Final Report from my project about intergenerational learning

Project N°. 517557-LLP-1-2011-1-NL-GRUNDTVIG-GMP

Project SILVER Successful Intergenerational Learning through Validation, Education & Research Final Report Public Part

SILVER: Successful Intergenerational Learning through Validation, Education & Research

Project N°. 517557-LLP-1-2011-1-NL-GRUNDTVIG-GMP 2 / 19

Project information

Project acronym: SILVER

Project title: Successful Intergenerational Learning through

Validation, Education & Research

Project number: Project N°. 517557-LLP-1-2011-1-NL-GRUNDTVIG-GMP

Sub-programme or KA: Multilateral

Project website: www.intergenerationallearning.eu

Reporting period: From 01/11/2011

To 31/10/2013

Report version: 1.0

Date of preparation: 28/12/2013

Beneficiary organisation: Inholland University of Applied Sciences

Project coordinator: Dr. Donald C. Ropes

Project coordinator organisation: Inholland University of Applies Sciences

Project coordinator telephone number: +31(0)651018343

Project coordinator email address: [email protected]

This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication [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. © 2008 Copyright Education, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency. The document may be freely copied and distributed provided that no modifications are made, that the source is acknowledged and that this copyright notice is included.



Executive Summary

This project developed what we call The IGL Toolkit. IGL stands for Intergenerational Learning. The purpose of the IGL Toolkit is to help organizations maintain and develop capacity by utilizing the knowledge and capabilities of older (55+) workers. The toolkit is essentially a flexible system comprised of workshops that stimulate learning between the generations (intergenerational learning or IGL) as a way to: stem the loss of critical knowledge and skills, improve older worker mobility, increase older and younger worker competence and stimulate innovation. The toolkit is comprised of two main sections. The first one – called the StAP or Stakeholder Awareness Program - is geared towards building awareness of different generations and the possibilities of IGL. Part of this is a web-based serious game individuals can play. The second section of the toolkit helps to actually organize IGL through various workshops and methodologies such as knowledge capturing and intergenerational innovative teams. This section of the toolkit is called DIGL (Doing IGL). The toolkit was tested for a period of two years in more than 40 different organizations in Finland, Germany, Greece, The Netherlands, Romania and Scotland. The final result is a toolkit that is flexible and easily adaptable to different types of organizations and cultures. The most important documents have been translated into the partner languages. Others are in English. All are available free to download at www.intergenerationallearning.eu. The project was aimed at HRD/M trainers, knowledge workers, managers, policy advisers/makers; sector organisations; lifelong learning researchers and others involved in adult learning at work. It aimed to contribute to the development of the European Union as an advanced knowledge-based society by helping organisations implement lifelong intergenerational learning in order to capitalize on ageing workers’ capacities. There have been many different participants in the project; consortium partners, our ‘business’ partners in government and industry and participants from various networks. Each added value in various ways. For example, cultural differences and diversity of perspectives has lead to higher levels of creativity and applicability. The diversity of expertise in the consortium lead to more effective working and higher quality output. However, we considered project participants to be broader than just the consortium partners and have from the start collaborated with organisations in both the private and public sectors; our project was defined on the basis of desk and field research with representatives from various sectors; the tools we developed were designed and tested in the field and we reported back to the participant organisations at different stages. Using their expertise as practitioners we have adjusted the tools for effectiveness and usability. Our methodology was based on a research and development cycle in which we developed and tested tools that organisations can use in order to successfully implement intergenerational learning. Tested tools mean organisations have a clearer idea of what fits within their context. Final exploitation and further dissemination has resulted in some impressive results on both individual and institutional level in a variety of sectors, nationally as well as internationally. This has contributed to the impact of the project as described below. The project has made a sizeable impact on the development of the European Union as an advanced knowledge-based society by helping organisations implement lifelong IGL in order to capitalize on ageing workers’ capacities. This can be illustrated by the fact that, for



example, 43 organisations in six countries participated in the testing, nine scientific papers were published and presented at international conferences, five interviews were published in professional journals and the website had 17,088 page views. More examples can be found later in this report. The project’s website was designed to evolve with the project and has now resulted into the basis for a community of practice around the toolkit. The website was initially started as a public relations instrument and has been used by the consortium’s as a repository for products as well as a forum for tool development. Please take a look at the final website at www.intergenerationallearning.eu.



Table of Contents

1. PROJECT OBJECTIVES ..................................................................................... 6

2. PROJECT APPROACH ....................................................................................... 7

3. PROJECT OUTCOMES & RESULTS ............................................................... 12

4. PARTNERSHIPS ............................................................................................... 15

5. PLANS FOR THE FUTURE ............................................................................... 17

6. CONTRIBUTION TO EU POLICIES .................................................................. 18



1. Project Objectives

The overall aim of this project was to contribute to the development of the European Union as an advanced knowledge-based society by helping organisations implement lifelong IGL in order to capitalize on ageing workers’ capacities. More specifically, we found that there is a need among private and public sector organisations for implementing proven methods for dealing with an ageing worker population in a positive and inclusive way that benefits all organisational actors. The way we did this is by developing a toolkit that can be used by managers, HRD experts and trainers to effectively and efficiently implement IGL in the workplace. In the changing demographics of the EU, management will need to rely more and more on older workers as actors for change, development and innovation and retaining critical knowledge. At the same time management will need to increase effectiveness of younger workers. Furthermore, older workers will need to be more included in lifelong learning and development activities to increase employability and stay longer in service. Younger workers need to start the process of lifelong learning early on in their career, as it increases their chances later on in life. We, together with our partners out industry and governmental sectors who helped define and develop this project, believe that intergenerational learning is one approach that has great potential for achieving these greater aims. The toolkit we developed and tested helps to:

• Increase older workers’ employability through developing key competences, such as learning to learn, learning to innovate and learning to build knowledge collaboratively with different generations.

• Assure critical organisational knowledge retention and reuse. • Contribute to younger workers’ learning and development. • Help embed sustainable innovation in organisations. • Be effectively implemented in different sectors and cultures.



2. Project Approach

Methodology for developing the project This project is based on an applied research and development process for new product (or in our case, services) realisation and includes the following steps:

• Step 1. Defining the problem in the different sectors where testing took place. This was done in cooperation with the target groups as well as desk research.

• Step 2. Desk research and practitioner interviews on the state of the art about the relevant tools and policy approaches which have been developed in the framework of policy cooperation at European level.

• Step 3. Design of tool and tool’s implementation using input from end-users.

• Step 4. Testing and evaluation in the field, including training the implementers in the different test organisations.

• Step 5. Adjustment and improvement of the various tools on the basis of evaluation results.

• Step 6. Testing and evaluation in the field

• Step 7. Reporting and dissemination, including exploitation. This process was run through for each of the instruments in the toolkit during the project. This means three complete cycles have been done. Partners collaboratively have built knowledge in order to design and test the different tools in the IGL Toolkit. All deliverables targeted at end-users are contextualized by participants in regards to the type of organisation, sector and the country in which the testing took place. Each end-user thus played a crucial role in producing intermediate and final products. The project approached the research from an Interventionist paradigm, which means that we as researchers were closely involved with the persons using the Toolkit, trained them in its implementation at each of the steps and coached them during the testing. Thus, in the sprit of true interventionist research, we were committed to involving end-users in each of the R&D steps. Practitioners and the adult learners involved in the project gave regular feedback to our work through rigorous evaluations of both process and effects. The major milestones in the project are linked to the R&D cycle, producing a tested tool for promoting and facilitating IGL. The final version of each of the tools is considered a major milestone. Indicators for progress were also woven into the R&D cycle. Although steps 1-3 were done nearly concurrently by different partners, the cycle demanded that a tangible product was produced after each step before the final version of the tool could be made. Evaluation Evaluation was an important and recognizable common thread in this project and was done both formatively and summatively. We considered that evaluation has two elements. One element concerned implementation and as such answered the question, ‘Did we do it right?’ The other element of evaluation concerned outcomes and answered the question, ‘Did we achieve what we wanted to?’ These two elements formed the basis for evaluation at the macro, meso and micro level of the project. The methodology we used is based on a Realist framework (c.f. http://www.communitymatters.com.au/RE_chapter.pdf). We have presented



each level with the framework and methodology in the tables below. For a detailed look at our evaluation strategy and instruments, please see www.intergenerationallearning.eu. The evaluation we did among the partners and stakeholders shows a clear YES to each of the questions posed in the tables below. The detailed evaluation report is available at http://www.intergenerationallearning.eu/resources/.

1. ‘Macro’ level refers here to the evaluation of the project as a whole and is done by looking at the broader picture and so includes different levels of stakeholders at the organisational, sector, national or international level.

Table 2.1: Macro level of evaluation

Implementation

Outcomes

Framework Methodology Framework Methodology

Did we effectively implement the project?

Budget analysis, review of meeting notes; reflection exercise with partners (internal and external); judgement of EU.

Did we help to diminish or solve the problem of an ageing workforce in respect to organisations losing critical knowledge, skills or innovative capacity?

We sum the results of the micro and meso-level testing .

Why was the project implemented effectively (or not)?

Reflection on and analysis of process using ‘Critical Incidents’ method with partners(internal and external);

How were the results achieved?

Analysis of mechanisms and context.

2. ‘Meso’ level refers to the evaluation of the individual work packages and includes different levels of stakeholders; management, organisational, sector, national or international level, depending on the work package.

Table 2.2: Meso level of evaluation

Implementation

Outcomes

Framework Methodology Framework Methodology Did we effectively implement the work package?

Interviews and quantitative surveys; reflection exercise with partners (internal and external);

Did the work packages help to diminish or solve the problem each one addressed?

Interviews and quantitative surveys.

Why was the work package implemented effectively (or not)?

Reflection on and analysis of process using ‘Critical Incidents’ method with partners (internal and

How were the results achieved?

Interviews and quantitative surveys; cross-case analysis of mechanisms and contexts.



external);

3. Micro level of evaluation means ‘at the level of the individual tools or interventions’. The stakeholders involved are managers, trainers and employees. For this we developed the framework based on our adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s model of four levels (see http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/kirkpatrick.htm for details).

Table 2.3: Micro level of evaluation

Implementation

Outcomes

Framework Methodology Framework Methodology How well did the learners like the learning process?

Quantitative surveys; reflection exercise with employees.

What did participants learn? (the extent to which the learners gain knowledge and skills)

Quantitative surveys with open questions.

How well did the trainers like the tools?

Interviews and quantitative surveys.

What changes in job performance resulted from the learning process?


What are the tangible results of the learning process in terms of reduced cost, improved quality, increased production, efficiency, etc.?


Sustainability – any long-lasting effects?


Added value of methodology Our R&D approach to the project added value in two major ways; 1) tools were developed and tested with the end user and as such better benefit the organizations we worked with and 2) evaluation is a scarce thing in HRD and we were able to feedback results to managers, trainers and researchers on program effects as well as implementation of learning trajectories. Policy-makers at the international, national and sector levels are also served by understanding what effective Lifelong Learning programs look like (or do not). Dissemination The actual design of the project led to a large impact factor. By virtue of the research (interviews in organizations) and testing in organizations, we assured a large impact in regards to quality. Furthermore, the academic nature of the project members stimulated many scientific publications, assuring a broad international impact and continued exploitation as other scientists will use and build on our work. Furthermore, the project was integrated into the research agendas of several partners, which assured greater impact at each of the different tiers. Some impressive facts concerning dissemination are:

• 43 organisations took part in the testing • 30 presentations or workshops (other than testing) about the project were given • Nine scientific papers were written and published (or accepted for publication)



• Five interviews about the project were published in professional journals • Our contact data base has 500+ members • Six Bachelor and two master theses were written using the project as a subject • Two PhD students are using parts of the Toolkit in their research • A management consultancy (http://www.koffie-bubbels.nl) uses the toolkit in their

consultancy • Two large public sector organisations are piloting IGL as a major change

program. • 17,088 page views on the website have been registered till now.

We had developed a five-tiered strategy for dissemination. The point was to reach all stakeholders as well as those who may be interested in the project. Each tier gives the level of dissemination, an idea of what exactly was disseminated, and the methods that were used. A database of contacts, meant for targeting information to at each tier, was developed and is updated regularly. For example reports that were disseminated through existing channels at each of the tiers. All major milestones were reported on and disseminated as well. And of course the website was a major channel and is now a web-based learning community which can be used for further dissemination and exploitation after the completion of the project. Tier 1: Individual level. Each participant disseminated regularly project information such as progress and results to his or her organisation and networks. This was done by speaking to colleagues about the project, notices on professional network websites, presentations at conferences, papers published in journals in one’s academic field, etc. Tier 2: Institutional level. Each partner has communicated project information to the institution and assured notice on the institution’s website. Dissemination was also implicit for institutions that participated in the testing. Internal events were also targeted. Tier 3: Sector level. Each partner communicated project information to the sectors in which they were involved. Regional, national and international sector organisations were involved in the dissemination. Examples of these activities are;

• Project flyers we have disseminated • Articles and interviews in sector-wide journals • Workshops and presentations on the topic of IGL and SILVER.

Tier 4: National level. Each partner communicated project information to national entities through flyers and press releases about major milestones and more than three hundred organisations were approached. Website (publicity) and workshops on the topic were given, where project information was disseminated. Tier 5: International level. Each partner has published and presented their work at international (academic and practitioner) conferences and network meetings. Papers flowing from SILVER have been presented at conferences in and in total nine scientific papers have been published in Europe and South America. Also, each partner actively took part in the web-based learning community. Exploitation strategy The exploitation strategy was based on the principles of transfer of outcomes and multiplication. The Toolkit has been designed and tested in collaboration with the end-users from varying sectors and cultures. There are also concrete, pragmatic instructions on how the Toolkit can be contextualized for effective implementation. This is meant to convince



stakeholders and end-users to actually implement the Toolkit. These points were emphasized when disseminating information to each of the tiers given above. Furthermore, we want the IGL Toolkit to have as much lasting impact as possible. To assure this, a strategy was developed that was closely linked to the exploitation and dissemination strategies in such a way as to ensure that it was mainstreamed into the sectors each of the partners worked with. The starting point was that the Toolkit is based on real and existing needs and was tested for efficacy in real situations. This has lead to an institutionalizing of the Toolkit among those concerned with adult learning, organisational development and the facilitation of lifelong learning. Institutionalization also occurred in each of the participating partner’s organisation. Multiplication occurred through the train-the-trainer system employed. The trainers involved in the research reported back to their organisation as well as any professional networks they were involved in. Presentations at national and international conferences and symposiums (such as those regularly hosted by CEDEFOP) were also done and also acted as a multiplier. Through these channels the IGL Toolkit has become part of the repertoire of lifelong learning methods in the participating organizations. Through the dissemination at a national level the toolkit has become part of the product offering of institutions and organisations providing or facilitating lifelong learning. The learning community on the website was also an important way to assure sustainability by building an autonomous group of professionals and other stakeholders. The community was founded on the basis of knowledge sharing and knowledge building. The consortium partners will continue to support this learning community after the project is completed, as it will be an important channel of communication to the field. The methodologies and evaluative frameworks developed are also important ways that sustainability is envisioned by the partners. Frameworks can be used for building different aspects of lifelong learning programs. For example developing strategies for management of an ageing workforce, designing accreditation systems for lifelong learning programs and frameworks for effective transfer of results to different contexts.



3. Project Outcomes & Results

Our major achievements of the project have been the completion of the StAP (Stakeholder Awareness Program), the DIGL(Doing IGL) and GIGL (Game IGL). There are three main parts to the toolkit. Each section has a complete series of workshops, presentations and other instruments helpful for implementing IGL. 1. A Stakeholder Awareness Program that helps HRD professionals, knowledge and general managers and/or company trainers to:

• Diagnose the problems in the organisation regarding potential knowledge loss through ageing and underutilization of older knowledge workers

• Identify the potential benefits of IGL for their organisation • Assess potential barriers for change. • Evaluate the processes and outcomes of the various interventions.

2. The ‘Doing IGL Toolkit’ contextualized and translated for six industries and six national cultures, including:

• Training manuals for ‘training the trainers’. • An implementation manual that provides implementation strategies based on the

results of the diagnosis from the Stakeholder Awareness Program. • A cost/benefit evaluation framework that helps organisations to assess the

cost/benefit ratio of the IGL initiatives that are implemented. • Thorough evaluation frameworks that look at the efficacy of the various interventions.

3. The GIGL, which is an acronym for Gaming for Intergenerational Learning. This is a web-based game for practicing IGL and raising awareness. It can be contextualised accordingly for organisational and national cultures and sector. As part of the game we have developed:

• A users manual. • An implementation manual. • A set of evaluation forms for assessing added value and usability.

The figure below is a graphical representation of the IGL Toolkit. As you can see, the toolkit is an extensive series of reports, workshops, methods, etc. Again, everything is available on our website.



Figure 3.1: The IGL Toolkit



Other outcomes and results We developed much knowledge along the way. This can be found in documents available at http://www.intergenerationallearning.eu/resources/ For example benchmark reports on various aspects of IGL in different countries; frameworks and designs for adapting workshops to different contexts and models for evaluating learning processes and outcomes, just to name a few. Some of the other, non-tangible outcomes, are shown in the table below. Table 3.1 Nontangible project outcomes Methods Some new methods we developed/improved upon are:

• Standardizing certain R&D processes in a multicultural testing situation.

• Methodology for writing scientific papers across cultures and distance processes and methodologies.

• Methodologies aimed at meeting effectiveness. Experiences Partners gained:

• New or more experience in writing up, working in and managing international and multicultural partnerships.

• Entry to the international networks of all partners. • More knowledge of interventionist research methods, i.e. working

with end-users. Policy lessons Tools for implementing Life Long Learning in knowledge intensive

organisations.

European cooperation

Project partners have: • New and extended European partnerships for research and

development projects. • Initiated more international (LLL) projects due to this network. • Been an example in their institutions and networks on the added

value of participating in an European partnership.



4. Partnerships

Aging is a European-wide issue. The challenges organisations face with regard to high performance and innovation as a result of an aging population are in most countries very similar. Yet, this is a problem that is not easily solved by one person or group; knowledge and experience from various countries must be pooled and disseminated. This is especially true in the field of lifelong intergenerational learning because this is a relatively new and complex field. The issues around intergenerational dynamics in organisations, differences in learning styles, stereotyping of older employees and change management are challenging and require international cooperation to find effective solutions. Solving this problem collaboratively has thus been an important added value of working together in an European partnership. The project partners complemented each other in this regard and functioned very efficiently and effectively as a group. Further added European value for this project has to do with the transferability of the results; to different sectors, to different national cultures, and even to completely different contexts. At the same time cultural and linguistic diversity within Europe needs to be addressed. For example, different cultures have different ways of looking at ageing. This can affect how intergenerational learning as a lifelong learning strategy is approached and implemented. By understanding varied cultural perspectives on how older workers learn, it should be possible to adjust the implementation of intergenerational learning interventions for at least as many contexts as there are partners. In this way the added value of the partners’ geographical diversity can be seen. By designing a carefully controlled R&D-based study with partner countries, it was possible to investigate the role of working style, education, occupation, environment, socio-economic status and other factors on (cognitive) ability cross-sectionally. These factors were important for both the actual design of the products as well as their implementation in different contexts later on, i.e. the transferability of the results. Another important aspect of an EU-wide project is that each of the member states has its own unique problems, which require different approaches for solving them. This has also increased the transferability of the results. For example, a major problem in Scotland considers succession of family businesses and how learning among the generations in the family can improve this process. In the region of East Germany there is a large section of the older population that is facing unemployment and IGL might be a way to stem this flow by increasing worker employability. In The Netherlands the education sector is seriously threatened by the ageing workforce; in Finland (and in most EU member states as well) the healthcare sector is threatened. Only through an EU-wide partnership can we address these different aspects accordingly. The partners and their specific strengths and focus in the project are given below.

THE BUCHAREST ACADEMY OF ECONOMIC STUDIES

Our partners from Romania are experts in the field of knowledge creation and knowledge dynamics. Both aspects are crucial to learning in organisations and thus to this project. They tested in the higher education sector.



Being specialists in the field of business and technology, OULU lead the development of the GIGL. They are tested in the ICT sector.

SEERC has extensive experience in learning and development and does both applied and fundamental research in the field. They have tested the tools in the health care sector.

Inholland was the project’s lead partner and manager. They specialise in the development of learning trajectories in organisations and did their testing in the financial services sector. .

Cottbus lead the StAP work package. They are expert researchers in the field of HRM/D and have done their testing in the knowledge intensive sector.

The Strathclyde Centre for Lifelong Learning has extensive experience in developing and guiding LLL in organisations. They have focussed on the public sector for their testing.



5. Plans for the Future

All the deliverables for the project have been completed successfully: the Stakeholder Awareness program, the Doing IGL tools, the IGL Game, including nearly all of the evaluative frameworks for the micro-, meso- and macro level, followed by intense dissemination and exploitation. The tools have been tested extensively in the field and based on reports on the testing, the final instruments were rewritten and are now available on the website. The learning community on the website was founded on the basis of knowledge sharing and knowledge building and is therefore an important way to assure sustainability as the consortium partners will continue to support this learning community after the completion of the project. We have arranged for the website to be kept updated and online for at least two more years, as it is part of the research agenda for Inholland, and as a service to all our research partners. After completion of the toolkit, it was presented at various symposiums and workshops and at several national and international conferences. Several of the reports of the project will be adapted and rewritten for submission to scientific journals, which will assure long-term exploitation as others use our work to develop knew knowledge. Because the toolkit was tested in real situations, the toolkit has been institutionalized among our test partners and our participating partner’s organisations. Multiplication will continue to occur through the train-the-trainer system that was employed and the toolkit can be contextualized by end-users for effective implementation. Other organisations have integrated parts of the toolkit into their HRM/HRD programs and one management consultancy is basing a whole system of change programs on it (http://www.koffie-bubbels.nl). Also parts of the toolkit are being adapted for use in other projects (see http://valorisatierotterdam.nl). This means we and others will continue to use the IGL Toolkit, refining and adapting it as we go. New projects based on SILVER have already been developed and more are to follow as a result of long lasting national and international networks that were built and strengthened during this project.



6. Contribution to EU policies

Project SILVER contributes to several different key EU policies by aiming at the following Objectives and Priorities: LLP-Obj-a “To contribute to the development of quality lifelong learning and to promote high performance, innovation and a European dimension in systems and practices in the field.” LLP-Obj-f “To contribute to increased participation in lifelong learning by people of all ages, including those with special needs and disadvantaged groups, regardless of their socio-economic background.” GRU-SpObj-1 “To respond to the educational challenge of an ageing population in Europe.” GRU-SpObj-2 “To help provide adults with pathways to improving their knowledge and competences.” GRU-OpOB-4 “To facilitate the development of innovative practices in adult education and their transfer, including from a participating country to others.” GRU-OpOB-5 “To support the development of innovative ICT-based content, services, pedagogies and practice for lifelong learning.” Priority 3 “Intergenerational learning; Learning for senior citizens; Family learning.” Priority 4 “Quality assurance of adult learning, including the professional development of staff.”

Final Report from my project about intergenerational learning

Documents

Transcript of Final Report from my project about intergenerational learning