Methodological frameworks harmonisation

1
METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS HARMONISATION
1. SOURCE METHODOLOGICAL FRAMEWORKS
Community Service Learning (CSL) is the methodology applied by CONECTA JOVEN in Spain, and is aimed to maximize the development of individuals’
potential and their active participation to society.
At the beginning of CSL we situate the works of William James and John Dewey. James was inspired by this pedagogical procedure to substitute military
service by a peaceful aim and a civic education. It is no exaggeration to say that the source of the CSL is a clear desire to make a civics-oriented the values of
peace and non-military service to the community. As for Dewey, his contribution is epistemological, and pedagogical: activity with an aim of social benefit.
First, CSL is an activity that is well known as it should assume the definition of a problem, its study by various ways, the development of proposed solution
and finally, implementation and evaluation of proposals.
Secondly, an associated activity, what it mean is that it's made collectively and not as a result of the action of an isolated person. Individual efforts must be
added to carry out participatory projects, civic and effective.
Finally, an activity for a social benefit, therefore intended to increase welfare community and therefore open to solidarity.
CSL (in Catalan “aprenentatge servei”) is an educational initiative which combines learning with community service in a single well-articulated project. The
participants are trained while working on real needs in their community in order to make it better. Service-learning is, therefore, an educational project
with a social purpose.
Within this particular framework, the Community Service-Learning Promotion Centre (in Catalan “Centre Promotor d'Aprenentatge Servei”) is a base for
generating initiatives and different procedures with the aim of facilitating and reinforcing the CSL projects. It is made up of different institutions and
organisations which offer a public service while working independently from the Administration, with the objective of consolidating the public perception of
CSL as one of innovation and educational quality. Its main goal is to promote the study, dissemination and development of projects combining learning and
community service.

2
Participatory and Appreciative Action and Reflection (PAAR)
“The label ‘participatory and appreciative action and reflection’ (PAAR) is new and was first used by Ghaye (2005, 2008). We use it here to describe what we
suggest is a necessary development from more conventional forms of action research (AR) and from participatory action research (PAR) to a more explicitly
‘appreciative’ research style. PAAR synthesizes the best practices of action research (AR) and participatory action research (PAR) by adding a third and new
dimension called appreciative intelligence. Like its forebears, PAAR is a systematic and rigorous style of democratic research concerned with developing
practical knowing in the pursuit of worthwhile human purposes. PAAR brings together action and reflection, with the participation of a range of
stakeholders, in order to identify and amplify current achievements and to produce practical solutions in misalignments between values and actions. We
ground PAAR in a view of the generation of knowledge informed by constructivism, critical realism, structuration theory, pragmatism and humanism. It is
not simply about change. It is more about improvement and sustaining success by building on aspects of the positive present. We would argue that PAAR
may be regarded as a kind of third generation action research. One fundamental way of distinguishing between AR, PAR and PAAR is by the nature of the
key questions that each process asks. Some examples are shown in Table 1.
Some common ‘threads’ implicit in Table 1 and which are relevant to AR, PAR and PAAR are:
who decides which form of research is appropriate?
who participates and who is left out?
whose problem, question or success is it?
from whose perspective and which perspectives are left out?
who decides what’s important to reflect upon and to action?
whose reality is expressed, in what ways and why and whose is left out?
who can access and use what is learnt and who cannot?

3
who benefits and in what ways and who does not?”1
Therefore, PAAR is interventionist in kind and works with people, in an ethical way, to improve particular situations, processes and livelihoods. PAAR draws
a sharp distinction between change and improvement. Not all change is improvement. PAAR is a form of intentional action to improve something.
PAAR is a strengths-based methodology. It co-creates, with those involved, strength-enhancing interventions based upon an understanding of the root
causes of success and achievement, rather than of problems and failures.
PAAR draws upon the processes associated with developing and using three types of ‘intelligence’. They are (1) Appreciative (2) Social (3) Emotional
intelligences.
1
Ghaye, Tony, Melander-Wikman, Anita, Kisare, Mosi, Chambers, Philip, Bergmark, Ulrika, Kostenius, Catrine and Lillyman, Sue (2008), 'Participatory and appreciative action and
reflection (PAAR) - democratizing reflective practices', Reflective Practice,9:4,362 — 363. Article available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14623940802475827

4
Previous kinds of action research (AR) were ‘lacking’ in three fundamental ways. (1) The interventions were based upon acknowledging, and then trying to
solve, problems (2) Traditional AR failed to recognise that we don’t learn about success, achievement and fulfillment by studying failure, mistakes and
frustration (3) AR lacked an explicit acknowledgment of the value and centrality, to any improvement effort, of building participant ‘positivity’, and
elevating positive emotions, in order to for those involved to have enough (a) physical (b) mental (c) emotional (d) spiritual energy to be resilient and
innovative in a context of change.
PAAR builds over the “we”. The “we”-perspective is an operationalisation of the second PAAR pillar (“appreciation”) and is an improvement from AR to PAR
(as described above). And it is a very practical way of designing learning content, as from the PAAR-perspective learning material should aim to be designed
from a “we” perspective? PAR includes the ‘we’, like PAAR, but is still focused on problems/deficits.
PAAR adds the notion of appreciative intelligence into the AR mix thus transforming the ‘we’ into a ‘we’ that starts the improvement/betterment process
from identifying strengths/successes, the root causes of them and how to amplify them (building positivity), THEN goes on into the ‘generative 2nd
question which is all about what needs to stop and what the ‘we’ needs to start doing to improve a thing, process, system etc.

5
2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
ELEMENTS # CSL # PAAR HARMONISATION
Pillars
1 Experiential Learning
and Community Service
Action
1 Space
(how we make it, take it
and shape it)
Following PAAR plot, we can think on the following pillars for the
communication situations between elderly and young people:
1. Space (PAAR) or Environment (CSL) are crucial dimensions
already considered by both didactical approaches. “Space” refers to
the concrete working/ learning place (e.g. the telecentre), while
“Environment” is a broader place which includes the “space” (e.g.
the neighborhood). All didactical materials should reflect on the
(physical/virtual /perceptual) space where the communication is
taking place in, and provide solutions adapted to each space.
2. Regarding Appreciation, the question “How far are you feeling
strengthened by this participation/ useful for society?” could be
formulated by C.J. as well, and to both target groups.
3. Both didactical settings already attempt to Empower the
participants to feel more active and ‘in control’ of their own
learning.
4. Both methodologies already support and encourage Participation
with their didactical approaches. But a specific challenge for this
participation to take place in this project is that each generational
group appreciates the “lessons” (knowledge, values, competences)
that they can learn from the other generation.
5. The Ethics perspective: both didactical settings build on ethical
values, which are mutually compatible. They both should address
2 Appreciation
(how Participation
strengthens not weakens
us and helps us to use
and develop our
strengths)
2 Education for Citizenship
(Civic, Ethic, Pro-social
and Emotional Education,
with a view to Personal
Engagement)
3 Empowerment
(how we feel, think and
can do different and
better things)
4 Participation
(how the physical, virtual
and perceptual Spaces
effect the kind and
quality of interaction and
participation)
3 Centre and Environment
(Equal Opportunities,
Inter-generational
exchange, Social
Cohesion, Living
together)
5 Ethics
(are we acting ethically
and doing social work?)

6
the questions “are we working ethically?”, “is this training aiming at
something ‘good’?”, “who benefits?” (for the elderly, the benefit is
less clear and needs to be more developed)
In those elements that are already developed in both methodologies
(e.g. participation, empowerment, ethics) there is an opportunity to
learn from each other about their conceptions and implementation
in order to enrich each side.
Effects
1 Improvement of Youth
formation
Continuous
Improvement
Community Service-oriented Action, Reflection and
Learning
Collaborative process of committed actions and reflective learning
for personal and community development
2 Improvement of
communication
1 Improving the situation
3 Personal development 2 Improving the process
4 Engagement 3 Improving what we do
5 Emotional education 4 Improve where we
work/live
Actions
1 Experience 1 Linking action and
reflection-upon-action
Learning by reflectively experiencing
(CSL does by learning and learns by doing, PAAR acts and reflects to
turn negative into positive)2 Participation 2 Strengthening
3 Cooperation 3 Flip-it action
Consolidated
methodology
CSL
Community Service Learning
PAAR
Participatory and
Appreciative Action and
Reflection
ILBES
Intergenerational Learning in Blended Environments and Spaces
This is a first attempt to build a common methodological framework
without forcing the two methodologies together into some kind of
unhappy 'marriage'. We identified two elements where whatever
methodology we produce it should fit in: 1) intergenerational
learning and 2) the spatial dimension, which in PAAR is the physical
space where the workshop takes place while in CONECTA JOVEN is
the environment, which combines the spatial dimension of the
telecentre and its surroundings with the wider online space.

7
3. PARTNERS’ METHODOLOGIES
ATTRIBUTE CSL PAAR HARMONISATION
Aim (1) Education in Values (ethical +
emotional) through
Experiential learning +
Community service action,
(2) To maximise own potential
development and active
integration into society
The PAAR message is about:
(1) building positivity, optimism and
resilience, in individuals, groups
and communities by fully utilising
our appreciative intelligence.
Some outcomes of this is that
people are more able and willing
to embrace change and
improvement, are more creative
and prepared to take 'risks'.
(2) working supportively, with each
other, to improve particular
situations.
It aims to
(1) Appreciate: developing the
appreciative gaze 
“looking at the practice”
(2) Imagine: reframing  “look
at the ‘problems’
differently”
(3) Design: building practical
wisdom  “thinking”
In order to
(4) Act (better): action  “do”
Both methodologies aim to empower individuals to improve
themselves and the community where they live. They also use
similar terminology (even if interpretations may vary).
However, each one proceeds in a different way.
The main divergence was found in the initial questions each
methodology asks:
- CSL starts from a problem previously identified by training
designers (e.g. “There is a lack of engagement of the Youth:
how can we solve this problem?”); its approach is rather
reactive and problem-solving oriented.
- PAAR does not start from a pre-conceived problem but from
the appreciation of the strengths of a situation and builds on
that (e.g. “How can we increase and sustain social participation
by the Youth?”).
While appreciate, imagine and design are central in PAAR, CSL
starts by identifying and evaluating the needs of the
environment (community), to further imagine solutions and
design a tailored project, which is the first action of an CSL
facilitator. In PAAR, instead, solutions are expected to be
collaboratively built from the strengths of the participants (see
the reflection about “we” more in advance). This leads to a
possible divergence between CSL (“starting from a problem”) and
PAAR (“what is going especially well?”).

8
To harmonise both, CSL approach can be considered the project layer
(since eScouts effectively starts from a problem to be tackled), while
PAAR can offer means to find solutions, as it is focused on the
positive elements: the strengths of participants. In other words,
while starting from a problem could lead to become locked into
problem-finding and problem-solving as the only strategies to begin
any change, betterment or improvement process (which is deficit-
based thinking), PAAR’s strengths-based thinking could help to start
focusing on engaging in a conversation about what people can do
and wish to do, by identifying, using and developing their strengths,
gifts and talents.
On the other hand, in all “action-based” methodologies there is a
tension between the individual and group dimensions. Thus, it is
proposed to (a) carefully define who the ‘I’ and ‘we’ are (b) To be
open to the need to oscillate between the ‘I’ and the ‘we’ action
when appropriate. Enabling this ‘movement’ is crucial and
problematic sometimes, but is preferred to a dichotomist thinking
(either “I” or “we”). The harmonised methodologies should work out
how to amplify both the individual and collective strengths. However,
change/improvement might be achieved and sustained if it
represents collective, rather than individual actions/views. For this
reason, group/collective reflection (done publically, rigorously and
systematically) rather than self-reflection (only) should be promoted
(as PAAR already does).
Guiding
Values
(1) Autonomy
(2) Empathy
(3) Active Citizenship
(4) Sustainability
(5) Cooperation
(6) Participation
(7) Inter-generational exchange
(1) Knowing
(2) Relating
(3) Acting
(4) Organising
TO
(5) Enhancing human flourishing
Both methodologies share positive values guiding their training
in order to make individuals better persons, with an ethical
sense and more engaged with the development of their
groups, organizations or societies of reference.

9
Target
Groups
In Conecta Joven, CSL is applied
to the training of young people
(15-19 years old) to become
digital literacy trainers of adults
in telecentres, libraries, civic
centres, residences, etc.
PAAR is an inclusive approach and
has been used in different socio-
cultural contexts with different
groups, among which Elderly.
In relationship with Elderly and
ICT, PAAR was used in a learning
project on the use of mobile
technology for caring purposes
- Youth profile: "People between 16 and 25 years who are
active Internet users, willing to engage in
social/intergenerational voluntary work as digital trainers of
the Elderly, and to prepare themselves to join the labour
market and assume the responsibilities of the adult life”
- Elderly profile: "People over 55 years who are retired from
the labour market or who have been made redundant and
therefore excluded from the labour market, and are willing to
learn digital competences”, a few of which need also to be
“willing to engage in social/intergenerational voluntary work as
mentors of the Youth in their path to work and adult life”
Main
Processes
Community service learning,
fieldwork in/with the
environment, interest-oriented
approach, time for reflection
and for leisure (sport, free
playing, etc)
There is a well-defined 5
steps/20 activities path which
structures the Process:
(1) Preparation of the
facilitator/s
1.1 Analysis of group and each
individual
1.2 Analysis of needs,
opportunities and
transitions
1.3 Formal conditions of
curriculum
1.4 Planning the project
(1) SPACE: in communication
situations (elderly-young),
“space” should be considered
and reflected by the didactical
approach. All didactical materials
should reflect on the space that
the communication is taking
place in and provide solutions for
different spaces.
(2) PARTICIPATION:
implement participatory
elements between elderly and
young in didactical approaches
(3) APPRECIATION:
Implement the question “How far
are you feeling strengthened by
this participation and using your
gifts and talents?”
(4) EMPOWERMENT:
didactical settings should try to
Regarding the training path, CSL is more focused on the
training (with a view to satisfy already identified needs of the
community), while PAAR is more focused on the follow-on act
(better).
Reflecting on the different training instances of eSCOUTS,
there is consensus on valuing:
- the use of R-cards developed by RL to evaluate each training
session in order to improve learning for the following session
(this requires studying if it could be useful to the project).
- CSL-based Conecta Joven training curriculum and
consolidated experience running it.
Additionally, as eSCOUTS is aimed to produce some kind of
impact at Community level, both methodologies are
encouraged to take seriously into account the “territorial” &
“environmental” dimensions, e.g.:
- Considering each territory needs from the very beginning,
even for local awareness raising activities designed to attract
potential participants (e.g. communication to potential LSOs in

10
(2) Planning with the group
2.1 Motivation and context
analysis
2.2 Project definition
2.3 Work organisation
2.4 Reflection: lessons learnt
from the planning process
(3) Execution with the group
3.1 Execution of service
3.2 Context relations
3.3 Registration, communication
and dissemination
3.4 Reflection: lessons learnt
from the execution process
(4) Evaluation with the group
4.1 Balance of service results
4.2 Reflection and final balance
of lessons learnt
4.3 Future projections and
perspectives
4.4 Celebration
(5) Evaluation of the facilitator
5.1 Evaluation of the group and
each individual
5.2 Evaluation of the networking
with the participating
organisations
5.3 Evaluation of experience
gathered with CSL
5.4 Self-evaluation of the
empower the participants to feel
more active and powerful
(5) ETHICS: didactical settings
should address the questions
“are we working ethically?” and
“is this training aiming at
something ‘good’?” Answer the
question “who benefits?”
Le Marche, Italy)
- Adapting the contents to each territory where the project
intervenes, taking into account the specificities of each local
context (e.g. expected participation of a number of young
people with migrant/ethnic minority background in Spanish
pilot)
- Linking “civic engagement” goal with the features and
needs of the local context or environment. Even when both
methodologies state their interest to promote this dimension,
it does not emerges clearly from the available documentation
how “civic engagement” can be promoted in relationship with
the problematic of young and elderly population in each
territory. CONECTA JOVEN pursues to make people be aware
of the reality where they live in order to get it better, but
awareness does not necessarily lead to a “civic engagement”
expressed in a (better) action.
During Barcelona’s meeting, an Intergenerational Learning
Circle diagram which connects all the expected training
activities was drafted. It will be improved inside the
Methodological group and then shared with the rest of
partners before/during Dortmund’s meeting (July 2011).

11
facilitator
Impact On the trainees:
(1) Educational: increased
cognitive skills, motivation,
performance and school
retention
(2) Civic: improved political, civic
and social understanding;
increased engagement in
public and social affairs and
voluntary commitment to
community service
(3) Vocational and professional:
increased awareness of
vocational options and
better preparation for the
job market (including own
skills and ethical issues)
(4) Ethical and moral: broader
viewpoints and perspectives,
readiness to act ethically
(5) Social: better ability to work
in teams and / or with others
On the trainers: improved
leadership, self-esteem,
resiliency
PAAR assess Impact in 5 ways,
depending on the particular
method PAAR uses. Asking
positive questions lead to:
(1) Release positive vocabularies:
it re-focus the attention away
from problems and towards
possibilities for action
(2) Help us valuing others: it
enables us to appreciate others
value and perspective
(3) Foster good relations: it
invites to reflect upon their
practice and to think on own core
values and commitments,
facilitating the connection with
others.
(4) Help building a sense of
“community”: it creates a context
of empathy, care and mutual
affirmation
(5) Generates social innovation: It
builds positivity which, in turn,
enables individuals and groups to
broaden the way they (normally)
think and act
IMPACT as reported by Esplai and RL seems to be more of
qualitative nature. However, an effort to define Quantitative
indicators and measure them is necessary to be done during
the Design of the training paths (WP4-5) in order to
demonstrate the short-term and long-term contribution of this
project to its direct and indirect beneficiaries (young and
elderly participants, eFacilitators, local stakeholder
organisations, project partners) and to the objectives of the
Lifelong Learning programme.
As for the evaluation of that Impact, the MEANS model will be
adopted for its evaluation by L’Apis (WP10). The Ex-ante
Evaluation deliverable defines the variables and indicators to
measure in Section 4. The Quality notion and
dimensions/variables /indicators, particularly inside its tables
(p.21-23).
During discussions in Barcelona, the need of distinguishing
between Impact, Outputs and Outcomes emerged. A clarifying
document was produced, which is distributed separately. It
consolidates the definitions used by the MEANS model
together with other partner’s contributions.
Good
Practices
CONECTA JOVEN
www.conectajoven.net
MyHealth@Age
Reflect-OR Project
eSCOUTS (we hope so!!)

12
4. TRAINING COURSE SESSIONS
“Conecta Joven” (inspired in CSL)
Training path (Steps/Activities)
PAAR methodology
Training path (Questions)
HARMONISATION
Pre-training:
Encouraging participation in “connected youth”
Encourage participation
Make a brief diagnosis of the group &
community
Explain the project
Pre-training
1. Who decides which form of participation
is appropriate?
2. Who participates and who is left out?
3. Whose problem, question or success is it?
4. From whose perspective and which
perspectives are left out?
5. Who decides what’s important to reflect
upon and to take action on?
6. Whose reality is expressed, in what ways
and why and whose is left out?
7. Who can access and use what is learnt
and who cannot?
8. Who benefits and in what ways and who
does not?
The challenge for the harmonisation process is twofold.
(1) To understand the development, values, principles
and processes associated with each approach (2) To try
to retain the integrity of each approach yet taking the
‘best’ from each to achieve eScouts project goals.
At the initial stage of eScouts, there is an already
developed Conecta Joven training path structured in
terms of Steps and Activities. With PAAR there is a set
of basic Questions guiding the learning process, and four
concrete steps formulated in PAAR’s big ‘R’ diagram.
Being PAAR more of socio-psychological nature, its
structuring into concrete “blended” training steps that
are clear enough to be transmitted to partners who are
not familiar with the methodology, requires a major
effort.
While applying/informing blended learning with PAAR is
an innovation (as PAAR has not worked on-line and
digital as it has been developed with face-to-face
interaction and inter-relationships in mind), applying the
basic PAAR principles to Conecta Joven would be a good
way to get a well-based framework for blended learning.
Additionally, the project aim asks for Web 2.0/social media
implementation to support the production of user generated
1. Facilitating contact/meeting between young
people
Meet the comrades
Join the group
Increase confidence
1. What’s successful right now?
(Appreciate)

13
2. The Digital Divide
To demonstrate the effects of the digital divide
Meet our potential to decrease the digital divide
society
Knowing the tools
2. What do we need to change to make a
better future?
(Imagine)
content. eScouts should try to empower young and elderly
people to create their content online. “Content” in this case is
not only digital text, picture and video, but “communication”
at all. This represents a challenge even for Esplai, as they
would enlarge their training resources towards user generated
content, incorporating more interactive applications (e.g.
forums, wikis) and competences (e.g. facilitation of forum,
motivation).
In practical terms, there is a need of agreement between
Esplai and RL particularly regarding “HOW” the activities
are shaped by combining face-to-face and internet-
mediated training/mentoring sessions (i.e. which
classroom and online tools will be used -and to what
extent- in each one of the 5 training paths planned).
From the point of view of the project, there is a need to
document in a standardized way the 5 training paths of
the intergenerational learning cycle to produce, i.e.:
1. Training of eFacilitators to train Youth and Elderly
(Made by FE [+RL])
2. Training of Youth (as Digital Literatcy trainers) by
eFacilitators (Made by FE)
3. Training of Elderly (in Digital Literacy) by Youth
(Made by FE )
4. Training of Elderly (to be mentors) by eFacilitators
(Made by RL)
5. Mentoring of Youth by Elderly (Made by RL [+FE])
See a draft image of the intergenerational learning
cycle in next page.
At this scope, we propose to document the Training
paths adapting the form developed by TU DO in the
3. Social Skills
Improve and enhance social skills
To demonstrate the usefulness of social skills in
interpersonal life
3. How do we do this?
(Design)
4. The adult world
Start the Approach to the adult world
Breaking stereotypes
Knowing the social and developmental stages of
adult seniors
4. Who takes action and with what
consequences?
(Act)
5. Planning sessions. “Practical computer”
(online course)
Learn to plan
Plan a meeting
Knowing the “Practical computer”
6. Communication Strategies
Be aware of physical changes in public speaking
Learning to communicate
Simplify our language
7. Simulation
Take the role of trainer
Work empathy
Knowing the advantages and difficulties we have
as trainers

14
8. Distribution of teamwork
To fix the course materials and adult
Establish working groups
Distribute tasks
framework of SME ACTor project funded by EC’s
Leonardo programme (see 4.1). This is expected to help
the transfer of eSCOUTS methodologies and training
paths to those partners who are less familiar with these
methodologies.
The intergenerational learning cycle

15
4.1 Proposed tool to define each Training Course session in details
SME network facilitator
Module #: Title of module
Time What for
(Learning aims)
What
(Learning content)
How
(Methods)
How
(Instruments,
materials)
Who
(Actors,
partners)
Date Duration

16
5. TOWARDS THE TRAINING DESIGN AND PILOTING (WP4-6)
Following step in the project is to design the Strategic and Operative plan for each target group. L’apis has prepared the following table that will be useful
to start thinking on that.
Individual Elements Open issues Possible solutions
Pilot Youth
(face-to-face workshop of
Barcelona and 20-30
eLearning)
- Criteria of selection of the eFacilitators (very important, as they will be the
key-actors of the whole training process)
- Exact contents of the eLearning path and learning pace (in learning weeks?
With tutors to assist?)
1. Try to identify the best profiles for the eFaciitators to be
described well and be put in the “contract” with these key-
professionals, with the estimated hour s for their
engagement, their duties and rights, etc.
Youth to Elderly
(14 young facilitators per
partners in pair to train 10
elderly each pair in a 3-
months course about
digital literacy)
- 3-months-duration? How many sessions per week? How much face-to-face
and eLearning?
- Again, what could be the best profiles of the expected 14 young volunteers?
How to form the couples who will work together with the group of elderly?
- Which are their expected tasks?
- How much do they will operate within the training path, how much in
external activities inside of the local communities (if any)
2. Try to identify the best profiles for the young people to
be trained to be facilitators to be described well and be
put in a sort of “contract” with these key-professionals,
with the estimated hour s for their engagement, their
duties and rights, etc.
3. Is there the need to accompany the training activity
with external action?
4. Try to adapt to each context of implementation the
proposed learning/mentoring and the materials
Selected Elderly to mentor
Youth
This seems to be the most unclear sequence of the whole training path
- How to select the elderly? Which profile? What kind of engagement? For
how long? Which are their expected tasks? Range of them (from … to…)
- How many face-to-face sessions in all and per week?
- How to select the themes (civic and work-related) to dialogue with the
young people. This seems to be a key-issue, as attracting elderly and young
people to stay together and find beneficial this is not automatically easy to
achieve.
- How much do they will operate within the training path, how much in
external activities inside of the local communities (if any)
5. Try to identify the best profiles for both the elderly to
mentor young people and for these ones. Define also their
kind of engagement, etc.
6. Try to also identify the most interesting and motivating
topics (civic and work-related) to be faced during the
meetings)
7. Is there the need to accompany the training activity
with external action?
8. Try to adapt to each context of implementation the
proposed learning/mentoring and the materials

Methodological frameworks harmonisation

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to Methodological frameworks harmonisation (20)

More from TELECENTRE EUROPE (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Methodological frameworks harmonisation