Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Large variation in age (basically from 18y to 65y) Often very motivated and strongly interested (but origin of their motivation varies) Obtain a diploma / refresh knowledge / out of interest Big difference in workload (certain students with a job have full-time jobs while others take a career break) Some have children, others don't Some have no diploma of secondary education while others already have a master's degree.
  • Economic Level: responsible for direct costs (e.g. tuition fees and study material) and indirect costs (e.g. childcare and reduction of working hours). Educational Level: sometimes confronted with courses that seem irrelevant or contradict their own professional experiences. Courses can also be very theoretical with little practical examples from the working atmosphere. Furthermore, inconveniences can occur due to the limited opening hours of administrative services and libraries. Especially older students can be faced with a lack of ICT knowledge. Students with a job often have little time for tasks and group assignments. Pride may sometimes prevent students from searching for help e.g. in connection with study choice, learning skills. Social Level: Thirdly, the combination of work, studying and family and social life can be very challenging. Lack of time can lead to drop out, social isolation or relation and health problems (Bowl, 2003 in Couttenier, 2007). Students with a job are forced to cope with new and changing roles which is a stress factor (Goodman et al., 2006 in Couttenier, 2007) Also relationships with friends and family change due to studying. Shown support by friends and family might be less than expected or entirely missing.
  • Ministry of Education in Flanders (Belgium), UNESCO, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD), Vlaamse onderwijsraad (VLOR), European Union (EU), World Bank and the International Labour Organization (ILO)
  • Flllex consortium, 2012: 2012 Annual Growth Survey: education and training systems have to be modernized to reinforce their efficiency and quality and to equip people with the skills and competences they need to succeed on the labour market (national government, other HEI ’ s, other educational levels (VET) and with social partners )
  • Enabling : to increase access and convenience for students Enhancing : increase instructor or student productivity Transforming : moving from an information transmission model towards a more active learning pedagogy Graham & Robison (2007)
  • the proliferation of superficial Blends ’ those Blends are not adding anything significant to the instruction. The risk lies in the fact that not enough time and costs are deployed. ‘ a focus on the scope of a Blend ’ . Sometimes, when designing a Blended Learning environment, the focus lies on the scope of the Blend (e.g. 25% online and 75 face-to-face; or a reduction of x% of class time). ‘ Too much consideration to efficiency and productivity at the expense of the goal of effective pedagogy. Technology should be used exclusively to increase productivity if this in turn frees up time and energy for the faculty or students to dedicate to more active and innovative face-to-face experiences
  • MuLLLti_DIVERSE2012

    1. 1. MuLLLtiBlended Learning for Lifelong Learners in aMulticampus Context.DIVERSE 2012 – “Enrich the learning experience”04 07 2012Y. Blieck, K. Goeman, L. Vandeput, S. Van Laer (KHLeuven) (HUBrussel) (KHLeuven) (KU Leuven)
    2. 2. LLL1 • Age: 25 • Bachelor marketing • Workweek 60-70h • Interested in master Psychology out of interest and for professional purposes. Would like to graduate at 30Photo:
    3. 3. LLL2 • Age: 58 • Master Economics • Currently unemployed • Looking for a new professional challenge. Interested in a teacher education programimage &copy; <A HREF="">MIROSLAV VAJDIĆ</A>for <A HREF=""></A> CC:Attribution-ShareAlike
    4. 4. LLL3 • Age: 28 • Master of Law • Has resigned from job • Looking for other professional challenge. Not sure what.image &copy; <A HREF="">pinar </A>for <A HREF=""></A> CC:Attribution-ShareAlike
    5. 5. LLL4 • Age 50 • Housewife • (did not finish high school) • Wants to finish high school and then pursue studies at universityimage &copy; <A HREF="">Rene Rosales</A>for <A HREF=""></A> CC:Attribution-NonCommercial
    6. 6. To conclude: possibilities andchallenges for all
    7. 7. To conclude: possibilities andchallenges for all
    9. 9. Lifelong learners who are they?• Age• Motivation and interest?• Origin of motivation…• Workload• Family• Prior education
    10. 10. MuLLLti – lifelong learners• students in formal Higher Educational Institutions (HEI’s)• who often combine work and study
    11. 11. Challenges for LLL in higher education • Educational • Social • Economical
    12. 12. To conclude: possibilities andchallenges for all
    13. 13. LLL and higher educationalinstitutes (HEI)?- INCREASING DEMAND- CHALLENGES FOR HEI
    14. 14. Increasing demand• Knowledge society• Initial diploma quickly loses value• Diploma no lifelong guarantee for proper professional functioning• Shortage of human capital=> Lifelong learning high on the agenda in various organisations :
    15. 15. Challenges for HEI• Face mismatch skills levels and jobs requirements• Open flexible learning pathways• A lifelong approach to learning• Reform themselves in order to adapt• Be open for cooperation on all levels
    16. 16. MuLLLti – some observations sofar...• LLL is a concern for our institutions• But:• Effective participation of adults is low• Nog aanvullen
    17. 17. To conclude: possibilities andchallenges for all
    19. 19. What is Blended Learning?• Variety of definitions• “a combination of face-to-face learning experiences and on-line learning experiences”• Describes an instructional rather than learning approach• Risk to define Blended Learning in this narrow way
    20. 20. MuLLLti – Blended learning“A good blend is a mix: - of study materials, - of didactical activities of the instructor/designers and - technology based or enhanced learning activitiesthat contributes to the realization of the objectives,which motivate and challenge the students to show the best ofthemselves.”(Vandeput, 2011: p.1.11).
    21. 21. Why consider Blended Learning? 1. To increase accessibility to education 2. Can act as catalyst to transform traditional approaches of instruction and teaching 3. Enhance cost and resource effectiveness
    22. 22. Why consider Blended Learning? 1. Improved learning outcomes should remain the reason to consider BL (Mitchell and Honore, 2007; Trasler, 2002 in Poon et al. (2010)).
    23. 23. Blended Courses can offersolutions• Increased access• Increased flexibility• Suited to educational needs• Suited to social needs• Active engagement• Connection to real life contexts
    24. 24. Types of Blends…What learner activity does the technology allow? Graham & Robison (2007) In Picciano, A. and Dziuban, C. (EDs.) (2007). Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. United States of America: the Sloan Consortium.
    25. 25. Transforming Blends?• Four fundamental characteristics of effective learning environments (Roschelle et al., 2000): – Active engagement – Participation in groups – Frequent interaction and feedback – Connections to real world contexts
    26. 26. Hurdles to take…• ‘The proliferation of superficial Blends’• ‘A focus on the scope of a Blend’• ‘Too much consideration to efficiency and productivity at the expense of the goal of effective pedagogy
    27. 27. MuLLLti – some observations sofar…• Course re-design seems difficult for lecturers Instructional design and pedagogy• Their technological competencies vary • Copyright can be an issue but Creative Commons and Open Educational Resources are not considered at this point• LLL / BL seems not a concern to all lecturers
    28. 28. Possible within one institution?• Sufficient Blended courses have to be offered• Course design involves a lot of effort (know-how as well as time and costs) for the HEI• Participation rate of LLL in HEI?• Unlikely that HEI’s will be able to redesign any, if enough, courses to increase accessibility for lifelong learners
    29. 29. To conclude: possibilities andchallenges for all
    30. 30. Can Multicampus Education(MCE) help?- MCE- IMPLICATIONS
    31. 31. MuLLLti – Multicampus Education‘Education that is designed, developed implemented, supportedand/or assessed between two or more geographical sites’.(Multicampus education within KU Leuven Association).
    32. 32. Multicampus Education (MCE)• Spearhead of KU Leuven Association• Institutions can choose to combine resources (staff and infrastructure)• Several institutions could provide entire curricula (for lifelong learners)• Cooperation can be regional, national and international
    33. 33. MuLLLti – 3 MCE groups 1. Social Work 2. Teacher Education 3. Business Administration
    34. 34. Some implications of BL in MCE• New teaching roles for lecturers• Copyright, Creative Commons and Open Educational Resources• Quality Control
    35. 35. MuLLLti – some observations sofar?• Co-operation between lecturers / institutions is challenging e.g. - Level (professional bachelor vs. academic bachelor) - Experience with LLL - Experience(s) with BL• aanvullen
    36. 36. To conclude: possibilities andchallenges for all
    37. 37. To conclude: possibilities andchallenges for all
    38. 38. MuLLLti• Project Leader: Luc Vandeput:• Project assisstant: Yves Blieck:• Twitter: @MuLLLti• Projectpartners:
    39. 39. Relevant literature• Boeren, E. & Nicaise, I. (2009). Onderwijs voor volwassenen: wie neemt deel en waarom? in L. Vanderleyden, M. Callens & J. Noppe (red.), De Sociale Staat van Vlaanderen 2009, pp. 315-333. Brussel: Studiedienst van de Vlaamse regering 466 p., ISBN 9789018179106 publicatienr. 1277• Flllex consortium (2012). FLLLEX: Towards an institutional strategy for lifelong long learning in professional higher education (in press).• Picciano, A. and Dziuban, C. (EDs.) (2007). Blended Learning: Research Perspectives. United States of America: the Sloan Consortium.• Roschelle, J. M., Pea, R. D., Hoadley, C. M., Gordin, D. N. & Means, B. (2000). Changing how and what children learn in school with computer-based technologies. Children and computer technology, 10(2), 76- 101. Any part of this document may be reproduced without permission but with attribution to the authors. © 2012 MuLLLti (Blieck, Goeman, Vandeput and Van Laer) under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license: