Erasmus ip june_2013

transcript

Virtual mobility – challenges for institutions and practitioners

Airina Volungevičienė

Vytautas Magnus University

2013, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas

Learning outcome – Day 2

• Ability to describe virtual mobility designing process

Result:

- Joint title curriculum planned for VM implementation

Physical Erasmus mobility

What is it?

(audience brain storm)

http://www.text2mindmap.com/NDsJ2Z

What if mobility were virtual? What should we think about before it happens?

http://text2mindmap.com/DoWeCU

The concept of VM(Group work)

What can we find about virtual mobility concept?

Concept of VM (Group work findings)

Author Characteristics Year, references

Helena Bijnens, et al.+1 Physical mobility without the need to travelICT

European cooperation in Education through virtual mobility – best practice manual, 2006

HE, compliments PHM (Erasmus)ICT

Wikipedia

Wende Internationalisation abroad 1998

Tholin Physical transportation F2F v.s.Traveling in virtual spaces

Effective networking Humanities project

Van Debunt-Kokhuis Collaborative communicationT&L mediated by a computerT&L takes place across national boarders

Dauksiene E. Alternative or compliment to PHM 2010

TeaCamp At least two institutions, clear LOs 2011

Vriens et al. Alternative or additional to PHMSet ot ICT supported activities

Dondi C. Joint international curricula- programsOpen access to cultural study experienceValorized bilingual competences

VMCOLAB

Kellorman PHM, VM and areal mobilityAutonomy, (higher in VM)availability, tools (devices), personal,co-presence, time, space, non-verbal behaviour

Journal of transport geography2011

Virtual mobility: involved actors

• Higher education institutions (2+)

• Teachers in student VM (2+, organizing VM academic exchange)

• Students in VM (student groups in 2+ countries)

• Teachers in VM (professional development in 2+ institutions (research, academic teaching, socio-cultural exchange))

Scenario 1. Physical mobility

Scenario 2. Virtual mobility (not to replace, but to enrich and enhance physical student mobility)

VM impact for HE institutions

• Development and exploitation of intercultural studies

• Joint study programs, quality enhancement and expertise sharing, transparency of professionalism and academic processes

• Modernisation and internationalisation of curriculum (transferrable quality standards, modular curriculum based on learning outcomes, updating pedagogical models)

• Multi-institutional instead of bilateral collaboration

• Improvement of education attractiveness and HE competitiveness

• Expanded areas of learning for students

• Additional transferrable skills and knowledge areas

• Teacher professional development

• Additional skills and experience for students

All benefits listed directly support HE institution modernisation!

VM impact for teachers

• Personal professional development:

– Interpersonal communication, online communication, linguistic skills, ICT competences

– teaching quality improvement, new teaching methods applied and experimented

– new knowledge, skills and experience in multiple EU HE institutions

• Professional networking, exchange of good practices

• International, intercultural professional activities

• Transparency and recognition of teaching and professionalism

• Career opportunities

• Research enhancement – especially in teacher VM

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, international study accessibility for physically and socio-economically disadvantaged

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukAtoJ7GXOU –„Reflections on virtual mobility at Vytautas MagnusUniversity (Master studies in Social work)“ No. 1 (Student Jovita)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jppcjsvJYBk -„Reflections on virtual mobility at Vytautas MagnusUniversity (Master studies in Social work)“ No. 2 (Student Vitalija)

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcC-BffM5DQ –„Testimony on studying at 6 HEI via virtual mobilityin TeaCamp project (Vytautas Magnus Universitybachelor studies in Education). Student Lina Nikitinaitė

The purpose of virtual mobility

Why do we need that?

Brain storm

Virtual mobility handbook

VM components/ characteristicsby MOVINTER

VM components (by MOVINTER)

1. International student groups - students from different countries who mainly study in their local (chosen) university with their fellow students and without going abroad to study for long periods of time; for those students, VM is a way to internationalise.

2. Interactivity & Communication between students and teachers of different countries through ICT – interaction an communication among groups of students/teachers based in different countries to discuss diversity depending on national/local/contextual elements.

3. International teaching groups - cooperation in designing, implementing, course programme 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 Virtual Mobility and justifies the contribution from different countries.

5. Use of appropriate technological solutions - choices that support the different types of Virtual Mobility.

6. Joint choice of the subject to be studied through VM - in practically any subject in which comparisons from different national contexts may enhance the value of curricula and prepare students for an international social, economic and professional environment.

7. Joint curricula design - which adds value in terms of reciprocity and mutual benefits between the HEIs in the different countries.

8. Joint production of learning resources - or any activity easing communication, learning and the intercultural exchange (reflective tools, non-interactive tools, collaborative tools, 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 subjects and the design of the learning experience should reflect the advantages of a multi/inter-cultural approach.

VM - PHASES

1. Decision making

2. Curriculum designing

3. VM organization and communication

4. Assessment and Feedback

5. Certification and Recognition

GROUPS

• Top managers

• Teachers

• Stakeholders (employers)

• Students

Questions

• We need to ……… ?

• How will we………?

• Any tools, any ideas….

VM Quality Handbook

1. Decision making

2. Curriculum designing

3. VM organization and communication

4. Assessment and Feedback

5. Certification and Recognition

Quality criteria+

TeaCamp

− international virtual mobility module for virtual learning called “Virtual learning in Higher Education” (VLHE)

− the module is developed and studies organized by 13 teachers from:

1. Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania, coordinating institution)

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)

1. Consistency in learning outcomes

All partners – 6 institutions - reached the agreement on the following learning outcomes:

1. apply the knowledge of culture models to solve problems caused by cultural difference in Virtual Mobility

2. explain the skills needed to facilitate and manage collaborative online learning.

3. describe different technological resources for collaborative online learning.

4. analyze and evaluate information;5. synthesize and create information;6. define the technologies and standards used in distance

education;7. apply learning management systems based on these standards;8. compare learning styles and learning strategies9. identify and apply online resources in order to implement

learning strategies virtually10. design assessment strategies for virtual learning11. use tools to support scenarios of virtual learning

TeaCamp Curriculum content and teaching/ learning scenario development (sub-modules)

Sub-module Culture

models (1/2)

(JYU, FI)

Collaborative

online

learning

(CC1N, ES)

Information

literacy

(JU, PL)

Learning

technologies

(BETI, LT)

Learning

strategies

(VDU, LT)

Assessment

strategies

(UA, PT)

Culture

models (2/2)

(JYU, FI)

Assignment 1 2 2 2 2 2 1

Portfolio Moodle portfolio as a required part for international, intercultural experience record – as a learning

outcome for culture model sub-module

Weight 8,33 16,66 16,66 16,66 16,66 16,66 8,33

TeaCamp assessment strategy

• Moodle

Assessment challenges: 2. Assignment measurement for international student groups

• Each assignment assessment is described in terms of formative evaluation

• Assignments are designed on the basis of skills and competences, as well as learning outcomes and specific learning objectives described in each sub – module

• Formative feedback tools, students portfolio, surveys and quizzes, group work and tasks are used for international student groups

• Students demonstrate learning outcome achievement by implementation of practical tasks

Assessment challenges: 3. Final LO achievement measurement in the context of different grading system and different practice in application of ECTS

• Moodle networking service is implemented to access TeaCamp international Moodle

• Each assignment weights 8,33 % in the final assessment grade

• After each student submits the assignments, the final performance is monitored using Portfolio tool

• Students use portfolio tool to import their assignments and to export them to their institutional Moodle servers

Assessment challenges: 4. Grade calculation for each HEI so that it is compatible with the national institutional regulation

Comparative Erasmus assessment tables are used for this purpose:

Learning outcome definition in groups

GROUP WORK RESULTS

Activity designing

Re-thinking the types of learning/ teaching

D.Leclercq, M.Poumay, University of Liege, Belgium

LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022

Imitation

“Life imitates art imitates life“

www.photochart.com

Receiving - transferring

• Instruction!

• Video

• Television

• Internet television

• Radio

• ??

– Recordings/ live

Practicing

Creation

Exploration

Experimentation

Discussing, debating

Metareflecting

Let’s think about examples!

Learning/ teaching event Example

Imitation – modeling

Reception - transmitting

Practicing - guidance

Experimenting –

“Creating conditions”

Creating - encouraging

Discussing - moderating

Exploration -documentation

Metareflection – co-reflection

Specific objective(s)

To be able to:

• Select...

• Describe...

• Draw...

Steps to achieve specific objectives

1) Go and find...

2) Open... and write about...

3) Use.... and present...

4) …

Expected output/ indicators

A blog entry …

A drawing...

A math task solved...

Evaluation criteria…………………

..............

.............

Specific learning objectives

At the end of this activity, learners will be able to:

Steps to achieve specific objectives

1) …

Expected output/ indicators

Evaluation criteria

Assessment designing

Evaluation Objects (Leclercq, 2005)

1. Assessment whose object is the PROCESS vs PRODUCT

2. Assessment relating to RESULTS or APPROACHES

3. SINGLE- or MULTI-dimensional assessments

4. Scope of assessment: INDIVIDUAL vs INSTITUTIONAL

5. PERSONAL vs GROUP assessment

6. PRIVATE vs PUBLIC assessment

7. Assessment focus : ALLO vs - AUTO-CENTRIC

8. Assessment performance : AUTONOMOUS vs ASSISTED

9. Assessment by PEER or EXPERTS

10. Assessment periodicity: CONTINUOUS vs INTERMITTENT

11. Assessment occasion(s): SINGLE vs REPEATED

12. DEFINITIVE vs IMPROVABLE performance

Evaluation (Leclercq, 2005)

NORMATIVE vs CRITERION-BASED (Leclercq, 2005)

• Normative : results of person X in terms of position in the results of a group, the latter being used as a standard or benchmark

• criterion-based : takes absolute, fixed references into account as target values. For example, the minimum score will be fixed here, regardless of the percentage of those who achieve it

Facet Dimension

Reference Criteria based Normative

Result Summative Diagnostic

Purpose Grade determining Formative

Focused on Process Outcomes

Dimension Uni Multi

Target Individual Group

Adressees PrivatePublic

Operator Allo (peer/expert)Auto

Periodicity Intermitent Continual/Repeat

Openess of marks to review Final Improvable

Source Objective Subjective

Procedure Standardized Adaptive

Involvement Internal External

Contract Imposed Negociated

Reference points / scale Mobile Fixed

Visibility of criteria Disclosed Hidden

Professional realism Contextualised Non contxt

Learning contract (?)

• learning contract – indicating the main parameters of learning process and progress, including learning outcomes(learning results are compared with the learning outcomes, and evaluation conclusions are based on the comparison of the two), learning strategy (flexible or restricted, upon the agreement of learning process participants and contract parties), conditional restraints (organizational restraints, such as time, place and other regulations), interventions of learning process participants (roles and responsibilities, degrees of freedom and independence, type of interaction and request for interactions);

Portfolio

• Public and presentation files (to present best work in order to provide evidence of learner competences; to increase learner’s self-evaluation abilities; to contribute with responsibility –managing tools for the learner, to raise self-awareness, etc.

• Intermediate and construction files (to highlight learning process and progress, to enable diagnosis of problematic issues, to enable learners to measure self-cognition, to establish links with curriculum, and to illustrate progress and achievements).

BLOOM’s taxonomy

of cognitive objectives (1956)

Synthesis

Analysis

Application

Comprehension

Knowledge

Evaluation

Benjamin Bloom

University of Chicago

B.Bloom’s taxonomy revised

Designing Curriculum in MoodleSelecting ICT tools

Let’s think about the tools!

Erasmus ip june_2013

Documents