Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Erasmus ip june_2013


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Erasmus ip june_2013

  1. 1. Virtual mobility – challengesfor institutions andpractitionersAirina VolungevičienėVytautas Magnus University2013, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas
  2. 2. Learning outcome – Day 2• Ability to describe virtual mobility designing processResult:- Joint title curriculum planned for VM implementation
  3. 3. Physical Erasmus mobilityWhat is it?(audience brain storm) if mobility were virtual? What should we thinkabout before it happens?
  4. 4. The concept of VM(Group work)What can we find about virtual mobility concept?
  5. 5. Concept of VM (Group work findings)Author Characteristics Year, referencesHelena Bijnens, et al.+1 Physical mobility without the need to travelICTEuropean cooperation in Educationthrough virtual mobility – bestpractice manual, 2006HE, compliments PHM (Erasmus)ICTWikipediaWende Internationalisation abroad 1998Tholin Physical transportation F2F v.s.Traveling in virtual spaces2005Effective networking Humanities projectVan Debunt-Kokhuis Collaborative communicationT&L mediated by a computerT&L takes place across national boarders1996Dauksiene E. Alternative or compliment to PHM 2010TeaCamp At least two institutions, clear LOs 2011Vriens et al. Alternative or additional to PHMSet ot ICT supported activities2009Dondi C. Joint international curricula- programsOpen access to cultural study experienceValorized bilingual competencesVMCOLABKellorman PHM, VM and areal mobilityAutonomy, (higher in VM)availability, tools (devices), personal,co-presence, time, space,non-verbal behaviourJournal of transport geography2011
  6. 6. Virtual mobility: involved actors• Higher education institutions (2+)• Teachers in student VM (2+, organizing VMacademic exchange)• Students in VM (student groups in 2+ countries)• Teachers in VM (professional development in 2+institutions (research, academic teaching, socio-cultural exchange))
  7. 7. Scenario 1. Physical mobility
  8. 8. Scenario 2.Virtual mobility (not to replace, but to enrichand enhance physical student mobility)
  9. 9. VM impact for HE institutions• Development and exploitation of intercultural studies• Joint study programs, quality enhancement and expertisesharing, transparency of professionalism and academicprocesses• Modernisation and internationalisation of curriculum(transferrable quality standards, modular curriculum basedon learning outcomes, updating pedagogical models)• Multi-institutional instead of bilateral collaboration• Improvement of education attractiveness and HEcompetitiveness• Expanded areas of learning for students• Additional transferrable skills and knowledge areas• Teacher professional development• Additional skills and experience for studentsAll benefits listed directly support HE institution modernisation!
  10. 10. VM impact for teachers• Personal professional development:– Interpersonal communication, online communication,linguistic skills, ICT competences– teaching quality improvement, new teaching methodsapplied and experimented– new knowledge, skills and experience in multiple EU HEinstitutions• Professional networking, exchange of goodpractices• International, intercultural professional activities• Transparency and recognition of teaching andprofessionalism• Career opportunities• Research enhancement – especially in teacher VM
  11. 11. VM benefits for students• Upgraded transferrable skills:– Linguistic, interpersonal communication– ICT competences– Additional learning skills (networking, critical thinking,intercultural knowledge and skills, quality schemes)• Curriculum and study quality enhancement• New learning methods suggested by various HE institutions• Transparency of learning, individual portfolio development• Enhanced employability• Intercultural, international experience and expertise• Enlarged academic areas of studies• Support for home students and LLL groups, internationalstudy accessibility for physically and socio-economicallydisadvantaged
  12. 12. • –„Reflections on virtual mobility at Vytautas MagnusUniversity (Master studies in Social work)“ No. 1(Student Jovita)•• -„Reflections on virtual mobility at Vytautas MagnusUniversity (Master studies in Social work)“ No. 2(Student Vitalija)•• –„Testimony on studying at 6 HEI via virtual mobilityin TeaCamp project (Vytautas Magnus Universitybachelor studies in Education). Student LinaNikitinaitė
  13. 13. The purpose of virtual mobilityWhy do we need that?Brain storm
  14. 14. Virtual mobility handbook
  15. 15. VM components/ characteristicsby MOVINTER
  16. 16. VM components (by MOVINTER)1. International student groups - students from different countries who mainly study in theirlocal (chosen) university with their fellow students and without going abroad to study for longperiods of time; for those students, VM is a way to internationalise.2. Interactivity & Communication between students and teachers of different countriesthrough ICT – interaction an communication among groups of students/teachers based indifferent countries to discuss diversity depending on national/local/contextual elements.3. International teaching groups - cooperation in designing, implementing, courseprogramme evaluation.4. Multicultural exchange (as a key objective to produce added value) - the multicultural[intercultural, see further on] component constitutes an integral part of the concept of VirtualMobility and justifies the contribution from different countries.5. Use of appropriate technological solutions - choices that support the different types ofVirtual Mobility.6. Joint choice of the subject to be studied through VM - in practically any subject in whichcomparisons from different national contexts may enhance the value of curricula and preparestudents for an international social, economic and professional environment.7. Joint curricula design - which adds value in terms of reciprocity and mutual benefitsbetween the HEIs in the different countries.8. Joint production of learning resources - or any activity easing communication, learningand the intercultural exchange (reflective tools, non-interactive tools, collaborativetools, communication tools, social networking tools).9. Joint titles - wherever possible, based on a long term confidence relationship.10. Mutual confidence relationship - the originating vision stresses that the choice of subjectsand the design of the learning experience should reflect the advantages of a multi/inter-cultural approach.
  17. 17. VM - PHASES1. Decision making2. Curriculum designing3. VM organization and communication4. Assessment and Feedback5. Certification and RecognitionGROUPS• Top managers• Teachers• Stakeholders (employers)• Students
  18. 18. Questions• We need to ……… ?• How will we………?• Any tools, any ideas….
  19. 19. VM Quality Handbook
  20. 20. 1. Decision making2. Curriculum designing3. VM organization and communication4. Assessment and Feedback5. Certification and Recognition
  21. 21. Quality criteria+
  22. 22. TeaCamp− international virtual mobility module for virtuallearning called “Virtual learning in HigherEducation” (VLHE)− the module is developed and studies organized by13 teachers from:1. Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania, coordinatinginstitution)2. Innovation Centre of University of Oviedo (Spain)3. Jyvaskyla University (Finland)4. Jagellonian University (Poland)5. University of Aveiro (Portugal)6. Baltic Education Technology Institute (Lithuania,enterprise)
  23. 23. 1. Consistency in learning outcomesAll partners – 6 institutions - reached the agreement on the followinglearning outcomes:1. apply the knowledge of culture models to solve problems causedby cultural difference in Virtual Mobility2. explain the skills needed to facilitate and manage collaborativeonline learning.3. describe different technological resources for collaborative onlinelearning.4. analyze and evaluate information;5. synthesize and create information;6. define the technologies and standards used in distanceeducation;7. apply learning management systems based on these standards;8. compare learning styles and learning strategies9. identify and apply online resources in order to implementlearning strategies virtually10. design assessment strategies for virtual learning11. use tools to support scenarios of virtual learning
  24. 24. TeaCamp Curriculum content and teaching/ learningscenario development (sub-modules)Sub-module Culturemodels (1/2)(JYU, FI)Collaborativeonlinelearning(CC1N, ES)Informationliteracy(JU, PL)Learningtechnologies(BETI, LT)Learningstrategies(VDU, LT)Assessmentstrategies(UA, PT)Culturemodels (2/2)(JYU, FI)Assignment 1 2 2 2 2 2 1Portfolio Moodle portfolio as a required part for international, intercultural experience record – as a learningoutcome for culture model sub-moduleWeight 8,33 16,66 16,66 16,66 16,66 16,66 8,33TeaCamp assessment strategy
  25. 25. • Moodle
  26. 26. Assessment challenges: 2. Assignment measurementfor international student groups• Each assignment assessment is described in terms offormative evaluation• Assignments are designed on the basis of skills andcompetences, as well as learning outcomes and specificlearning objectives described in each sub – module• Formative feedback tools, students portfolio, surveys andquizzes, group work and tasks are used for internationalstudent groups• Students demonstrate learning outcome achievement byimplementation of practical tasks
  27. 27. Assessment challenges: 3. Final LO achievementmeasurement in the context of different gradingsystem and different practice in application of ECTS• Moodle networking service is implemented toaccess TeaCamp international Moodle• Each assignment weights 8,33 % in the finalassessment grade• After each student submits the assignments, thefinal performance is monitored using Portfoliotool• Students use portfolio tool to import theirassignments and to export them to theirinstitutional Moodle servers
  28. 28. Assessment challenges: 4. Grade calculation for each HEI so that itis compatible with the national institutional regulationComparative Erasmus assessment tables are used for thispurpose:
  29. 29. Learning outcome definition in groups
  31. 31. Activity designing
  32. 32. Re-thinking the types of learning/ teachingD.Leclercq, M.Poumay, University of Liege, Belgium
  33. 33. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Imitation“Life imitates art imitates life“
  34. 34. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Receiving - transferring• Instruction!• Video• Television• Internet television• Radio• ??– Recordings/ live
  35. 35. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Practicing
  36. 36. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Creation
  37. 37. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Exploration
  38. 38. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Experimentation
  39. 39. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Discussing, debating
  40. 40. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Metareflecting
  41. 41. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Let’s think about examples!Learning/ teaching event ExampleImitation – modelingReception - transmittingPracticing - guidanceExperimenting –“Creating conditions”Creating - encouragingDiscussing - moderatingExploration -documentationMetareflection – co-reflection
  42. 42. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Specificobjective(s)To be able to:• Select...• Describe...• Draw...Steps to achievespecific objectives1) Go and find...2) Open... and write about...3) Use.... and present...4) …Expected output/indicatorsA blog entry …A drawing...A math task solved...Evaluation criteria …………………...........................
  43. 43. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Specific learningobjectivesAt the end of this activity, learners will be able to:Steps to achievespecific objectives1) …Expected output/indicatorsEvaluation criteria
  44. 44. Assessment designing
  45. 45. Evaluation Objects (Leclercq, 2005)1. Assessment whose object is the PROCESS vs PRODUCT2. Assessment relating to RESULTS or APPROACHES3. SINGLE- or MULTI-dimensional assessments4. Scope of assessment: INDIVIDUAL vs INSTITUTIONAL5. PERSONAL vs GROUP assessment6. PRIVATE vs PUBLIC assessment7. Assessment focus : ALLO vs - AUTO-CENTRIC8. Assessment performance : AUTONOMOUS vs ASSISTED9. Assessment by PEER or EXPERTS10. Assessment periodicity: CONTINUOUS vs INTERMITTENT11. Assessment occasion(s): SINGLE vs REPEATED12. DEFINITIVE vs IMPROVABLE performance
  46. 46. Evaluation (Leclercq, 2005)
  47. 47. NORMATIVE vs CRITERION-BASED (Leclercq, 2005)• Normative : results of person X in terms of position in theresults of a group, the latter being used as a standard orbenchmark• criterion-based : takes absolute, fixed references into accountas target values. For example, the minimum score will be fixedhere, regardless of the percentage of those who achieve it
  48. 48. Facet DimensionWHY?Reference Criteria based NormativeResult Summative DiagnosticPurpose Grade determining FormativeWHATFocused on Process OutcomesDimension Uni MultiWHO?Target Individual GroupAdressees PrivatePublicOperator Allo (peer/expert)AutoHOW?Periodicity Intermitent Continual/RepeatOpeness of marks to review Final ImprovableSource Objective SubjectiveProcedure Standardized AdaptiveInvolvement Internal ExternalContract Imposed NegociatedReference points / scale Mobile FixedVisibility of criteria Disclosed HiddenProfessional realism Contextualised Non contxt
  49. 49. Learning contract (?)• learning contract – indicating the main parameters oflearning process and progress, including learning outcomes(learning results are compared with the learning outcomes,and evaluation conclusions are based on the comparison of thetwo), learning strategy (flexible or restricted, upon theagreement of learning process participants and contractparties), conditional restraints (organizational restraints,such as time, place and other regulations), interventions oflearning process participants (roles and responsibilities,degrees of freedom and independence, type of interaction andrequest for interactions);
  50. 50. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022Portfolio• Public and presentation files (to present best work in order toprovide evidence of learner competences; to increase learner’sself-evaluation abilities; to contribute with responsibility –managing tools for the learner, to raise self-awareness, etc.• Intermediate and construction files (to highlight learningprocess and progress, to enable diagnosis of problematicissues, to enable learners to measure self-cognition, toestablish links with curriculum, and to illustrate progress andachievements).
  51. 51. BLOOM’s taxonomyof cognitiveobjectives (1956)SynthesisAnalysisApplicationComprehensionKnowledgeEvaluationBenjamin BloomUniversity of Chicago
  52. 52. B.Bloom’s taxonomy revised
  53. 53. Designing Curriculum in MoodleSelecting ICT tools
  54. 54. Let’s think about the tools!