICIC Handbook and learning model ◦ Coherence with the context and the T-group of the transfer = VET ◦ Coherence of the outputs with each other (internal coherence)

5.  COHERENCE WITH THE MODEL TO BE TRANSFERRED: emerging limits (1)  - THEORETICAL FARMEWORK OF REFERENCE ◦ Yes. Remarks: A review of the main theories and models about intercultural competences, with reference to a micro-level (individual), meso-level (oragnizations) and macro-level (institutional, national cultures )  - EPISTEMOLOGICAL STANCE ◦ Partially (No): Remarks: A declaration of an epistemelogical stance >> a reflection on paradigms (knowledge, culture, learning), and a choice of one of them is missing  - METHODOLOGICAL CHOICE ◦ Partially (No): Remarks: In absence of a clear epistemological stance also the methodological choice is neither clear nor grounded: on which dimensions of competency am I effecting? Which spheres of culture a I considering (concepts, beliefs, values, norms, representations); On which spheres of learning (cognitive, incentive, relational?) am I working?  - DIDACTICAL STRATEGIES ◦ Partially (No): Remarks: on the operational level: how a I translating the declared methodology into practical learning units?

6.  COHERENCE WITH THE MODEL TO BE TRANSFERRED: emerging limits (1)  - THEORETICAL FARMEWORK OF REFERENCE ◦ Yes. Remarks: A review of the main theories and models about intercultural competences, with reference to a micro-level (individual), meso-level (organizations) and macro-level (institutional, national cultures )  - EPISTEMOLOGICAL STANCE ◦ Partially (No): A declaration of an epistemelogical stance >> a reflection on paradigms (knowledge, culture, learning), and a choice of one of them is missing  - METHODOLOGICAL CHOICE ◦ In absence of a clear epistemological stance also the methodological choice is neither clear nor grounded: on which dimensions of competency am I effecting? Which spheres of culture a I considering (concepts, beliefs, values, norms, representations); On which spheres of learning (cognitive, incentive, relational?) am I working? Till what extent is this relevant to VET? Which dimensions of VET a I considering?  - DIDACTICAL STRATEGIES ◦ Partially (No): operational side: how a I translating the declared methodology into practical learning units? Which skills, attitudes, knowledge in general am I developing?

7.  COHERENCE WITH THE CONTEXT AND T-GROUP: emerging limits (1)  - METHODOLOGICAL CHOICE ◦ Partially (No) Till what extent is the methodological choice relevant to VET? Which dimensions of VET a I considering?  - DIDACTICAL STRATEGIES ◦ Partially (No): Which skills, attitudes, knowledge specific of VET competency am I developing? Till what extent are the suggested didactical strategies relevant in a VET learning context?

8.  INTERNAL COHERENCE OF THE PRODUCTS: emerging limits (1)  - TEHORETICAL FRAMEWORK AND EPISTEMOLOGICAL STANCE ◦ Partially (No): Theoretical models are only mentioned but a coherent and motivated choice of the selected literature is missing. ◦ Theories hardly compatible with each other because underpinned by different paradigms are used and referred to: “the iceberg model”, “the cultural glasses” and the “DMIS”. ◦ “Holistic” is not an epistemological stance, but a perspective consequent to the epistemological choice.  - DIDACTICAL STRATEGIES ◦ Partially (No): it is a workbook more than a handbook: the recall to theory and the link between the proposed exercises and the theoretical framework is missing. ◦ The references to the Living Labs and, in general, to the relevance of the integration of Web 2.0 in developing intercultural competence in VET contexts are very weak.

9.  ICTs ◦ WEBSITE AND LIVINGLABS emerging limits (1)  - Living Labs ◦ Till what extent do they reflect the learning materials (Handbooks)? ◦ How do they match the theoretical, episitemological, methodological choices declared in the Handbooks and at the basis of the Project? ◦ Which dimensions of VET competency do they affect? ◦ To what extent are they relevant to VET learning contexts and to VET students and trainers? ◦ Which way are new media and Web 2.0 integrated in the learning activities? (Actual examples are missing)  - Website ◦ Partially: it is very static: only an archive of texts; the only possible actions are upload/download; No integration of Web 2.0; The main link connects with the page in Lithuanian and not with thepage in English (no international relevance of the output); guests cannot log in, interact woith the website, make questions, have access to examples

10. This communication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein. Nr. LLP-LDV-TOI-2013-LT-0145  Ameliorative suggestions  Reinforce the reflection on paradigms and ground the methodological choice on a solid epistemological stance;  A more coherent selection of theoretical literature.  Internal coherence (stronger connection between theory, methodology and practical side)  More pertinence of learning strategies and tools with respect to VET;  Improve and ground the introduction of Web 2.0 (social learning) within the proposed intercultural learning approach and the VET context (make Living Labs more clear, provide actual examples of the experimentations, e.g. videos, explain which learning dimensions have been assessed after LivingLabs through the assessment questionnaire and their relevance for VET competency)  Make the website more dynamic: guest log in; main page in English; video streaming of examples of LivLabs activities; video tutorials by staff and experts; integration of chats, walls, sharing tools; connection with social networks (which are not active, e.g. the Facebook page) ; link to websites relevant for a intercultural education ++ + +