Friday, November 26, 2004
E-Learning: "
Policy paper with some tough conclusions about strengths and weaknesses of EU programmes here:
"On the positive side the following points may certainly be mentioned:
* a strong mobilisation effect of national authorities, higher education, industry and several other stakeholders, which was mainly achieved at the beginning of the period considered here, when the rhetoric of eLearning was still strong;
* massive networking activity at European level, thanks to the fact that projects containing eLearning elements were actually supported, not only - of course - within the eLearning Action Plan and the neighbouring MINERVA Action of the SOCRATES Programme, but also in Leonardo da Vinci, GRUNDVIG, LINGUA, ERASMUS and IST. Even in European initiatives such as EQUAL and in the Cooperation Programmes of the European Union with other parts of the world eLearning has gained some room as a result of the early years’ mobilisation;
* a substantial contribution to the evolution of the rhetoric of eLearning away from just computers, connectivity competitiveness and cost-effectiveness, and towards contents, context, collaboration and learning communities, so facilitating the integration of eLearning and ICT in the processes of endogenous innovation of education and training systems;
* also as a result of EU initiatives, a wealth of new R&D results and developments have become available, not necessarily in the way politicians were looking forward to; but they led to the formation of an increasingly professionalized community, a factor undervalued by some political comments;
* openness of mind of the responsible people as a recognised quality that has made new ideas and concepts acceptable and integrated within the European eLearning agenda;
* we also note a critical willingness to simplify the EU financial regulations and administrative procedures, such as proposed in new educational programmes, but we also have to add that this attitude is not yet part of daily practice which is even sometimes contradictory.
Several weaknesses should also be noted:
* first of all, the lack of persistence on the concept and practice of the eLearning Initiative: in fact real co-ordination of the EU intervention in this domain has been given up. This does not mean that DG Education and Culture in other Programmes or other DGs are not active, but that regarding eLearning much less than optimal use of resources is made and replication and lack of sustainability of initiatives become serious risks;
* the reduced amount of resources attributed to the new eLearning Programme which - also symbolically - shows the reluctance that all the decision making bodies at EU level (not only the Commission, but also the Parliament and especially the Council of Ministers and the related Education Committee) have had in taking eLearning seriously.
Probably most people involved in these bodies – understandably - have very little personal experience of eLearning or the use of ICT in learning and fail to appreciate the full potential of ICT, or perceive more risks than benefits at first sight.
If we go beyond a superficial criticism toward this lack of understanding, we will probably find visions of the world and rooted values that made - and still make - a large part of education policy makers, managers, teachers resistant to the initial rhetoric of eLearning, because this rhetoric was carrying simplified visions and over-optimistic statements on the virtues of ICT in learning. In our view this “visions and values” tension has practically resulted in the interruption of a dialogue that, a few years ago, was starting;
* a lack of systematic consultation by decision makers at different levels in the policy-making process of the professional environment of ODL and eLearning, as a result of which they depend too much on the institutional representations of Member Countries and top level relations with the relevant industry and academic elites;
* the lack of real integration of the eLearning discourse into the lifelong learning agenda, as if the two “movements”, one originated by the eEurope strategy and the other more “endogenous” to education and training policy, were to be kept separate to avoid contaminations (by the way, the same applies to the Bologna process in Higher Education);
* connected and partially explaining the previous point is the unbalanced emphasis, especially in the first period, on European competitiveness rather than equity and inclusiveness. This has been corrected in a more recent phase, but produced a certain reluctance in the educational community to join the promotional messages on eLearning;
* too much focus on formal education as opposed to post-initial, non-formal and informal learning, where the use of ICT may be integrated without facing a strong institutional resistance or at least inertia;
* finally, a certain discontinuity of actions supported by the EC funding, partially due to administrative principles that may discourage continuity of funding to the same initiatives/actors/partnerships. This is partly based on a certain “beauty contest” attitude in the selection of such proposals, irrespective of their relevance, that look more innovative than those which develop, consolidate or mainstream previous lines of action."
Goes on to make proposals
Policy paper with some tough conclusions about strengths and weaknesses of EU programmes here:
"On the positive side the following points may certainly be mentioned:
* a strong mobilisation effect of national authorities, higher education, industry and several other stakeholders, which was mainly achieved at the beginning of the period considered here, when the rhetoric of eLearning was still strong;
* massive networking activity at European level, thanks to the fact that projects containing eLearning elements were actually supported, not only - of course - within the eLearning Action Plan and the neighbouring MINERVA Action of the SOCRATES Programme, but also in Leonardo da Vinci, GRUNDVIG, LINGUA, ERASMUS and IST. Even in European initiatives such as EQUAL and in the Cooperation Programmes of the European Union with other parts of the world eLearning has gained some room as a result of the early years’ mobilisation;
* a substantial contribution to the evolution of the rhetoric of eLearning away from just computers, connectivity competitiveness and cost-effectiveness, and towards contents, context, collaboration and learning communities, so facilitating the integration of eLearning and ICT in the processes of endogenous innovation of education and training systems;
* also as a result of EU initiatives, a wealth of new R&D results and developments have become available, not necessarily in the way politicians were looking forward to; but they led to the formation of an increasingly professionalized community, a factor undervalued by some political comments;
* openness of mind of the responsible people as a recognised quality that has made new ideas and concepts acceptable and integrated within the European eLearning agenda;
* we also note a critical willingness to simplify the EU financial regulations and administrative procedures, such as proposed in new educational programmes, but we also have to add that this attitude is not yet part of daily practice which is even sometimes contradictory.
Several weaknesses should also be noted:
* first of all, the lack of persistence on the concept and practice of the eLearning Initiative: in fact real co-ordination of the EU intervention in this domain has been given up. This does not mean that DG Education and Culture in other Programmes or other DGs are not active, but that regarding eLearning much less than optimal use of resources is made and replication and lack of sustainability of initiatives become serious risks;
* the reduced amount of resources attributed to the new eLearning Programme which - also symbolically - shows the reluctance that all the decision making bodies at EU level (not only the Commission, but also the Parliament and especially the Council of Ministers and the related Education Committee) have had in taking eLearning seriously.
Probably most people involved in these bodies – understandably - have very little personal experience of eLearning or the use of ICT in learning and fail to appreciate the full potential of ICT, or perceive more risks than benefits at first sight.
If we go beyond a superficial criticism toward this lack of understanding, we will probably find visions of the world and rooted values that made - and still make - a large part of education policy makers, managers, teachers resistant to the initial rhetoric of eLearning, because this rhetoric was carrying simplified visions and over-optimistic statements on the virtues of ICT in learning. In our view this “visions and values” tension has practically resulted in the interruption of a dialogue that, a few years ago, was starting;
* a lack of systematic consultation by decision makers at different levels in the policy-making process of the professional environment of ODL and eLearning, as a result of which they depend too much on the institutional representations of Member Countries and top level relations with the relevant industry and academic elites;
* the lack of real integration of the eLearning discourse into the lifelong learning agenda, as if the two “movements”, one originated by the eEurope strategy and the other more “endogenous” to education and training policy, were to be kept separate to avoid contaminations (by the way, the same applies to the Bologna process in Higher Education);
* connected and partially explaining the previous point is the unbalanced emphasis, especially in the first period, on European competitiveness rather than equity and inclusiveness. This has been corrected in a more recent phase, but produced a certain reluctance in the educational community to join the promotional messages on eLearning;
* too much focus on formal education as opposed to post-initial, non-formal and informal learning, where the use of ICT may be integrated without facing a strong institutional resistance or at least inertia;
* finally, a certain discontinuity of actions supported by the EC funding, partially due to administrative principles that may discourage continuity of funding to the same initiatives/actors/partnerships. This is partly based on a certain “beauty contest” attitude in the selection of such proposals, irrespective of their relevance, that look more innovative than those which develop, consolidate or mainstream previous lines of action."
Goes on to make proposals
Comments:
Post a Comment
