• Save
An approach for e learning.b-learning dissemination in a higher education institution using pivot faculty
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

An approach for e learning.b-learning dissemination in a higher education institution using pivot faculty

on

  • 268 views

Paper submited and presented in Ed-Media 2011, Lisbon, 27 June - 2 July

Paper submited and presented in Ed-Media 2011, Lisbon, 27 June - 2 July

Statistics

Views

Total Views
268
Views on SlideShare
268
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

An approach for e learning.b-learning dissemination in a higher education institution using pivot faculty An approach for e learning.b-learning dissemination in a higher education institution using pivot faculty Document Transcript

  • An approach for e-learning/b-learning dissemination in a higher education institution using pivot faculty Gonçalo Cruz* Ana Maia* João Barroso** Teresa Pessoa* Leonel Morgado** * Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, University of Coimbra (UC), Portugal ** University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), Portugal Abstract: This paper presents a preliminary approach for implementing e-learning/b-learning pedagogical practices at the University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), North- eastern Portugal. It is a low-resource, middle-out approach, based on the creation of “pivot” teachers at each UTAD subunit, supported by consultancy services. It was initiated in September 2010 and scheduled for one year, with the ambition to serve as a basis to extend e- learning and b-learning practices to the overall organization.Introduction Empowering faculty to take advantage of the affordances enabled by e-learning technologies intheir educational approach can be a major task, when viewed from an institutional perspective, requiringsignificant allocation of human and technical resources. But strategies and approaches can be taken tofacilitate or support wider adoption of these technologies, even before allocation of significant resourcesbecomes viable, as we mention in the next section. The University of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro (UTAD), located in Vila Real, North-easternPortugal, is taking such an approach, led by the Pro-Chancellery for Innovation and InformationManagement, building from existing technology and scattered efforts and goodwill. There is aninstitutional practice of administrative use by faculty of online services developed locally, to providesyllabi, grades, and other course materials. There is a willingness of several faculty members to engage inb-learning and e-learning practices, as a way to increase contact with their students, and as way to reachnew audiences, geographically distant, for whom physical presence at the campus would not be viable.There are scattered online education practices by some faculty members, using wikis, blogs, and virtualworlds. There is also a scarcely-used Moodle platform and a technical team available to maintain itsoperation (but not for producing content and no team with an educational background). The adopted approach consisted in creating “pivot” faculty members in each sub-unit of UTAD,assisted by a small team of educational consultants, in the form of Educational Sciences trainees with abackground in e-learning as part of their formal education. The goal is for these faculty members tobecome aware of educational possibilities and the actual practices involved, not just in terms of traditionale-learning/b-learning, but also of novel practices using Web 2.0 platforms and virtual worlds: theplanning requirements, the management process, assessment, etc. In doing so, it is UTAD’s expectationthat these pivots both can act as supporting peers of other faculty members in their sub-units, and asadvocates for adoption of e-learning and b-learning technologies and practices. This, in turn, is intendedto serve as a base for establishing clear needs and requirements, so that a university-wide approach canlater be developed.Institutional practices for adoption of e-learning/b-learning Adoption of e-learning by higher education institutions has been widespread throughout Europe,with varying degrees of success (Barajas & Gannaway, 2007; PLS Ramboll, 2004).
  • That is not an easy and simple process for the traditional European universities. The complexityand difficulty associated, normally requires a greater effort from involved actors than initially expected. Itis reflected in the alliance between resources, time, energy and skills. For every arisen problem, isnecessary a fully context and strategic vision adopted analyze. Only these way universities can effectivelyadapt and respond to their own situations, because each problem is unique and exclusive to the reality ofeach institution. (Barajas & Gannaway, 2007). In the specific case of Web 2.0 and eLearning 2.0 respectively, inclusion and equity, advanceddigital competence, safety and privacy concerns, special needs, pedagogical skills, uncertainty andrequirements on institutional changes are the largest challenges, barriers, and bottlenecks identified ineducational European institutions. In this way, institutions must provide students with access to media, aswell as ways to promote their responsible and critical use. On the other hand, should also provide anadequate infrastructure, supporting and equipping teachers with the required skills for the development ofe-learning with their students (Redecker & Punie, 2010). Therefore, organizational changes, particularly in university contexts, can not only focus onwhether the approaches are top-down or bottom-up. The middle-out approach, in this context, must beconsidered. It is based on management staff work, to promote the change process. That is, the middle-outapproach juggles a mid-terrain between the individual focus of faculty members and the strategic focus ofhigher management (Rankine & Malfroy, 2009). Cautions are needed. Since process beginning, starting at individual purposes to organizationalpurposes, good dynamic understandings’ crucial, facilitating implementation and unwind of institutionalprocess. This is the present challenge, especially for universities (Casanovas, 2010). These institutions have followed different paths towards innovation, with diverse allocation ofresources/features, and varying costs associated with them. The changes in institutional policies must befollowed by changes in leadership perspective (Giardina, 2010). Peer instruction education has been increasing in the past few years. Its potential is big in manysituations, innovation being one of them. Several researchers defend that a good strategy to obtain goodresults is creating pioneers (or pivots) in the use of e-learning on pedagogic practices, so they caninfluence actively and help their peers to do the same. In several projects for innovation technology,specifically in e-learning, this concept of pivot (typically, a pivot teacher) is consensual and used, becauseresults often exceed expectations. We consider that the key element is a culture of mutual support andsharing, to increase the possibility of success. On example of adoption of this model is theFutureSchool@Singapore Programme (Lim & Cheah, 2010; Giardina, 2010). Another element to bear in mind is the possibility of supporting pivots with consulting services.Such an approach is found in the Flexible Learning Initiatives Project, implemented in the Faculty of Lawof the Queensland University of Technology: a team of consultants provides pedagogical support toteaching staff introducing e-learning in their practices. The consultants work in a case-by-case basis,helping design appropriated pedagogical strategies for each teacher’s educational content. The consultantsare also available for consultation and assistance at any time (Giardina, 2010).Institutional context – UTAD UTAD is located in Vila Real, North-eastern Portugal. Originally the Polytechnic Institute ofVila Real, founded in 1973, with a focus on agricultural and biological sciences, it became a university in1986. Currently, the educational offer at UTAD is diverse, organized in five schools: School ofAgricultural and Veterinary Sciences (ECAV, Portuguese-language acronym), School of Humanities andSocial Sciences (ECHS, Portuguese-language acronym), School of Sciences and Technology (ECT,Portuguese-language acronym), School of Life and Environmental Sciences (ECVA, Portuguese-language acronym), and Higher School of Nursing (ESE, Portuguese-language acronym). UTAD hasseveral technical services, including a Computing and Communications Service (SIC, Portuguese-language acronym), which provides technological support to computer systems, such as e-mail, computernetworks, institutional intranet, Moodle platform, and SIDE (described later), among others. However,the SIC do not provide pedagogical support of training for e-learning; nor is it available at any otherUTAD technical service. The SIDE platform (information system in support of teaching, Portuguese-language acronym),provides online content in support of classes and student autonomous study. It also supports routineadministrative tasks such as registering attendance, grades, syllabi and class summaries. The use of thisplatform is widespread by faculty members, to the point of being explicitly mentioned in the teachingstandards of UTAD that all teachers must use it to provide basic information about each course, theattendance records and students’ grades. SIDE originated locally at UTAD in 2002 and has beenconstantly developed ever since. It originated as a final graduation project in Electric Engineering, and
  • evolved into an on-line service which was used by the full Department of Engineering, and later by theentire university (since 2006). A technical support team produces further enhancements and responds toneeds and requirements that are identified regularly. Since SIDE is not focused on the teaching-learningprocess, but rather on the administrative procedures, it is not a Learning Management System (LMS) buta Course Management System (CMS), simplifying students’ access to courses syllabi, supportingmaterials, and results of assessment. A Moodle platform is also available at UTAD, with technical support provided by the SIC, sincethe academic year 2005/2006, as part of the institutional will to develop e-learning initiatives. Allteaching staff at UTAD have access to the platform with the same credentials they use for SIDE and forthe institutional intranet. The SIC has promoted initiatives for teacher training on how to use Moodle,from a purely technological and functional view. Very few faculty members have responded by taking up the challenge of using this platform. Theteaching staff numbers about 600, with only about 4 or 5 regularly using Moodle in their teaching practice– and mostly for the most basic activities, such as forums and providing feedback on student assignments.One cannot disregard, at this level, the lack of support for the transition from classroom teaching practicesto online practices. However, individual initiatives by that small percentage of teaching staff keepoccurring. The latest is that in February 2011 a post-graduate programme on Natural Hazards andEmergency Plans will be launched, almost entirely supported by using Moodle. This is the result of ajoint initiative by three institutional departments, involving approximately about ten teachers. However, the use of Web 2.0 tools for educational practices, especially blogs and wikis, is foundamongst teaching staff – in particular, staff that is not using Moodle. Initial contacts with some of thesemembers of teaching staff have been fruitful, for they have expressed an interest in improving theirteaching practice with these tools and willingness to use other tools. 3D virtual worlds are also found. A small number of teachers use them in their practices andeven develop educational and technical research in the field, particularly in the teaching of programming.There are also several engineering projects involving the use and development of virtual worlds, inpartnership with national and international companies.The approach The approach adopted is based on two main aspects: a pedagogical supervision with a team oftwo consultants, who are experts in Educational Sciences and with knowledge in e-learning pedagogy,and in pivot faculty members, two volunteer teachers of sub-units of UTAD. The reasons for choose twoteachers per sub-unit are related to intention of promote the institution autonomy, enabling the pivotsassist others in the same school, who wish to join use of technology to their teaching practices. The intendis ensuring the continuity the project and get a redundancy that prevents dropouts or losing motivation ofone of the pivots, keeping the second to guarantee the stability of this one. This initiative starts in September of the academic year 2010/2011. There were two alternativesfor action: a) starting to prepare, with teachers, the semester which starts in February, or b) start workingwith teachers immediately, even though they already have plans for teaching defined, established andstarted. We opted for the second part, to the extent that - although very limited in scope than would bepossible - would allow the team of consultants and teachers to establish a mutual understanding ofinterests and objectives and develop ways to communicate more free from misunderstandings ordifferences in terminology and culture. Thus, it is possible not only to develop some experience withinthe disciplines e-learning/b-learning underway in the first half, but also ensure that the planning of thesecond semester will not be impaired by deficiencies of communication or mutual understanding. Temporal Diagram Establishing Communication Channels Prepare and plan the activities 2nd semester Mutual Knowledge for 2nd semester Moment 1 Moment 2 September December February JuneImage 1: Temporal Diagram representing the principal phases of the project.
  • The first phase will start in mid September 2010. The goals are the presentation of theparticipating teachers and consultants and interviews to survey the needs and expectations of each. It isexpected in this period the preparation and planning activities to be held next semester and still produceb-learning situations that allow a setting to Web 2.0 tools in teaching practices of teachers andstudents. The aim here is to prepare these players for the use of different tools, promoting a periodambience to them, allowing their exploitation and development of skills to use technology, therebyenhancing its use as a tool for pedagogical work in the semester that will follow. In the case of teachersthat already use e-learning in their practices, this period will serve to support the pedagogicaldevelopment. The second phase aims to achieve the plans drawn up earlier time, using appropriatetechnological tools. The expected is start the second half with a detailed planning of courses and/ormodules that will be taught, including activities using various technology tools, past the Web 2.0, virtualworlds, skills acquired for manipulation of these tools and tutoring and evaluation practices of the tasksrequired. The consulting function and the role of consultants guess is most intense at first phase, asmediators in the process of inclusion and adequacy of tools for teaching practices of each teacher. It alsoextend to functions as aids in the process of planning activities and schedules, instructional design, inonline tutoring, development of assessment tools and tutorials and to motivate the different subjects of theprocess: teachers and students (intervention just in time). In the second phase the consultants will monitorall activities to be undertaken, restricting itself to provide assistance whenever requested. At the end of this process will proceed to the evaluation. It will take place according to severaldimensions, the activities of consultants in different tasks, getting an insight into the burden of supportingeducational effort that was involved. This allows assess how large of an ideal team to support UTAD as awhole or, from another perspective, what the scope of results expected and the pace behind those of ateam with the same dimension. The satisfaction of teachers and students in the consulting provided andthe activities will assess the adequacy of the model used for consulting and teaching strategiesadopted. Finally, the usefulness of the instruments produced (videotutorials, questionnaires, etc.) and theneed for them, lead, initially, the conclusions regarding the immediate need to adapt and improve them, aswell as gauging the need for a specialized team in content production technology and their size, to supportthe process of UTAD b-learning/e-learning. Other dimensions deemed relevant will also be subject toevaluation. This evaluation plan will integrate necessarily three phases: an initial diagnostic evaluation,through an ongoing evaluation or evaluation-regulation (which will allow identification of problems andsolving the same throughout project intervention just in time) and a final evaluation, summative (aimingto examine the achievements and indication of the important aspects in order to pursue the project andsimilar future actions).Field effort: first impressions The development of this approach has now ensued. At the time of writing, pivot faculty memberswere already identified in all schools except the Higher School of Nursing. Of those, some have embracedthe project with enthusiasm, either by being more ambition in their ongoing Web 2.0 efforts and e-learning efforts, or by deciding to start the preparation of the February semester right away. Others havebeen more cautious, refraining from changing practices, wishing to start only in January. Others still haveembarked on assisted experimentation and fiddling with e-learning tools, with the support of theconsulting team, but not with the direct involvement of students, rather as a personal awareness. Unforeseen events did occur, which have impacted our consulting planning, and may ultimatelyrequire a reorganization of the approach during its course. It is necessary to take into account that theeducational dimension of a university professor has the lowest value compared to the dimensions ofresearch and extension. Because of that, some teachers not always have the availability that an effectivedevelopment of e-learning activities requires and others do not demonstrate the pedagogical andtechnological skills that supposedly should have. This fact, associated to some communication failureswith teachers involved made us to change some aspects of our initial approach and point of views.Final thoughts We are confident and hopeful on the outcomes of the presented approach. While technicalresources have been applied regularly in the past 4 years to develop e-learning at UTAD, the pedagogicknow-how and practice is a critical element which requires significant investments in human resources.
  • While these will eventually be put into place, establishing the actual needs and ensuring the sound use ofsuch investments is no trivial task. The resources involved in the approach described in this paper is low,and the potential is high: if we do achieve to making e-learning/b-learning practices more widespread anddiversified at the institutional level, the actual needs and requirements may spring out of grassrootsdynamics, thus ensuring that larger investments can be made effective almost as soon as they are put intoplace, and possibly reach maturity faster than through an institutional top-down approach.BibliografiaBarajas, M., & Gannaeay, G. (2007). Immplementing E-learning in the Traditional Higher EducationInstitutions. Higher Education in Europe 32 (2) , pp. 111-119.Carver, R., King, R., Hannum, W., & Fowler, B. (2007). Toward a Model of Experiential E-Learning.Jornal of Online Learning and Teaching 3 (3).Casanovas, I. (2010). Exploring the Current Theoretical Background about Adoption untilInstiotutionalization of Online Education in Universities: Needs for Further Research. Electronic Journalof e-Learning 8 (2) , 73-84.Giardina, N. (2010). Designing for successful diffusion: A faculty-based approach to enhancing staff useof technologies for effective teaching and learning. ascilite 2010 - curriculum, technology &transformation for an unknown future. Sydney.Lim, C., & Cheah, H. (2010). Situating Practitioner research in the future schools. In L. Tay, M. Khine, &C. Lim, Research by Practitioners for Practitioners: A Schools Journey into the Future (pp. 2-14).Singapore: Pearson.PLS RAMBOLL. (2004). Studies in the context of the E-learning Initiative: Virtual Models of EuropeanUniversities (Lot1). Final Report to the European Commission. DG Education and Culture.Rankine, L., & Malfroy, J. (2009). An institutional approach to embedding quality in e-learning:Developing staff capacity at UWS. EDUCAUSE. Australia: Perth.Redecker, C., & Punie, Y. (2010). Learning 2.0 - Promoting Innovation in Formal Education and Trainingin Europe. In M. Wolpers, P. Kirschner, M. Scheffel, S. Lindstaedt, & V. Dimitrova (Eds.), SustainingTEL: From Innovation to Learning and Practice (pp. 308-323). Berlin: Springer.Wolpers, M., Kitschner, P. A., Scheffel, M., Lindstaedt, S., & Dimitrova, V. (2010). Sustaining TEL:From Innovation to Learning and Practice. 5th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning.Barcelona - Spain: Proceedings.