E-learning programs in HE: benefits & limits from students perspectives

782 views
686 views

Published on

Presentation of a research study where students perspectives about e-learning programs in higher education are analyzed

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
782
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
10
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

E-learning programs in HE: benefits & limits from students perspectives

  1. 1. INTED 2011<br />E-learning Programs<br />inhighereducation:<br />BenefitsandLimits<br />fromstudents’ perspective<br />Neuza Pedro; Susana Lemos; Luana Wunsch<br />INSTITUTO DE EDUCAÇÃO DA UNIVERSIDADE DE LISBOA<br />
  2. 2. UniversityofLisbon<br /><ul><li>Createdin 1911
  3. 3. Tradicional face-to-face colleges
  4. 4. 22.245 students
  5. 5. 11 Faculties/Institutes:
  6. 6. Sciences
  7. 7. Law
  8. 8. Social Sciences
  9. 9. Psychology
  10. 10. Education
  11. 11. Geography
  12. 12. Arts
  13. 13. Letters
  14. 14. Pharmacy
  15. 15. Medicine
  16. 16. Dental Medicine</li></li></ul><li>The E-learning Programof UL<br /><ul><li>AIMING TO:</li></ul>Promote the use of e-learning management systems;<br />Empower the faculties in the use of virtual learning environments and development of online educational content;<br />Foster and give support to the development of curricular units /e-learning courses;<br />Monitor the e-/b-learning practices in the University.<br />
  17. 17. The E-learning Programof UL<br /><ul><li>PRELIMINARY YEAR :
  18. 18. Data analysis of the each faculty baseline regarding the use of LMS and other e-learning solutions
  19. 19. Analysis of the level of maturity, stability and robustness of technological infra-structure
  20. 20. Meetings with the direction boards
  21. 21. Interviews with Students’ Unions of each faculty/institute.</li></li></ul><li>Representation of analytical perspective of the collected data<br />
  22. 22. RESULTS<br />a) Valueandrelevanceofan e-learning programfor theuniversity<br /><ul><li>Establish a unify and congregated movement;
  23. 23. Creating a shared vision of e-learning;
  24. 24. Amplify the number of students;
  25. 25. Makes possible for the university to go beyond its traditional audience;
  26. 26. Promote closer relationships with other higher education institutions;
  27. 27. Innovation and quality in the teaching domain.</li></li></ul><li>RESULTS<br />b) Identifiedpotentialofthe e-learning programfor eachfaculty<br /><ul><li>High potential in the UL e-learning program for their specific faculty;
  28. 28. Development of multi-disciplinary projects and new inter-institutional courses;
  29. 29. Dissemination of faculties’ prestige;
  30. 30. Efficiency and regularity in the communication process;
  31. 31. To improve the thesis orientation process and the internships supervision;</li></li></ul><li>RESULTS<br />b) Identifiedpotentialofthe e-learning programfor eachfaculty(cont.)<br /><ul><li>The possibility of implementation others web-based tools, Improving teaching quality ;
  32. 32. The opportunity for updating graduate programs
  33. 33. Rethink teaching methodologies;
  34. 34. A non-expensive way to ‘bring to the UL campus’ highly-recognized professors</li></li></ul><li>RESULTS<br />c) Positiveandinhibitfactorsoftheprograms’implementationprocess<br /><ul><li>POSITIVE FACTORS
  35. 35. To search for alternative and innovative sources of funding;
  36. 36. To promote connections between the previous experience that freshmen-students bring form the secondary schools.
  37. 37. INHIBIT FACTORS:
  38. 38. Faculty attitudes and professional competences (lack of basic ICT skills, professor seniority, professors’ constant lack of time, professors’ absence of interest in technology, teaching methodologies).</li></li></ul><li>RESULTS<br />d) Benefitsandlimitsoftheinitiative for thestudents<br /><ul><li>BENEFITS
  39. 39. teaching-learning process quality improvement;
  40. 40. Centralized access to all the information;
  41. 41. Higher regularity and closeness in the communication between faculties and student;
  42. 42. Establishing online contact with other students doing outside campus-research;
  43. 43. Schedules flexibility = time for course-organized field trips and/or to get more deeply involvement in research projects;
  44. 44. Possibility of developing new (multimedia) resources to support students learning</li></li></ul><li>RESULTS<br />d) Benefitsandlimitsoftheinitiative for thestudents (cont.)<br /><ul><li>The danger of a centrally measure;
  45. 45. Contribute to separate students from the university;
  46. 46. The risk of excessive centralization in content-transference;
  47. 47. Lost of interpersonal dimension of learning.
  48. 48. LIMITS</li></li></ul><li>In a classical campus-based institution, that in presently celebrating its 100th anniversary, a pioneering and innovative project, as the e-learning program of the University of Lisbon, needs to be developed with profound respect to established practices and institutional conceptions, which must be used as supports to construct new visions for the todays’ future.<br />
  49. 49. INTED 2011<br />Thankyou!<br />Neuza Pedro<br />(nspedro@ie.ul.pt)<br />Susana Lemos<br />(silemos@ie.ul.pt)<br />Luana Wunsch<br />(lpriscila@campus.ul.pt)<br />Instituto de Educação da Universidade de Lisboa<br />

×