Investigating the Effects of Training and Techno-Pedagogical Support

Béatrice Lecomte, Patrick Schaffer, Jean-François Van de Poël & Dominique Verpoorten, IFRES - University of Liege, Belgium

 

This communication presents a quantitative-qualitative research conducted among 225 teachers and teaching assistants who have benefited from the education technologies training program provided by our eCampus department at IFRES (University of Liege, Belgium) since 2011. The data collected are used to a) describe and characterize the public who attended these training sessions, b) identify the types of training programs chosen by the attendees, and c) to explore the influence of those sessions on the techno-pedagogical development of teachers. That effect is manifested by a change of mental representations or by "acting out" in terms of integrating technology into teaching practices.

1.     Introduction

The Institute for Training and Research in Higher Education (IFRES) was established in January 2005 by the University of Liege. Various missions related to higher education have been entrusted to him. Among these tasks "to facilitate the integration of ICT (Information and Communication) and eLearning in education: developing the virtual campus of the University."

This mission is especially implemented by the eCampus team. This includes being responsible for trainings in educational technologies that are included in the annual training catalog IFRES available to teachers at ULg. Our training program is described below :

Figure 1: eCampus training program

One of the objectives of our eCampus department is to train and support teachers in integrating ICT into their practice (see also the expression "technology-enhanced learning"). This process of gradual integration of technology is intended to serve a teaching / learning quality.

To think this integration, eCampus uses the TPACK model for its high level of generality.

Figure 2: TPACK framework (Koehler&Mishra, 2009)

The model consists of three main components of the knowledge of the teacher: "Content (CK), Pedagogy (PK), and Technology (TK). There is no dominant component in the model and interactions between the various components are as important as the components themselves. They are represented in the diagram by the intersection areas ("Technological Pedagogical Knowledge - TPK, Technological Content Knowledge - TCK, Pedagogical Content Knowledge - PCK"). The intersection of all these sets is the TPACK. (Koehler & Mishra, 2009, p.69).

At the center of the model lies "Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge" It represents the emergence of new forms of reflections, insights and practical lessons in the head stock. It is the result of the interaction between the aforementioned components. Among them, the eCampus training program intend to act specifically on:

• Technological Pedagogical Knowledge: facilitating awareness of the "TPK" zone, highlighting educational gains in technology and confronting it with the "pedagogical beliefs of teachers" (Ertmer, 2005, PP 36-37), training wish to perceive and understand the value and meaning of the integration of eLearning into their professional practice;
• Technological Knowledge: strengthening the sense of technological control for educational activities, placing its very practical use through scripted activities (Clark, 2005 Depover, Karsenti, Komi, 2007, p.5). Technological knowledge area training (see Figure 2) wishes to contribute to the demystification of practical technologies and enhance their ownership by teachers.

Based on teacher’s professional experiences, training strive to serve as a trigger for them to integrate effectively eLearning in their educational practices. Determine to what extent they succeed is, next to a better understanding of public training, one of the aims of this research.

2.     Our research question

"How do you characterize the public that is attending the eCampus training program and which subjective or tangible effects are they producing in terms of ICT integration in teaching practice?"

3.     Methodology

3.1.                      Population

This study is based on 225 people who attended 62 sessions during the last two academic years.

The categorization of the population attending the training sessions is made from the registration data retrieved from the database of enrollment. The same data used to objectively measure changes in enrollment and the number of unique participants in these sessions.

3.2.                      Declarative effects

The preferred source of data to address this issue is in training reports. Any assistant / lecturer compelled to attend training must write a reflexive report right at the end of his training program. Among the reports made available by IFRES, 56 were written by teachers having attended at least one training eCampus since the 2011-2012 academic year and 44 were containing mention of eCampus.

The analysis of these reports uses a deductive coding. This methodology is characterized by the use of an a priori coding scheme supported on prior research, a theoretical framework or experience. In the case of this research, the coding instrument streamlines insights fed by numerous interactions with participants in training.

These suggested benefits in terms of "Awareness" (value-added technologies for education), of "Intention" (implementation of a technology-enhanced learning) and "Operationalization" (in the implementation of technological tools such as those handled during training). That led to the establishment of a rubric "CInOpTIC (Awareness, Intention and Operationalization in the integration of Information Technology and Communication in the teaching practice).

The coding of these comments according to three categories defined above was made by two people (concordance rate: 83%). Comments coded differently by the two coders were discussed between them.

3.3.                      Observed effects

In an attempt to overcome an assessment based solely on self-reported intents or action knowing about the limits of this type of evaluation (Veenman, 2011), the study focuses on two possible impacts of our training : availability of eLearning course space opened by teachers and requests for techno-pedagogical support.

Two types of supports were distinguished: on one side the "short time" support that involves small claims "Helping hand" and are realized through one or even two meetings. On the other hand, the "long time" support that requires a larger investment. The study extends the exploration to describe the results of those support actions. For this, the SAMR model ("Substitution Modification Augmentation and Redefinition") offered by Puentedura (2009) was preferred. Based upon the accompanying sheets written on the occasion of these supports, each project has been positioned on this scale.

Figure 3: SAMR model (Puentedura, 2009)

4.     Main results

4.1.                      Public attending our training session

4.1.1.      Evolution

 

Figure 4: Level of enrolment for eCampus training

A significant increase in enrollment resulting in 253 entries identified and 165 unique participants is measured for this year. The attendees’ faculty of origin is largely in “hard science” field although there are increases for all faculties. The number of women (110) and men (115) are equitably distributed and grow in the same proportion.

4.1.2.      Distribution of enrolment

Figure 5

165 enrollments were measured for the "eLearning at ULg" session compared to 102 enrollments in the "Introduction to eCampus" session. Regarding specific trainings, there are 68 enrollments distributed among the three basic sessions (content creation, evaluation and communication). Specific advanced sessions on the other hand attracted 26 persons.

4.1.3.      Main training path chosen by attendees

 

Figure 6

From the 225 people having at least attended one training, 64 only attended “eLearning at ULg”, 48 teachers have chosen to attend a combination of this training with “Introduction à eCampus” session. Finally 25 attendees have followed a training path that includes the two trainings mentioned above and at least one specific basic session.

4.2.                      Declarative effects

Figure 7

Analysis of the reflexive reports written by the attendees with the CINOPTIC rubric shows that 23 participants (56%) clearly mention an awareness of the interest to the integration of ICT. 11 participants (27%) are clearly stating intention to integrate ICT into their practice by describing the activities they wish to implement. Finally, seven participants (17%) report that they have systems already implemented for students that are now available on eCampus.

4.3.                      Observed effects

4.3.1.      Implementation of eLearning activities through eCampus

Figure 8

We observed that 104 attendees opened an access to an eCampus course space to their students.

4.3.2.      Description of activities developed by teachers after a request of support

Figure 9

We classified the projects and situated them on the SAMR model. The numbers in orange describes the projects resulting from short term support. The one in blue cases represent the number of projects resulting from “long-term” support provided by the eCampus department. The figure above also tends to demonstrate that the more a project is supported, the more it has chance to produce a high quality activity for students.

5.     Discussions

The discussions and perspectives of regulation will be presented during our Online Educa session.

References

Clark, R. E. &Feldon, D. F. (2005).Five common but questionable principles of multimedia learning.In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning.Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Depover, Karsenti, Komis (2007), Enseigner avec les technologies : favoriser les apprentissages, développer les compétences, Presses de l’Université du Québec.

Eberly Center, (SD), Principle of Teaching, Carnegie Mellon University, dernière consultation le 21 juillet 2013 sur http://www.cmu.edu/teaching/principles/teaching.html

Ertmer, P.A., (2005). Teacher Pedagogical Beliefs: The Final Frontier in Our Quest for Technology Integration?Educational Technology Research and Development, v53 n4 p25-40 2005.

IFRES, (2010), Plan stratégique 2010-2015, Université de Liège. Consulté le 12 juillet 2013 sur http://www.ifres.ulg.ac.be/portail/contenu/node/30/edit?q=system/files/plan_d_actions_ifres__2010_2015.pdf

Koelher, M.J., & Mishra, P. (2006) Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher knowledge. Teacher College Record Volume 108, Number 6, June 2006, pp 1017-1054.  Teachers  College, Columbia University.

Kirkpatrick, D. L. and Kirkpatrick J.D. (2006). Evaluating Training Programs (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory intoPractice, 41 (4), 212-218.

Mishra, P, &Koelher, M.J., (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60-70.

Moersch, C. (1998). Levels of technology implementation (LoTi): A framework for measuring classroom technology use. Learning and Leading With Technology. International Society for Technology in Education.

Puentedura, R R., (2009), As We May Teach: Educational Technology, From Theory Into Practice (online). https://itunes.apple.com/itunes-u/as-we-may-teach-educational/id380294705?mt=10  [accessed 20 july 2013]

Russel, T.L., (2001), The No Significant Difference Phenomenon: A Comparative Research Annotated Bibliography on Technology for Distance Education, IDECC, fifth edition.

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1-22.

Thomas, D. R. (2003) A general inductive approach for qualitative data analysis. University of Auckland, New Zealand  http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/soph/centres/hrmas/_docs/Inductive2003.pdf [Accessed June 21 2013]

Veenman, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and learning: conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and Learning, 1(1), 3-14.

Suppose the Glove Doesn’t Fit the Hand? Taylor-Made (and) Standard System

Mia Mørkeby Johnsen, Metropolitan University College (MUC), Denmark; Lars Kofod-Jensen, Metropolitan University College, Denmark

 

What do you do when the glove doesn’t fit your hand? When your needs cannot be met by a standard system and the solution does not come out of a box?

At Metropolitan University College / Copenhagen we chose the “bumby ride” which involved the entire organization: students, staff and teachers in order to ensure a solution that would fulfill the needs. We ended up obtaining a tailor-made solution for our new combined LMS, PLE and communicational platform rather than choosing among standard systems.

To meet the needs of our visions, we established “Project IntraPol”

So far, IntraPol has been on its way for approximately 2 years. We started out with workshops, addressing the needs and visions. Then we listed our demands, ran an EU tender, chose our vendor and by Spring and Summer 2013 IntraPol was developed and delivered. Students and employees have been involved from the beginning, maturing the organization and the great expectations about the “new to come” have obscured the “fear of losing” a well- known system.

 When fully implemented, IntraPol will affect everyone at MUC’s daily life. We expect the following impacts:

- IntraPol optimizes the relation between students, teachers, administrators and external relations e.g. internship personnel

 - IntraPol will provide a broader understanding between students and staff members – as everyone will have an opportunity to follow the everyday life at MUC across organizational positions.

 - The students will focus on (blended) learning aspects and consolidate their knowledge rather than navigating and searching information

 - IntraPol will attract future students because both the digital and physical student environments are attractive

Project IntraPol replaces several daily used systems with tailor-made applications seamlessly joining a standard LMS and a standard CMS system:

1: a digital working place for students enabling them to:

 - getting lesson plan, literature and curriculum

 - participating in academic discussions i.e. through comments and statuses

 - handing in papers and assignments

 - answering tests

 - booking meeting rooms

 - finding and using study tools in a virtual study handbook

2: an optimal digital working and knowledge sharing area for teachers enabling them to:

 - share teaching materials and plans with students and colleagues

 - detailed planning e.g. digital lesson plans combined with students calendars and digital materials

 - receiving assignments and providing feedback to students

 - registering working hours and other administrative functions

3: a place for targeted information regarding your student- or working life e.g. news from the institution, information from student counselors, menu in cafeteria, social activities…

4: a visual appealing interface inspired by social media and its functionalities: commenting, joining groups, debating, following (personal) updates and so on…

IntraPol is about to become the place to inform, communicate and socialize… and thereby forming a community identity. At the moments MUC is running a pilot implementation for about 10% of the organization and in January 2014 a total of 12.000 students and 2000 employees will be using IntraPol. IntraPol is not just a new VLE/LMS/PLE or intranet platform, but a huge organizational change with impact on everyone.

How do we succeed with IntraPol becoming the first choice for communication in any situation?

References

www.intrapol.dk

www.phmetropol.dk

Contract Learning: How Flexible Can Formal Learning Be?

Manuel Silva & Paula Peres, ISCAP - Polytechnic Institute of Porto, Portugal

 

Planning for the implementation of quality and sustainable e-learning programs requires an understanding of the impact of information and communication technology on the higher education market and on current teaching and learning practices in order to identify critical success factors that have to be addressed in an e-learning strategy. Implementing and sustaining e-learning programs requires more than merely moving education and learning to an online environment. Successful e-learning implementation depends on building a strategy that meets the needs of the learners.

Many of the first e-learning programs have failed and one of the major reasons is the reluctant adoption of e-learning by learners - not because of the technology, but rather because of the failure of educators and organizations to provide quality content and to create an effective, interactive e-learning experience. E-learning technologies may save university administrators costs and add a measure of convenience for the learners but educators may realize that the focus should not be primarily on ICT. The ICT infrastructure enables e-learning but do not produce knowledge workers who are capable of higher-order thinking and reasoning in solving intricate and authentic problems in the workplace.

On the other hand, the existing dichotomy between theoretical research and educational practices in the teaching-learning process makes it important to clarify the applicability and dissonances as well as the emerging variables of the different proposals and approaches. It makes it necessary also to reflect on the forms of institutional validation of the acquired knowledge, which take place in educational settings outside the traditional classroom environments.

E-learning models may provide valuable frameworks for understanding the integration of technology and pedagogy and help to identify key disparities between the current and the desired situation. An example arises when we consider the coexistence of formal and informal learning environments, which is not always easy as personal learning environments (PLE) and information decentralization make this a difficult task that emphasizes the importance of developing strategies for assessing and validating institutional knowledge.

Learning contracts is another important concept that can benefit from the use of technology. In theory, it helps teachers and students sharing the responsibility for achieving desired outcomes. A "contract" may be a valuable tool that teachers can use in negotiating guidelines with students which detail the specific expectations on which they formally agree. The contract learning leads to the concept of personalization of education but, in a completely opposite direction, the number of massive online open course (MOOC) has been increasing. In the last 5 years millions of people are following MOOCs, with the purpose of obtaining a diploma or just learning new things or joining new experiences. 

By analyzing the concepts related to MOOC, contract learning, informal learning, personal learning environment and course design, following a case-based study and promoting discussion, we aim at creating a better understanding of social learning environments and promote the harmonization of points of view, while, at the same time, considering new perspectives that may emerge and lead to an evolution of these concepts.

In this session we intend thus to systematize concepts, analyze the different approaches being followed in higher education environments and elsewhere, both from the students and institutional perspective and promote the sharing and discussion of ideas and strategies that may contribute, on the one hand, to make formal learning more flexible and student oriented and, on the other, to integrate informal learning contexts in formal settings.

References

Attwell, G. (2007). Personal Learning Environments - the future of eLearning ? Lifelong Learning, 2, 1–8.

Bady, A. (2013). The MOOC Moment and the End of Reform. The New Inquiry.

Chen, W.-P., Millard, D., & Wills, G. (2008). A Four Dimensional Model of Formal and Informal Learning. Learning, 339–343.

Coffield, F. (Ed.). (2000). The necessity of informal learning (Vol. 4). The Policy Press.

Colley, H., Hodkinson, P., & Malcolm, J. (2003). Understanding informality and formality in learning. Adults Learning, 15, 7–9.

Downes, S. (2010). New Technology Supporting Informal Learning. Journal of Emerging Technologies in Web Intelligence, 2, 27–33. doi:10.4304/jetwi.2.1.27-33

Farmer, J. (2013). MOOCs and Online Education; a real difference. eLiterate.

Geoffrey B. Sprinkle (2000) The Effect of Incentive Contracts on Learning and Performance. The Accounting Review: July 2000, Vol. 75, No. 3, pp. 299-326.

Mangan, K. (2012). MOOC Mania. Chronicle of Higher Education, 59.

McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2010). The MOOC model for digital practice.

Personalizing Education. Schooling for tomorrow. Center for educational research and innovation. OECD 2006

Rohs, M. (2008). “Informal e-learning” - What does it mean? In Communities (pp. 24–36).

Schooley, C., Schadler, T., & Burnes, S. (2009). Get Serious About Informal Learning. Reproduction (pp. 1–8).

Väljataga, T., & Laanpere, M. (2010). Learner control and personal learning environment: a challenge for instructional design. Interactive Learning Environments, 18, 277–291. doi:10.1080/10494820.2010.500546

 

The Complete Learning Environment

Hans van Bergen, Hogeschool Utrecht, The Netherlands

 

Society has changed (you have to be flexible, adaptive, creative, to have discipline and self-control (Adèle Diamond).  That’s why we have changed education. We have turned over the pyramid of Bloom’s taxonomy.

Historically, education at Hogeschool Utrecht (Utrecht University for Applied Sciences) was primarily based on face to face education where Part-time students claimed that education and educators were not available when they needed them.  

We have changed the didactical approach to education whereby our focus now is on blended learning. We have less face to face meetings, but their character is more intense and important.

Teachers spend less time transferring basic instructional knowledge and can now focus on deeper learning and the coaching of students. Our teachers now have time to research, design and develop learning materials in the right didactical, pedagogical, content & technology context. 

New course materials are made available through the internet and via this technology learning will start even before a course has begun and continue afterwards.  Learning teams have now started working together, encouraged by very strongly integrated collaborative, communicative tools and combining social presence in a very direct way.

For students an online learning environment is essential but we started, not by choosing an existing online platform, but with didactics. This means that the didactical (pedagogical) approach of the teacher leads in what functionality is made available in his (or her) online course.

A key educational success factor for our university is that students learn together; that is why facilitating learning teams are very important. In our online learning environment students create their own learning teams and choose the way they want to work together. All social media can be integrated in this environment in which the idea is not to prescribe what tools to use, but to facilitate the students learning process in the social context to support their learning process.

We will show in the presentation the results of several courses designed following the principles mentioned above and the first feedback from students using courses like this since October 2012.

Another desired benefit is unrivaled efficiency in quality course production; a hard nut but we have cracked it. To make the system available for big numbers of teachers, we have designed a ‘Course Builder’ that as a wizard helps you create and edit on-line parts of a blended learning course. A short demonstration will show how easy it is for a teacher to create the learning environment they need, not the one the IT department thinks best….

All assignments, discussions and activities in the course are graded following Blooms Taxonomy. A graphical representation of this input will show the completeness of the course.

The approach we have chosen is very user friendly and focused on the learning process. The next step in our development will be to integrate artificial intelligence into the course builder and thereby help each teacher make the best of their online course.

Why Blended learning

Society has changed and so education has to change. The learning context for students and teachers in the 21st century is quite different from that which our educational system was built. Students, teachers and the working world have other expectations and demands of the learning outcome.

Changes, or possible changes, in Dutch educational laws ask for creative solutions from a university. When, for instance, commercial parties are allowed on the market, we have to convince students that our programmes are better and more useful for their future. We must be prepared for demands on flexibility, both in programmes and in learning environment. And we must offer education from 17 to 67 years old.

The programme HU has set up for this is about 14 criteria for redesign in four main topics:

1. Quality
2. Co-creating with the working world
3. Organisation
4. Didactical approach (pedagogy)

Today I focus on Blended  learning that is one of the didactical topics.

An important goal in HU is the improvement of the quality of f2f education. Teachers are experts and scarse, so we should optimise the time they are available to students. That's why we want to turn Blooms taxonomy upside down and spend as little time as necessary on remembering, understanding and applying so in class a teacher can concentrate on analysing, evaluating and creating. In the f2f meetings students  contruct knowledge together and learn deeper. Blended learning is not a goal in itself, but it is unavoidable if you want to optimise the effect of the f2f meetings.

The implementation of blended learning is organised as a project in HU. The project focuses on port-initial and part-time programmes, mostly master programmes.

What is Blended Learning

Blended learning is the combination of three different learning environments.

• Face to face
• Distance learning
• Learning in the workplace.

Since HU is a university for applied sciences it is very important to make the link from study to work. All master students in the educational department are employed as teachers and often more students are working in the same school, so their workplace is a realistic environment.

Didactical starting point

When teachers start to redesign their courses, it is important that they understand the motivation for the project. The intention is not  to implement more technology into our education, but to improve the quality of contact time, so to change the didactical approach.

Designers are never responsible for their courses as individuals. Redesign always starts with the programme team. The team decides on the curriculum, the general lay out of the courses, the (digital) tools needed and who is ‘gonna do what’.

In this context teachers redesign their courses as blended courses while they keep all criteria for Life Long Learning in mind.

When teachers have decided what will be done in class, they have to be sure the preparation for the f2f meeting can be done in the digital learning environment. To do that, designers need to have great knowledge of content, pedagogy (didactics) and technology related to the course on which they are working. Compare with the well known TPACK model of Koehler and Mishra. Sometimes teachers lack knowledge in one or two of these area's. The ideal route would be to professionalise them first and then start the redesign, but that would take to much time so now  we provide a programme team with the knowledge needed. Often that means that an instructional designer is added to the group. It's best to see that as training on the job and in the end the instructional designer will no longer be needed, although this may still be quite some time away.

Translation to a platform

When we translate the digital part of the blend to a platform, we must consider a couple of things.

• Is there a good looking dashboard for students (and teachers) where they get a quick and easy overview of task and courses in which they are involved?
• Can all the content teachers want to offer, like text, video, animations, assignments, quizzes, etc. be implemented on the platform? (Most of the time this is the easy part.)
• Is there a social context available for students. Is there a digital place where students can meet their classmates on and off topic? The most logical way to do this is by making connection with social media that students are actually using, like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Google plus etc. These social media will and should be expanded over the years, where some tools mentioned will disappear and others, currently unknown, will become popular. The platform has to facilitate this.
• Can students benchmark themselves on how they are doing in the course? It's not just about ranking, but about staying on the same page with your classmates in the course. I think this is very important in order to keep students motivated.
• Can students work together on the platform? Is it possible to create learning teams and who decides on the team composition?
• Can digital tools be integrated and is there a limit to the number of tools? Can students use those tools without having to login more than once?

Dashboard

The dashboard we have designed shows the assignments due from the students, the latest reactions from colleagues and teachers of the course, the latest activities of contacts in social media, the calendar for each student and the courses he (or she) is attending.

Content

All possible content, even formats we don't know about yet, can be handled in the platform easily. For teachers it is very easy to add text, photo's, video, even interactive video, quizzes etcetera. We have made a course builder that is an easy way to give structure to the course and to change that structure as if it was a mindmap that is being reorganised. All content can be offered in a organised way, to make it easy for students to follow the course. 

Social context

All participants in a course, both students and teachers, can choose in their profile via what social media they want to connect to the group. It is their choice. The platform supports as many social media as needed. All communication on social media is informal. That means that it is separated from the official and formal parts of the course like the course forum or assignments from teachers in the course. We do not teach by using facebook, but we facilitate communication between students and teachers around the course. It's like the restaurant in our building that we have where students can discuss topics from their courses, but probably will talk about a lot of other things as well.

Benchmarking

It is important for students to know whether or not they are keeping up with their classmates when talking about a course. To avoid drop outs from a course students should be aware of where they stand and teachers should be able to keep track of each student’s progress.

We have designed a tool we call 'Social score' by which we translate students activities on the platform into a number. There is a kind of mixer under this score, that has buttons for several types of participation. The right mix of this has not yet been decided and there can and will be a lot of discussion about this tool. For now we notice that just by being there the social score stimulates students to be more active on the platform. But I am sure this effect will fade away soon if there is not a more meaningful base for the number.

Integrating digital tools

On the platform we now have tools like a forum, assignments, learning teams and classmates active. This list can be easily expanded with wiki's, blogs, quizzes and all kind of different tools, depending on the requirements of the teachers or students. It is also possible to use tools outside the platform. We can use, for instance, Voice Thread right from within the platform, without having to login again or having to use a new account name and password.

This is all possible because we use SURFconext, a Dutch solution about co-operating in higher education on IT.

During my presentation I will show you the reality of the platform live.