A framework of factors to assess and support innovative pedagogy in eLearning , the Swiss Virtual Campus case

1. Aframeworkof factors to assess and support innovative pedagogyin eLearning, the Swiss Virtual Campus case http://tecfa.unige.ch/proj/cvs/en/welcome.html Pr. Jacques Viens, Ph.D. TECFA, Uni. de Genève

2. PLAN • Context • Major concepts • Structure of factors • Examples of factors by level • A systemic framework • Discussion

3. CONTEXT (overview) • ICT Society : Swiss Virtual Campus • Action research 1 : IntersTICES • Results : factors & models • Action research 2 : GIRAFE • Results : research vs action/practice

4. CONTEXT Swiss Virtual Campus (SVC) a (societal) national response… Phase I : 2000-2004 - 50 eLearning projects (3 y., 3 uni., prof.) - 28 in 2000, 22 in 2001 - Matched funding, app. 1M Euro - 4 mandates (1 tech., then 2 ped, 1 inst.)

5. IntersTICES’ MANDATE • Goals/Tasks • To provide pedagogical support to the projects • To make an inventory of the projects’ pedagogical practices, mainly the exploitation of the innovative and interactive potential of ICT; • To set the bases of an evaluation frameworkassessing the innovative nature of eLearning pedagogy, in collaboration with the national and international community.

6. CONTEXT 3 GROUPS OF FACTORS AFFECTING ICT USES IN EDUCATION Teachers’ characteristics • Age, experience, ICT abilities, pedagogical vision/values, attitudes towards change, self efficacy Technology specificities & attributions • What is done ? Which tools & activities? Actors’ perceptions of ICT and related activities : usefulness, advantages over non-ICT activities, level of difficulty and complexity… Institutional factors • Time, peers collabo/support, adm. support, converging vision of ICT, ICT training, availability and access to equip., technical support on time, topic and school programs, school level, socio-economic level

7. METHOD • “Recherche-action-formation” • Participative and collaborative • 5 initial steps • First contact meeting with each projet • Interview : current situation, needs analysis and follow up planning • Specific support to the projects • Animation of a virtual communityof practice • Collective face to face activitiesand workshops

8. OUR STRATEGY « Action-instruction » research Explicitation Elaboration • Targeted competences • Context resources & contraints • Pedagogical stance (actors’role) • Scenario - Content, activities, resources - Articulation presence/distance Needs analysis and formative Evaluation of the dispositive Co-managed workshops Discussion, sharing in a Community of practice Theoretical & practical references or tools for the developement of a distance learning dispositive

9. METHOD… • Data collection • Notes from meetings of step 1-3 • Transcription of interviews (step 2) • Egroup activities and emails • Literature review • Data analyses • Qualitative • Cycles of readings, linking, sense making • Validation by triangulation

10. Major concepts • eLearning… a multidimensional concept a development process… • Innovation… what? for who? • Innovative pedagogy for students ? • Evaluation and support… a systemic approach

11. eLearning, a … Multidimensional environment Major concepts : eLearning Teacher/tutor, learner, others Scenario Face to face activities Online activities Consultation Interaction Production Search Reflexion/think. Discussion Communication Practice, … Human resources Profs, assistants, tutors, students, experts Classroom & laboratory Home/Work activities Teaching/learning platform Documents, lessons, web site … Internet acces, identification/registration personal database, tools, etc… Maintenance & updating

12. Evaluation/revision Major concepts : eLearning Conception Analyses Production Systematic development process Implementation Field tests Actors Resources Material conditions Institutional convention/constraints Real world, conditions & context

13. Major concepts : innovation • Spontaneous or systemic & systematic process (units/phases and degrees/levels)Chins (1976) Units (Individual, Group, Institution, Culture) Levels (Substitution, Alteration, Perturbation, Restructuration, Value changes)

14. Major concepts : innovation • Added value by a change in practice/tools • Innovation and added value … for who ? • Learners • Teachers • Developers • Institution • Society (industry)

15. Major concepts : innovation eLearning Added value Require to make things explicit Basic pedagogy principle = Congruence Objectives + objects (contents)Processes, specific support & toolsProducts (evaluated, applied)

16. Major concepts : innovation • Access, but what do you provide access to ? • Individualization, but what cost? And what about globalisation ? • Feedback, yes but from who ? How rich ? What cost ? eLearning Added value

17. Major concepts : Innovative pedagogy Added value : 4 key dimensions … A continuum… How do you integrate/support : (into objectives, activities, ressources, evaluation) 1. Learners’ autonomy and deep involvementCBL, hypertext, PBL, responsabilization (goals, content, strategies…) 2. Contextualised activities (real world), projects Simulations, microworlds, (context of action & culture) 3. Collaboration, co-elaboration of knowledgeSocial skills, production strategies and objects of negociation 4. Deep learning, high level cognitive skills/activitiesmetacognition, reflexive/critical thinking, Cognitive tools

18. Major concepts : Evaluation/support • Beyond the learning kit ... (Stufflebeam) • Context, inputs, processes, output (products). • Context (Bronfenbrenner) (micro, meso, macro) • Added value for the consumers (Scriven) • Consider the changes in actors values (Stake) • Economic/short term evaluation may be misleading • Systemic (Viens)

19. A SYSTEMIC STRUCTURE OF FACTORS - Societal aspects (Macro)- Institutional aspects (Meso) - Learning environ./dispositive (Micro)Technology(environment, interface, tools)Pedagogy (scenario:goals, processes,...)Developmentprocess/strategies - Human aspects(repre, abilities, att., practice)(Learners, teachers, tutors, developpers, administratives, …)

20. SOCIETAL ASPECTS (MACRO) Examples • Imposed condition of partners from at least 3 universities … often not collaborators as start, impedes the effectiveness; • Managing multi-uni projects is time consuming and complex, goals, interests, practice, programs, resources, management; • Multi-languages activities are high cost/time/energy for all ; • 3 years is long to develop a course, but short for innovation: 6 months/1 year to launch/establish the collaboration and a • shared vision; • SVC expectationsvs real life constraints for projects

21. INSTITUTIONAL ASPECTS (MESO) Examples • Culture of eLearning to be developed and officially supported (vision, curriculum, evaluation, resources, recognition); • Conditions differ (goals, programs, resources, involvement) • Inter-institutions contracts … • Internal management rules/procedures not adapted

22. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (MICRO) Technology Examples • Platform limits and constraints, inter-operability, standards (identification, versions, software, …) still to discover… • Interface (web pages) design has a low priority level… • Platform tools/design foster a traditional delivery approach • Communication and knowledge construction tools are new

23. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (MICRO) Pedagogy Examples • Too much content is targeted, in eLearning everything needs to be more explicit/planned/addressed, so what is essential ? • Text-based conception inherited from traditional teaching/writing • Goals not always clear, harmonised with activities/evaluation • New roles: students, tutors and teachers need guidelines and procedures support for active eLearning;

24. LEARNING ENVIRONMENT (MICRO) Development process examples • Mostly intuitive, no systematic design/development experience • Main energy is invested in production, very little analyses, design, evaluation, implementation concerns • Evaluation and implementation issues are just being considered… but should be at start • Coordinators are overloaded, management and development (content, web pages, pedagogical models and procedures…).

25. Meso Learning environment Macro Micro A MULTIDIMENSIONAL MODEL Institutional : multi... Universities, departments Learner Learner Learner Learner Learner Teacher Context Actors Teacher eLearning culture Representations/values Abilities/resources Attitudes Practice Teacher Tutors et assistants Conceptors/developers Physical context … classroom, labo, home Society… UNESCO

26. RepresentationsAbilities/ResourcesAttitudesPractice RepresentationsAbilities/ResourcesAttitudesPractice RepresentationsAbilities/ResourcesAttitudesPractice RepresentationsAbilities/ResourcesAttitudesPractice RepresentationsAbilities/ResourcesAttitudesPractice Actors’ culture Evaluation Resources Administrators etc… Developers Learners Teachers Tutors Activities Conditions & constraintsProgramm, N+culture of actors, time, local & on line resources, etc. Objectives E E I I A A What ? Why ? When ? How ? 2 1 3 Objectives, competencies, activities, Actors’ roles+ responsibilities, resources, evaluation of impacts… Seven indicators/factors of innovative and enriched pedagogical practice 1- Access to… information and resources (time - space) 2- Individualization, adaptation of learning activities 3- Richer Feedback (access + individualization+ frequency = quality) 4- Autonomy, responsibilization & learner involvement 5- Cooperation, collaboration, co-elaboration of knowledge 6- Situated learning, reality anchored activities, simulation, visualization 7- High-level knowledge, critical thinking, reflexive verbalization Pedagogical spaces of integration Explicit Implicit Absent 7 indicators/factors of innovative & enriched practice

27. Action-Instruction-Research Our strategy ? Explicitation Elaboration • Targeted competences • Context resources & contraints • Pedagogical stance (actors’role) • Scenario - Content, activities, resources - Articulation presence/distance Needs analysis and formative Evaluation of the dispositive Co-managed workshops Discussion, sharing in a Community of practice Theoretical & practical references or tools for the developement of a distance learning dispositive

28. THE END … Questions? jacques.viens@umontreal.ca