dimanche 9 mars 2014

A decade after, what is left from Kaleidoscope?

Ten years ago, on March 2004 the 9th, we held the kick-off meeting of Kaleidoscope, a FP6 network of excellence, in the Castle of Sassenage, near Grenoble. A great day for a great ambition. The network initially gathered 76 research teams in Technology Enhanced Learning (TEL), what meant about 850 researchers and PhD students ; by the end of the EC contract we were about an hundred research teams associated in some way, and more than a thousands researchers and PdD students.


The aim of Kaleidoscope was to foster integration of different research disciplines relevant to TEL, bridging educational, cognitive and social sciences, and emerging technologies. To bring this ambition to reality, in a very fragmented European TEL research area, we chosen to involve a large number of contributors of which only a small number were already collaborating, and a large range of different research themes. Hence a very high level challenge. A set of instruments (focussed joint projects, virtual doctoral school, common platform, etc.) was planned to support the integration process at both the content and the infrastructure level (cf. the technical annex of the project [here], and the slides of the general presentation at the kick-off meeting [there]).

In my opinion, situated at equal distance from success and failure, Kaleidoscope was both a human and a scientific venture. Writing a report on the lessons learned with Sten Ludvigsen, scientific director of the network during the last period of the contract, we noted that "the history of these four years is that of the construction of the network in interaction with a process for understanding what to be a Network of Excellence means, and what integration means in the TEL research area. It is also the history of the interactions between the consortium and the reviewers team and the project officers."

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilc-7i_Fx9mcRTEFKdfx69cNJzjceSuD2vp1jtI0cC5znwgjOg0jj2hjfPLN1Mi4uMK2u1s3Fi-4vnDywjXKTwGvLfg_02HLIYaDnAvrseR3nmDZvzUhvJPeyJy-Igh6JMyV5ieZJYsEQ/s1600/Kaleidoscope+kickoff+Christensen.jpg

Interestingly, this difference in the views about Kaleidoscope may be illustrated with a certain sense of humour by this picture. Above the head of Jens Christensen, our founding project officer, the portrait of Gaspar Baron de Sassenage, above myself the image of a character taking off supported by angels in a blue sky... Ten years after the character has landed. He is back with ideas still ambitious but probably better shaped by experience and a certain sense of pragmatism which he learned in particular in an other TEL network of excellence from the FP7, STELLAR. Some outcomes of this joint academic venture are still there, as the TeLearn Open archive, the TEL dictionary, and the largely disseminated book synthesizing the Kaleidoscope scientific legacy. TELEARC, the association which has taken the challenge of keeping alive and building on Kaleidoscope legacy has organised a new Alpine Rendez-vous conference in collaboration with STELLAR, and may organize an other one. But all this does not really account for what the Kaleidoscope network has changed in the TEL research area, to understand this change the best data we could have is that from your own view and experience, hence the question:
As a participant in the Kaleidoscope network of excellence, either contractor or associated, what in your opinion can be considered as a legacy? What is left or what you miss when looking back to what we did?
You can respond by leaving a commentary on this post. If there are enough comments, I will make a synthesis of your views and publish it on this blog (let's say in a month or two) and possibly find a way to share it with the project officers and the reviewers who have looked after us during these years.

2 commentaires:

  1. Ten years, time flies! The legacy for me of Kaleidoscope is that I have acquired a number of close scientific (and personal) friendships from that time that have continued in past (www.scy-net.eu) and current (www.golab-project.eu) endeavors. Another eminent legacy is the SIG on inquiry learning that is still very much alive and kicking and that organizes its yearly happenings, this year in Malmø (http://earlisig20.mah.se/). In Kaleidoscope many ideas have been formed and they continue to live one way or the other. This is not very tangible though which also holds for the warm remembrances of that time!

    RépondreSupprimer
  2. Personally, I learned a lot with Kaleidoscope. I had the opportunity to be part of executive and decision-making boards and this has been extremely constructive for me. I also met interesting people, I still work with or meet some of them! But a part from my personal development, I think that Kaleidoscope has paved the way to many projects, such as:
    - Stellarnet, which is a follow-up of Kaleidoscope, merging with ProLearn, the ‘other’ NoE in TEL (www.stellarnet.eu), and which led to TELEurope (www.teleurope.eu)
    - GaLA (www.galanoe.eu), although not focusing on TEL, but to the related topic of Serious Games, which leads to the Serious Games Society (seriousgamessociety.org), but where we face a similar challenge in fostering the engagement of industry in an academy-led consortium.
    - HoTEL (www.hotel-project.eu), where lessons learnt are put in practice to enhance the adoption of innovation in TEL, taking into account the whole ecosystem of stakeholders.

    My impression is that the energy spent, the designed strategies, the evolving activities, all the work done trying to close the gap between academia and industry in the field of TEL allowed us to progress, but had a somehow limited impact. Good practice and lessons learnt were repeated and improved in subsequent projects. However the gap still remains and it seems that the expectation to have a fluid cooperation and a really successful transfer between the two worlds is still a bit too ambitious, at least in the field of TEL . This being said, within limitations, we have managed to achieve good results improving cooperation and exchanges between academy and industry, but the way projects are originally designed and funded, the initial approach (or attitude) is not particularly favorable to the engagement of industry and business-oriented organisations, as they have fundamentally limited time & interest to dedicate to activities that are not immediately profitable.

    Best wishes!
    Lydia

    RépondreSupprimer