of flexible, dialogued and participated learning. The main way is that virtual classrooms are instructive, where teachers provide readings and links, and uses are ...
SANCHO, J.M.; GEWERC, A.; MONTERO, L.; PAREDES, J.; CORREA, J.M.; HUDSON, B. (2008). E-learning in Higher Education: Teaching and learning perspectives. Paper – Round Table. ECER 2008 Göteborg - The European Conference on Educational Research.
Teaching and learning models underlying the use of e-learning platforms in Spain Joaquín Paredes, UAM Abstract The use of e-learning platforms in Higher Education is traditional and instructional. But mature teachers make frequent rich uses. They like to undertake dialogue processes in their teaching, and students are actively involved in the construction of knowledge. These uses are possibly linked to pedagogical wide conceptions, explicit and constructivist educational projects and ICT uses in their lives. They receive help from an institutional context pedagogically oriented. The study is implemented in 11 Spanish universities and about three thousand teachers, with various techniques (questionnaire among them). It shows four groups with different practices. These practices differ in some identification data (field of knowledge where they work, teaching experience) and curriculum aspects, including communication tools, methodologies, grouping and evaluation practised. Key words Telematics. E-learning. Universities. Teaching. Computer uses in education Foreword The study presents an analysis about uses, effects and models using platforms in European Space for Higher Education (ESHE). This paper addresses the problems and results related to the profiles of academics that use distance learning platforms (instructive, facilitator). The change in the practices of higher education
1
The change in teaching practice is not spontaneous or one-dimensional, is complex (Bliuc, Goodyear and Ellis, 2007). In Europe we are talking about the European Space for Higher Education (ESHE) and a convergence in practices. Elsewhere we do about elearning, virtual campuses, blended learning, teaching at the university and specific elements of teaching; practices are instruction or dissemination and facilitation or research communities (Harasim and associates, 1995; Hanna and associates, 2000; Bonk, 2003; Anderson, 2004; Scholze and Wiemann, 2007); the second way haves elements of curriculum like ability of students to learn, to do and discuss, solve problems of reality or work on the same reality-; communication processes, groups, methodological strategies (i.e. collaborative work), active participation of students, mentoring, material and virtual resources and evaluation, among others. This is a kind of flexible, dialogued and participated learning. The main way is that virtual classrooms are instructive, where teachers provide readings and links, and uses are email, narrow range of resources, few proposals for collaborative activities and summative evaluation. Most forums do not work unless teacher launches a question and creates discussion. Platform reproduces what happens in classrooms, a traditional way. Teacher models that emerging in practices with ICT The study identify four clusters or groups of teachers (Figure 1) that, as Anderson say, build their teaching presence with repositories, communication and project development, features that emphasize aspects of education that moves between the spread and facilitation, as now we tell.
2
Figure 1. Clusters of teachers It is noted in Figure 1 that teachers of Social Sciences are fundamentally in group 2, and Experimental Sciences at 1. These groups will have a significance which is then tell. The youngest group is group 3.
Figure 2.Comunications tools used. The uses of ICT for these groups are varied. It could therefore be seen as the group 1, experimental sciences and more traditional, does not promote communication processes as the group 3, reflective of Social Sciences.
3
This trend is confirmed in teaching practiced (Figure 3), activities (Figure 4), resources (Figure 5) and evaluation (Figure 6), an education more open. In Figure 2, for those groups who practice a less open education, there are no uses of interactive materials, which may be indicative of textual documents centred uses. The interest in adapting and individualized education is lower (Figure 3), and is also lower the number and diversity of activities promoted (Figure 4) and the design of evaluation as final (Figure 6).
Figure 3.Principles practiced.
4
Figure 4. Activities practiced
Figure 5. Media uses practised Blended learning promotes student learning. The principles identified by the participants (Figure 3) are focused on instructional training in group 1, more traditional,
5
and learning environments in group 2, which practises open curriculum. Student autonomy is enhanced. The study shows an increase that may become overload of tasks carried out by students (Figure 4). While the group 1 have discrete activities in any category, group 2 doubles, triples and quadruples up activity. Blended learning involved a variety of resources. Platforms are repositories documentaries (qualitative study). This trend is shown in Figure 5, where there are no interactive resources, traditional teaching supported by e-learning. More activities, codes and learning activities, as shown in Figure 6, are with diversified modes of assessment. We can not say about the skills involved or on the communication processes, a study not yet done. Teachers more open include variety (methodology, resources, evaluation) (figure 7).
Figure 6. Evaluation practiced
6
Figure 7. Learning proposed Younger (group 3) have less commitment to a broader educational processes view. Maturity and experience are key in pedagogical conceptions which include ICT. Therefore, although the study identifies instruction as main teaching practice, there are indications to believe that teachers participating in the study show inclination for a varied education. In some cases, communication processes have a big role. Few teachers are identified as a team, but there are some. The platforms are tools with broad potential. The intensity of use shows confidence in their varied possibilities, which make various methodologies.
Conclusions The study assesses open practices with e-learning tools. It seems that it’s not ok. There are lonely practices and instructive teachers. There is neither school culture nor communities of practice. There is a lack of institutional culture. Sensitive teachers seek alone. It is difficult to be optimistic about innovative view of educational models that underlie the uses of platforms. The new methodology prompted by the inclusion of uses of distance learning platforms in Higher education should be open, with improvements in student participation, mentoring, assessment and resources, new ICT uses as well as professional knowledge (e.g. Casey and Wilson, 2006).
7
Some argues that the mere use of on line tools adds value to teaching. The platform encouraged to explore and think (Castaño, 2003). This issue is controversial and could agree with it in certain circumstances: continued innovative uses, doubts about their own teaching practices, changes in practices after uses of tools. Ever need to create a community
of
practice
and
transformation
of
school
policies.
ICT included in education not transform education. Success depends on the quality of design education (Scholze and Wiemann, 2007), prior innovations, good practices, communities of practice, organizational and political leadership at the university, for open educational practices with platforms and distance learning.
References Anderson, T. (2004). Teaching in an online learning context. En T. Anderson y F. Elloumi. Theory and Practice of Online Learning. Athabasca University. (pág. 273-294) Bliuc, A.M.; Goodyear, P.; Ellis, C. (2007). Quality in blended learning: Exploring the relationships between on-line and face-to-face teaching and learning. The Internet and Higher Education, 10 (4): 231-244. Bonk, C. (2003). I should have known this was coming: computer-mediated discussions in teacher education. Journal of research on technology in education. 36 (2): 95-102. Casey, J. Wilson, P. (2006). A practical guide to providing flexible learning in further and higher education. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. (En línea) (Consulta 1 junio 2008). Castaño, C. (2003). El rol del profesor en la transición de la enseñanza presencial al aprendizaje on line. Comunicar, 21, 49-55. Chen, N. y otros (2008). Bridging the Gap Between Face-to-Face and Cyber Interaction in Holistic Blended Learning Environments. Handbook on Information Technologies for Education and Training. Berlin: Springer (pág. 239-259). Epper, R.; Bates, A. (2003). Enseñar al profesorado a utilizar la tecnología. Barcelona: Uoc. Harasim, L. y otros (1995). Learning Networks: A Field Guide to Teaching and Learning. Cambridge: MIT Press. Hanna, D. E. and Associates (2000). Higher Education in the Era of Digital Competition: Choices and Challenges. Madison, Wisconsin: Atwood Publishing.
8
Jones, S. (2006). Evaluation of Instructor Knowledge on Structuring and Facilitating Effective Online Discourse. The Journal of Educators Online, 3 (2). (En línea) http://www.thejeo.com/Volume3Number2/JonesFinal.pdf (Consulta 1 junio 2008). Martin, I.; Stubbs, M.; Endlar, L. (2006). The structuration of blended learning: putting holistic design principles into practice. British journal of educational technology, 2: 163-175 Paredes, J. (2004). El papel del profesorado en la enseñanza on line. Una perspectiva basada en los usos de la tecnología. Revista complutense de educación, 15 (2): 473-482. Scholze, T.; Wiemann, S. (2007). Proyectos satisfactorios de aprendizaje combinado en 2006: Experiencias en diferentes entornos de aprendizaje formal, no formal e informal. eLearning
Papers,
3.
(En
línea)
http://www.elearningeuropa.info/files/media/media11897.pdf (Consulta 1 junio 2008).
9
