ECIL Case Study
Intergenerational learning projects
Project name
Heritage communities- for today
Lead organisation
Parnas, zavod za kulturo in turizem Velike Lašče ( Institute for culture and tourism Velike
Lašče) and project partners from the region
Contact details
Name: Metka Starič
Role in organisation: Director, project manager
Telephone number(s): GSM: +386 41 833 456
Email address: info@zavod-parnas.org
Mailing Address: Zavod Parnas, 2012 Velike Lašče
Brief Summary (max 150 words/section)
Please give a concise summary of the case, highlighting its key distinguishing
features, achievements and what others can learn from this case.
This intergenerational educational and activity project is a community project on a given
Slovenian territory extending from the river Idrijca to the river Kolpa. On this territory
heritage communities are active and their activities are being coordinated by partners in the
project i.e. Local societies bringing in very different knowledge and skills Crafts, geological
knowledge etc.) According to the Framework Convention of the Council of Europe heritage
communities are composed of people who appreciate certain aspects of cultural heritage
and would like to transmit these aspects to future generations by public action. The role of
the project coordinator is to monitor setting up heritage communities, their activities and
their transformation in examples of good practice. There are several common starting
points in this project- the will to preserve heritage, craft skills and knowledge in inhabitants
who would like to arrange their living and dwelling environment, transmitting skills and
knowledge from older to younger generations, the desire of different generations to
socialize, learn and to take care of the village.
Project information (* applicable for both completed and current projects)
Location/ venue (Who was the managing institution? What country/countries
were involved? Where did the learning activities take place?)
The premises of the local coordinators of heritage communities.
© ECIL
November 2012
Duration (Start & end dates, if applicable?)
6.2.2012 - 31.12.2012
Evidence of need (Why was it important to run this project? Why was it important for
it to be intergenerational?)
Communities, be they heritage communities or other type of communities involve the
participation of different generations their learning and working. If any of the
generations is missing heritage stops being alive.
Purpose (What did you hope to achieve or change? Were you trying to meet
specific problems and/or needs within a community? What were the intended
aims and objectives?)
To raise the visibility of the region by three different active heritage communities
To group and intermingle activities of these communities
To stimulate the exchange of experience of these communities
To raise awareness of the advantages of rural living by activating the potentials of several
generations
To transmit the rediscovered inherited knowledge and skills over to all generations and
different target groups (women, young people, handicapped people, people out of work)
To contribute to the local development strategy
Participants (Who were they? How many took part? What were the age ranges?
Some 36 participants ( from 21 to 71) 25% of them were men.
How were they recruited/ involved? How were participants
encouraged/motivated to participate? Were there any barriers to involving
volunteers/ participants? If so, how were these barriers overcome?)
They were recruited from the members of local societies and also other inhabitants
were invited to participate.
The times of the meetings were a problem since some of the members were
employed and were commuting.
Activities/events
What activities/events were organised?
Craft skills and knowledge workshop
Motivational workshops
Working actions
Open days
Lectures
Study trips
© ECIL
November 2012
Educational programes to activate and exchange the knowledge of all inhabitants
A common publication in which the three heritage communities are the three heritage
communities are presented
What learning materials/tools and support were used?
Literature and films produced by the three heritage communities, primary sources,
testimonials of different generations
How often did participants meet?
Once a week as a rule.
Who supported/ facilitated sessions?
Facilitators provided by the coordinating project partners.

Evaluation
Was the project evaluated? Who was involved in the evaluation?
This was a Leader project and evaluation was required. Evaluated were the
activities of the heritage communities and their impact on local development.
What did and did not work, and what was the evidence?
In local communities one has to be ware of the pre-existing relationships that might
encourage or hinder work and learning.
Outcome evaluation: What were the outcomes for all generations involved, and
the community?
Developing of the sense of belonging, mutual help also beyond the project, shaping
of the community identity.
Process evaluation: What worked well and not so well along the planning and
implementation process?
Transposing planning and organisation into o communicable concepts fro all
generations. As a rule self-conceived project activities are less understood than other
activities imposed by the coordinator.
Lessons learned
What worked well? What could be done differently in the future?
Learning by doing worked better that abstract, verbal learning.
The process of learning should have started by asking the participants about the
© ECIL
November 2012
results of their observations, their opinion and their feeling to end up in theoretical
approaches.
Outputs (e.g. leaflets, photographs, DVDs, toolkits, training resources, policies)
A common publication in which the three heritage communities are presented
Other applicable information (e.g. any other relevant information you wish to share)
X
Funding (e.g. public, private, public-private partnership, no funding)
Public
Sustainability/ Developments
Institute Parnas has been developing other projects related to heritage communities.
Date of case study: December 2012
© ECIL
November 2012