1. European practice in ICT supported teaching and learning European study visit, CNAM Pays de la Loire, Nantes, Oct 7 th 2008 Deborah Arnold, eLearning project manager eLene-TT / eLene-TLC coordinator, Vidéoscop – Université Nancy 2

2. 2/33 Plan  (30 ’ ) Part 1: introduction –Brief history of eLene group –Pooling and sharing European resources for ICT-supported teaching & learning  (60 ’ ) Part 2: presentation, demonstration and discussion –Examples of innovative practice and associated resources from HE and VET  (30 ’ ) Part 3: hands-on –Practise using the Teaching and Learning Centre  (30 ’ ) Part 4: feedback and discussion –Impressions of TLCentre, own examples of innovative practice, potential for further exploitation

3. 3/33 Once upon a time…  2003: ‘Virtual models of European Universities’ European Commission DG Education and Culture www.elearningeuropa.info/extras/pdf/virtual_models.pdfwww.elearningeuropa.info/extras/pdf/virtual_models.pdf (EN)  Study in 200 universities  8 case studies : –France : CANEGE (consortium) –Italy : Politecnico di Milano –Germany : Bremen University –The Netherlands : Utrecht University –Finland : Finnish Virtual University –Spain : Open University of Catalonia –Sweden : Umeå University –United Kingdom : UKHEP –+ Poland : Polish Virtual University

4. 4/33 The group takes form… November 2003, Milan “let’s work together” February 2004, Bremen Defining strategic axes May 2004, Nancy Developing first project … Pedagogy Strategy Organisation Technology

5. 5/33 A guiding principle…  True collaboration  Transnational workgroups  Co-design, co-production, co-delivery EUROPEAN ADDED VALUE! Credit: Ms Ladyred, www.flickr.comMs Ladyredwww.flickr.com

6. 6/33 2007-2008 Teaching and Learning service Centre [coord: Vidéoscop-UN2, France]  Preparing HE for the net generation students  Teachers, teacher trainers, instructional designers, decision makers Three eLene projects 2005-2006 Teacher training and the innovative use of ICT in Higher Education [coord: Vidéoscop-UN2: France]  Virtual learning resource centre  Teacher training actions 2006-2007 Economics of eLearning [coord: Univ. Umeå, Sweden]  Cost-benefit analysis  Student performance  Indicators  Digital divides

7. 7/33 eLene-TLC - Teaching and Learning Centre www.tlcentre.net

8. 8/33 (60’) Part 2: presentation, demonstration and discussion  Examples of innovative practice and associated resources from HE and VET 1.European pedagogical ICT competency framework for teachers, trainers, learners and educational technologistsEuropean pedagogical ICT competency framework for teachers, trainers, learners and educational technologists 2.collaborative work -> wikis (Sweden, Italy)collaborative work -> wikis (Sweden, Italy) 3.peer feedback -> annotation tool (the Netherlands)peer feedback -> annotation tool (the Netherlands) 4.using video to demonstrate complex actions and gestures -> VITRA: Virtual training in Glass Art (EU)using video to demonstrate complex actions and gestures -> VITRA: Virtual training in Glass Art (EU) 5.Evaluation -> SEVAQ: a self-assessment instrument for evaluating quality in eLearning (EU)Evaluation -> SEVAQ: a self-assessment instrument for evaluating quality in eLearning (EU)

9. 9/33 1) European pedagogical ICT competency framework (1/3)  Methodology –Desk research: competency frameworks –Transnational study – focus groups of teachers and teacher trainers –Validation via Delphi method – 78 experts from 12 countries –Parallel studies with students and educational technologists –Confrontation with competency roles and domains from eLene-TT –Development of an overall framework

10. 10/33 1) European pedagogical ICT competency framework (2/3)

11. 11/33 1) European pedagogical ICT competency framework (3/3)  Applications: –Professional development activities for HE teachers.Digital assessment / collaboration / … –Learning actions for students.Digital literacy –Virtual guide for educational technologists / instructional designers  Approach (see also http://www.tlcentre.net/show_id_card.cgi?ID=64http://www.tlcentre.net/show_id_card.cgi?ID=64 –Target group / context –Need –Competencies to be developed –Design action around framework and TLCentre content –Deliver (online, blended, face to face) –Evaluation

12. 12/33 2) Collaborative work using wikis (Sweden, Italy) (1/3)  Collaborative work –Why? –What for?  What ’ s a wiki? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dnL00TdmLY  Why wikis?

13. 13/33 2) Collaborative work using wikis (Sweden, Italy) (2/3)  Advantages of wikis –Students can work collaboratively, independent of time or place –Don ’ t require a high degree of technical skills –Teacher can follow individual students and group processes  Possible constraints? –Knowledge of software –Participation  Basic guidelines –Define task clearly –Limit in time –Link participation to assessment (process, not just result)

14. 14/33 2) Collaborative work using wikis (Sweden, Italy) (3/3)  For more information, search the TLCentre:  WIKI http://www.tlcentre.net/show_id_card.cgi?ID=71http://www.tlcentre.net/show_id_card.cgi?ID=71  Wiki, Blog, Skype, Podcast and the “ next things ” : which are their interactions with the university world? http://www.tlcentre.net/show_id_card.cgi?ID=111 http://www.tlcentre.net/show_id_card.cgi?ID=111

15. 15/33 3) Peer feedback using an annotation tool (the Netherlands) (1/4)  What is peer feedback? –Feedback from fellow students.exchanging drafts and comments on each others' drafts.giving a grade -> peer assessment  Advantages? –peers share same perspectives and problems –learner may feel less threatened by feedback from peers –develops critical thinking

16. 16/33 3) Peer feedback using an annotation tool (the Netherlands) (2/4)  Example: annotation system www.annotatiesysteem.nl  See ‘ Annotation tool ’ : http://www.tlcentre.net/show_id_card.cgi?ID=40 http://www.tlcentre.net/show_id_card.cgi?ID=40

17. 17/33 3) Peer feedback using an annotation tool (the Netherlands) (3/4)

18. 18/33 3) Peer feedback using an annotation tool (the Netherlands) (4/4)  a collaborative tool for discussion in context, to give specific feedback and develop more efficient communication.  Effective feedback on texts is: –on time (with a plan phase and a revision phase) –specific –aimed at content + structure+ style –contains all 4 feedback functions.Analysis, Evaluation, Explanation, Suggestion –criterion-referenced through headings –constructive  Motivation: –feedback provider (the writer rates the feedback (s)he receives) –all participants: clear rules concerning the expected frequency of posting and reacting.

19. 19/33 4) Using video to demonstrate complex actions and gestures  VITRA: Virtual training in Glass Art  Socrates Leonardo da Vinci project (2005-2007) –Vidéoscop-Université Nancy 2 & CERFAV (FR) –Abatte Zanetti Glass School, Murano (IT) –Kalmar - Pukeberg Design School (SE) –Glass School Novy Bor (CZ)  Target groups –craftspeople and SME’s in the glass art sector –training centres for glassmaking techniques –artists and designers who design objects in glass  Objectives –improve the competitiveness of the glass industry in Europe by developing the skills of professionals in the sector –enable a greater number of people to learn the techniques developed in other countries

20. 20/33 The first European virtual centre for training in glass art and techniques 12 traditional techniques in 5 languages (FR, EN, SE, IT, CZ) Distance, blended or autonomous learning Each didactic video accompanied by pedagogical documents - A pedagogical guide - Advice and tips synchronised with the video - A list of equipment and tools - A bibliography and list of useful websites - Frequently Asked Questions - Photographs of pieces produced using each technique - A presentation and the history of the know-how in question - A translation tool for technical terms www.e-vitra.eu/ 4) Using video to demonstrate complex actions and gestures

21. 21/33 4) Using video to demonstrate complex actions and gestures  Why video?  Gestures and know-how at the heart of glass art  Added value: - Can learn at own pace - glass masters work fast! - Concentration - real workshop hot and noisy! - Emotionally neutral - apprentices often overwhelmed by presence of glass master!

22. 22/33 5) Evaluation: self-assessment instrument for evaluating quality  SEVAQ: a self-assessment instrument for evaluating quality in eLearning  Socrates Leonardo da Vinci project (2005-2007) www.sevaq.com

23. 23/33 Project Promoter: EFODL Project partners: NADE (Norway) BEODL (Belgium) CESI Iberia (Spain) VMU (Lithuania) Le Préau (France) Vidéoscop/UN2 (France) ISQ (Portugal) B-I-L-D (UK) 3 products: Inventory Tool Manual E-learning course + effective evaluation = Better Quality learning Aims of the project 1.Improve the quality of e-learning experiences 2.Development of multi-functional design tool for self-evaluation 3.Provide a guide for improving quality 4.Work with local Target Reference Groups 5.Dissemination at a European level

24. 24/33 First challenge : Scoping the project Learner Company Management Learning Department Company Department External Providers External Facilitators Third Parties (government agencies etc) Wider Public Who are the key stakeholders? Who will carry out the evaluation? ?

25. 25/33 Second challenge: Using a quality model © EFQM Excellence Model

26. 26/33 Third challenge: Using an evaluation model The Kirkpatrick model Level 1: Reactions – a ‘Smile Sheet’ completed by the learner. Level 2: Learning outcomes – attempts to measure what has been learned (skills, knowledge and/or attitudes) Level 3: Transfer of learning to the everyday environment – changes in behaviour Level 4: Results for the organisation such as increased productivity, increased sales, lower costs etc.

27. 27/33 Tool functionalities The stakeholders The learners SEVAQ tool administrator The entity who designs the questionnaire to be applied to the learner The final recipients of the results. The people for whom the evaluation is really set-up. 1 – Securing the purpose of the evaluation 2 – Building the questionnaire framework to be applied 3 – Applying the questionnaires 6 – Building an action plan for improvement 5 – Analysing the results 4 – Getting the results The questionnaire Designer Enables the designer with instalment and setting the tool Three functions in the tool 1 – designing the questionnaire 2 – producing 3 – consulting results

28. 28/33 Create a new questionnaire Step 1 Setup your questionnaire Step 2 Define the objectives of your questionnaire - Three steps to create your questionnaire Step 3 Develop your questionnaire

29. 29/33 Summary: Combines EFQM and Kirkpatrick for an innovative framework and approach Identifies the various stakeholders with an interest in evaluation Provides a tool for the designer prompting coverage of all relevant issues Allows flexibility for the designer to add and customise questions to give relevance to all applications.

30. 30/33 EFODL Project manager Helga Van Heysbroeck hvheysbr@vdab.be www.efodl.net For France: Anne-Marie Husson, CCIP amhusson@ccip.framhusson@ccip.fr Edwige Morin, Vidéoscop-UN2 Edwige.Morin@univ-nancy2.fr For additional questions, a personal test log-in or further dialogue: WWW.SEVAQ.COM

31. 31/33 (30’) Part 3: hands-on  Practise searching the TLCentre  Register as users to: –comment on existing resources –rate them –add your own www.tlcentre.net

32. 32/33 (30’) Part 4: feedback and discussion  The thing I liked best about the TLCentre  The thing I liked least  The name of a resource I would like to add  My ideas for future use

33. 33/33 Thank you! Deborah Arnold Project manager Vidéoscop-Université Nancy 2, France Deborah.Arnold@univ-nancy2.fr www.univ-nancy2.fr/VIDEOSCOP www.elene-centre.netAll about eLene…