Upload
airina-volungeviciene
View
85
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
2005
Effective networking Humanities project
Van Debunt-Kokhuis Collaborative communicationT&L mediated by a computerT&L takes place across national boarders
1996
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
2009
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
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Receiving - transferring
• Instruction!
• Video
• Television
• Internet television
• Radio
• ??
– Recordings/ live
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Practicing
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Creation
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Exploration
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Experimentation
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Discussing, debating
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Metareflecting
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
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
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
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…………………
..............
.............
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
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
WHY?
Reference Criteria based Normative
Result Summative Diagnostic
Purpose Grade determining Formative
WHAT
Focused on Process Outcomes
Dimension Uni Multi
WHO?
Target Individual Group
Adressees PrivatePublic
Operator Allo (peer/expert)Auto
HOW?
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);
LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
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!