Blog

Submit an article to ICT in Practice Winter 2017 issue and be part of our educational technology community. The deadline for submitting your article is December 31st.

Important points

Make sure that it is your work
It is written in a simple language away from jargon.
It is related to ICT in education, nothing else…
It is at least 2 A4 and max 4 A4 pages long.
Send your articles to chris.carter@concordiashanghai.org with the subject line ‘submit an article’.

Website: www.codeweek.uk
Twitter: @codeweek
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Codeweekuk-475492319315384/

The fourth EU Code Week took place from15th -23rd October 2016. It brought together children, teenagers, adults, parents, teachers, entrepreneurs and policymakers in events and classrooms across not only Europe but other regions of the world to have fun by making things and doing stuff with code.
Codeweek.UK not only represents EU Code Week in the UK, but also promotes other opportunities for people to come together and learn to code. cw1Many coding events are organized during this week in different parts of the United Kingdom by schools, libraries and community groups.
cw1
The Codeweek.UK kick off event took place at Dragon Hall, in Covent Garden on Friday 14th October. Over 100 children from primary and secondary schools with their teachers attended many hands on workshops and had opportunities to try out new programs and devices.
Codeweek.UK was sponsored by Discovery Education, one of the UK’s leading providers of digital content and educational services to schools. The Discovery Education Coding service provides complete support for teaching coding in primary schools and includes lesson plans, video tutorials and comprehensive resources for Block Coding, Python and HTML.

Code Week UK was fortunate to receive prizes for the schools from Codio and Hue HD. Codio provided us with 3 class sets of Codebug kit and Hue HD with an HD Pro camera and Hue animation studio. These prizes were given to schools at the end of the event.

Yasemin Allsop, Senior Lecturer in Computing at Roehampton University and UK Code Week Coordinator said: “Codeweek UK aims to raise and celebrate the importance of coding activities by connecting communities around the UK. Learning to code helps us to make sense of how things work, explore ideas and make things, for both work and play. What’s more it helps us to unleash our creativity and work collaboratively with wonderful people both near us and all over the world”.

cw2

She also gave news of more exciting Code Week UK events in the near future. She added:
“We cannot wait for a year to organize events, we need to provide more opportunities for young people that are coming from disadvantaged circumstances in developing their digital skills. What a better way than giving them the chance to code together, learn together and have fun together”
Codeweek.UK also provides support for everyone who would like to run a coding event in different parts of the UK. If you need any support, get in touch with the team at info@codeweek.uk
We would like to thank everyone involved especially our partner Discovery Education for their support.

Maria Sotiriou, Partnerships Manager at the European Young Innovators
Forum, discusses the opportunities to explore, create, and imagine in the
InnoApps Challenge.

Could you please tell us about yourself?

I was born Greek in Thessaloniki, and see myself as a native European citizen of the world. I have always wanted to become part of an intercultural communication process and this is why I initially studied translation and conference interpreting. After finishing my undergraduate studies and having lived in many countries (Greece, the UK, France, Belgium and Turkey), I pursued an MSc in European Politics at the LSE. I subsequently worked for the Open Innovation Strategy & Policy Group (OISPG) at DG CONNECT, where I acclimatised to the workings of the European Commission and gained a constructive knowledge of innovation and entrepreneurship. I am currently the Partnerships Manager at the EYIF, where I am responsible for the company’s relationships with corporate stakeholders and manage big projects such as the InnoApps Challenge in collaboration with Huawei.

What is the European Young Innovators Forum and what is the idea behind it?
The European Young Innovators Forum (EYIF) has been founded in 2010 by Kumardev Chatterjee, a young entrepreneur at that time, at an event at the European Parliament and from its pre-start, it was supported by the European Commission, the European Parliament and the Council. Kumardev joined forces with Nicholas Zylberglajt, a young innovator on the policy side and some other like-minded entrepreneurs in order to give voice to a community of young innovators and experts who did not have a platform to connect with each other.

EYIF has rapidly become the largest network of young innovators in Europe reaching more than 500,000 people across all EU member states. In its mission to grow the European startup ecosystem, it is forming strategic innovation partnerships with major industry players across multiple sectors, in the scope of providing early-stage but also growth-stage startups access to corporate innovation ecosystems, expert mentors, customers, market access and funding. EYIF collaborates regularly with the European Institutions, the US State Department, the World Economic Forum, the Mobile World Congress, the MIT Technology Review and CeBIT as well as big corporate companies such as BNP Paribas, Huawei, Deutsche Bahn and Deloitte.

inno-apps

You are organising an event with Huawei called ‘the InnoApps challenge’. It sounds very exciting and also a bit techie! Can you tell us about it?
The InnoApps Challenge is the only pan-European competition to develop innovative apps for Smart Cities. It is a joint initiative of the European Young Innovators Forum and Huawei that aims to contribute to the development of a more socially inclusive society in Europe by fostering “e-skills,” increasing “e-participation” and promoting entrepreneurship for young generations in Europe today. This third edition is open to young people from 18 to 36 years old and its focus is on how to address challenges regarding safe cities. It is important to highlight that no tech or developing skills are required in order to take part. You just need some time and imagination to apply with an idea that will make a difference. Besides the prize money (35,000 euros in total for the 3 winning teams), there is tech and business mentorship for the finalists and mainly access to experts that can help them transform their idea into a reality. You can find more information on our website also on the jury members and mentors: http://innoapps.eu/. The applications deadline is 1st November, so hurry up!

What is the aim of this event? What do you intend to achieve?
The InnoApps project has been running for three consecutive years. In practice, it exemplifies Huawei’s commitment to Europe with reference to entrepreneurial, creative and collaborative solutions. EYIF is therefore a perfect match for Huawei’s endeavour, helping it to reach the European community of young innovators. Moreover, this initiative supports the new EU Smart Cities Agenda, a concrete result of an ambitious Digital Single Market. In this light, InnoApps Challenge welcomes entries from avid app developers who through their participation could go into a career in the digital sector which will eventually help to spark innovation ultimately translating into more jobs and economic growth. The challenge runs in several phases: the idea phase, ending in October, followed by an online mentoring phase for shortlisted candidates and finally, the apps development phase, for selected ideas that will culminate into a live-pitching final. The final will take place at Autoworld in Brussels on 9th February 2017.

Is there a reason that you focused on app development?
Like most younger Europeans, I have grown up digital. I have always been excited by apps as the fastest way to create something useful and test-drive it with family, friends and the online world. In a nutshell, this contest gives us all the big opportunity to get global profile for an app with our name on it.

How can people get involved in your activities and find out more about your events?
EYIF runs many activities not only in Europe but also in Asia and the US. Just to give you one of this year’s highlights, EYIF selected and sent a delegation of top-tier European tech startups to its own EYIF pavilion at Mobile World Congress in Shanghai (MWCS). BLITAB, a member of EYIF’s delegation of European champions was awarded the 4YFN Award along with the title of the best startup at MWCS. You can learn more about our actions by visiting our website or by sending an email at eyif.innovator@eyif.eu. You can get involved by subscribing to our newsletter, follow us on Twitter and LinkedIn and by liking our FB page. This will allow you to be kept informed of startup competitions and events. There is also the possibility of becoming a volunteer and gaining first-hand experience of the European startup ecosystem.

by Yasemin Allsop

Senior Lecturer Computing Education at Roehampton University, UK

What is constructivism?

Constructivism is a learning theory that focuses on knowledge and explores how people learn. It suggests that people construct meaning through their interactions and experiences in social environments (Manus 1960). It also stresses the importance of prior knowledge in learning and how previous experiences shape subsequent actions. Learning therefore is all about learners adjusting their mental model to accommodate new experiences.

One of the key elements of the constructivist theory of learning suggests that children learn by doing. Children construct new knowledge about the physical and social worlds in which they live through playful interaction with objects and people. Children do not need to be forced to learn; they are motivated by their own desire to make sense of their world (Piaget, 1970; Piaget and Inhelder, 1969). According to Piaget, children learn when they are actively involved in the process (Slavin, 1994). The teacher’s role in traditional classrooms is seen as the sole giver of knowledge and the student’s role is that of a passive receiver. The constructivist approach encourages children to take an active part in learning by using their ideas and interests to drive the learning process. The role of the teacher in this model is to support children when they need it and guiding them to take control of their self-directed learning experiences (Ringstaff, Sandholtz and Dwyer, 1991).

Research has shown that children learn when they design and create things, especially when things are relevant to them (Resnick, 2002). The following questions will be reviewed in this article. Can children design and create using technology tools and learn in the process? Can technology become a dynamic part of the constructivist learning environment when children use technology to develop new ideas and meanings?

The theoretical bases of constructivist explanations of learning

Constructivism was championed by John Dewey (1938) and Jean Piaget (1970) developed the theory in the context of child development, and Vygotsky who introduced the social and cultural influences on learning and their role in the construction of knowledge.

Dewey (1938) suggested that knowledge occurs only from situations in which learners have to draw them out of meaningful experiences. These situations have to be integrated into a social context, such as a classroom, where students can take part in engaging activities and form a community of learners who construct their knowledge together. He stresses the importance of context in learning for the learner and the opportunities to apply the concepts that they are trying to learn.

Piaget(1970) explained the learning process by schemas. According to Piaget (1970) a schema is an organized pattern or thought that is used to adapt or explain new experiences. He proposed three schemas:

  1. Assimilation: Placing new information into schemas
  2. Accommodation: Transforming existing schemas or creating new ones
  3. Equilibrium – seeking cognitive stability through assimilation and accommodation

He suggested four sequential stages of psychological development: the sensorimotor stage (birth to age 2), the preoperational stage (ages 2 to 7), the concrete-operational stage (7 to 11-12) and the formal-operational stage (ages 11-12 and beyond).

His theory of learning is based on discovery; in other words learning through play and experimenting.

According to Bruner, learning is an active process where learners construct new knowledge based upon their previous experiences. The instructor should encourage learners to discover the information by themselves. Children are likely to remember what they have learned if they discover the knowledge on their own. Bruner developed three stages of representation, which are enactive, iconic, and symbolic.

Enactive stage: In this stage the child experiences the world largely in the form of motor responses. Students may be able to complete a physical task better than a descriptive task.

Iconic stage: knowledge is stored in the form of visual images. When presented with new information, it is sometimes more helpful to people who are in the iconic stage of representation to have a diagram in order to visualize the concepts being taught.

Symbolic stage: knowledge is mostly in the form of symbols. Mathematical symbols possess meanings in mathematics and language. The symbol x and _ both mean multiply but can also have a different meaning in another discipline such as language.

Vygosky’s constructivism (1978) is known as social constructivism because he stressed the importance of social context and culture within the learning process. He described learning as a collaborative activity and explained the significance the role of history and the social environment bear in acquiring new knowledge. Learning takes place when the children interact with the social environment and internalize their experience. Vygotsky (1978) suggests that cognitive development is limited to a certain range at a particular age. However, with the help of social interaction, such as assistance from a tutor, students can understand concepts that they cannot know on their own (Fountain magazine, 2004)

A final theoretical approach can be found in Seymour Papert’s notion of constructionism. As Papert argued (1991), the notion of constructionism “shares contructivism’s view of learning as “building knowledge structures” through progressive internalization of actions… It then adds the idea that this happens especially felicitously in a context where the learner is consciously engaged in constructing a public entity, whether it’s a sand castle on the beach or a theory of the universe (Papert, 1991).

Papert (1991) describes learning as a reconstruction rather than as a transmission of knowledge. He suggests that learning is about teaching children to do something instead of teaching them about something such as teaching them to be mathematicians rather than teaching about mathematics. He emphasised the importance of children drawing their own conclusions through active experiments. He sees the teachers’ role in learning as to create conditions for invention rather than providing ready-made knowledge.

He thought that the computer’s role is to be used as a tool for the mind and ‘idea processor’. He developed Logo language as a tool to improve the way that children think and solve problems. He suggested that this tool provided opportunities for learners to experience collaboration, visualisation, simulation and programming. ‘He created ‘Logo Turtle’; a small robot was developed for children to use it to solve problems. He insisted that use of simple program like Logo language can strengthen children’s ability to learn knowledge.

He suggests that schools are well behind the rapidly changing society which is deeply shaped by changes in technology. By not keeping up with new technologies, students see school and the curriculum that it offers as irrelevant to their life; this may affect their attitude towards learning and schools as institutions. As a result of this, they may not develop these skills as they would be expected.

Principals of Constructivist theory – the changing nature of the learner, instructor, learning process, context and classroom

The learner within the constructivist approach is seen as a unique, complex individual who has unique needs and backgrounds. The background and previous experiences of the learner shapes the knowledge that the learner designs and discovers in learning process (Wertschs, 1997). The learners are active participants and construct new knowledge and understanding through their experiences and interactions with others (Glasersfeld, 1989). The interests, values and background of the learner are seen as an important part of learning because they engage the learner with the learning process.

According to constructivist theory, the role of the teacher is to provide learners with opportunities and experiences to learn. They take the role of facilitators which helps learners to gain their own understanding of knowledge (Bauersfeld, 1995). The main goal of the facilitator is to generate a change in the learner’s cognitive structure or way of understanding and organizing the world. Instead of direct teaching, facilitator supports and guides learners to reach their own conclusions. They provide learners with a learning environment which will support and challenge their thinking (De Vesta 1987). They aim to give learners ownership of their own learning process so that they will be effective thinkers.

Social constructivism sees the process of learning as an active social process. In his theory social constructivist Vygotsky talks about “Zone of Proximal Development” which simply means that the distance between the learners actual development level and their level of potential development (Learning under adult guidance or collaboratively with peers) (Vygotsky 1978). He observed that when children were tested on tasks on their own, they didn’t do as well as when they were working collaboratively with an adult, even though an adult was teaching them how to perform the task. The process of engaging with an adult, enabled children to clarify their line of thinking or performance therefore making their learning more effective. For Vygotsky therefore, the social interaction was central to learning and development.

Other constructivist scholars agree that individuals understand meanings through their interactions with others and physical world they live in which means that knowledge is socially and culturally constructed by people (Ernest 1991; Prawat and Floden 1994).

Another main principal of social constructivist view is the two way interaction between the learner and instructor where both are equally involved in learning from each other (Holt and Willard-Holt 2000). This dynamic interaction gives the learner the opportunity to compare their understanding of knowledge with their instructor and peers to enrich their learning.

 Constructivist theory suggests that learning is contextual. Children learn new knowledge when it is relevant to them, to their lives and when they can use their previous knowledge to gain new experiences. Children cannot learn when what they learn is isolated and abstract from their lives. One of the most important contexts for learning, is of course, the classroom. In a constructivist classroom the teacher’s role is to act as a facilitator. They guide the students, provide scaffolding, and support them to achieve their greatest potential. In other words help learners to extend their zone of proximal development. In order to accomplish this task they assess each learner individually. They encourage students to develop cognitive skills such as reflective thinking and problem solving. Learners are motivated to learn independently and discover the knowledge for themselves.

In a constructivist classroom the learner’s role is to take responsibility for their learning and design new methods to learn. The learners are actively involved in the learning process and they learn to question both what they learn and how they learn.

A comparison of the differences between the traditional and the constructivist classroom by Brooks & Brooks (1993) clearly shows the importance of designing a constructivist classroom.

Traditional Classroom Students primarily work alone. Constructivist Classroom Students primarily work in groups.
The curriculum is presented part to whole, with an emphasis on basic skills. The curriculum is presented whole to part with emphasis on the big concept.
Strict adherence to a fixed curriculum is highly valued. The pursuit of student questions is highly valued.
Curricular activities rely heavily on textbooks and workbooks of data and manipulative materials. Curricular activities rely heavily on primary sources.
Students are viewed as “blank slates” onto which information is etched by the teacher. Students are viewed as thinkers with emerging theories about the world.(cognitive apprentices)
Teachers generally behave in a didactic manner, disseminating information to students. Teachers generally behave in an interactive manner mediating the environment for students.
Teachers seek the correct answers to validate student lessons. Teachers seek the student’s point of view in order to understand student learning for use in subsequent conceptions.
Assessment of student learning is viewed as separate from teaching and occurs almost entirely through testing. Assessment of student learning is interwoven with teaching and occurs through teacher observation of students at work and through exhibitions and portfolios.

The value of constructivism as a framework for technology in education

Some argue that technology can improve learning and create better schools whilst others believe that using technology without a well-designed pedagogical approach can create confusion for the learners and tutors. As a consequence of this, technology might be used as a quick fix to solve long running problems in education which may eventually lead to bigger issues.

Can having an organized systematic approach to use of technology in education be the starting point to establish a long term solution to educational issues?

It is been suggested that there is a very strong link between constructivist theory and technology in education. As an example of this is John Dewey’s view that education can be practiced with the use of technology. Although he didn’t talk much about technology itself, his views of education can be applied to use of technology in education in the 21st Century. Dewey believed that education should not stop in classrooms but extend to life out of school. Children should be able to use the knowledge that they learned in school into their daily lives. Using technology in education will give children the experiences that they wouldn’t be able to get in other ways. For example by using computers and the internet students are able to find, listen and see the information actively instead of sitting and listening to a teacher or trying to find it in a book. Dewey would agree that technology should be used as a tool in education because of its ability to motivate learners to learn.

There have been many studies about the role of technology in enhancing the teaching-learning process in constructivist classrooms such as; Black & McClintock, 1995; Brush & Saye, 2000; Collins, 1991; Duffy & Cunningham, 1996; Richards, 1998. They all agreed on one outcome; – When the constructivist approach is used together with the technology, it has a very positive impact on learning outcomes.

Dwyer, et al. (1991) suggests that Technology is as a powerful tool for constructivism’s main principle that students learn by doing. The constructivist approach works well with technology because it supports collaborative, interactive and student-centered learning. This partnership also has a positive effect on student attitudes because they feel more successful, are motivated to learn and have better self-confidence.

According to Bagley and Hunter (1992), students use more resources, enjoy learning more, develop a wide variety of ideas and advanced reasoning skills when using technology.

By using technology in the constructivist classroom, teachers will engage students with the lesson more actively, work collaboratively and develop more complex thinking skills. Constructivists believe that technology should be used by the students as a tool to explore problem solutions and acquire new information. Once this is done then the learners can apply their own meaning to the new knowledge. The constructivist approach supports child-driven learning and the latest technological developments give children the opportunity to access knowledge instantly which puts them in a position where they are fully in control of which information they can access and how.

Another main principal of constructivist approach is learning collaboratively. Jonassen and others (2003, 9) suggest that «learning and instructional activities should engage and support combinations of active, constructive, intentional, authentic, and cooperative learning. […] Learning activities that represent a combination of these characteristics result in even more meaningful learning than the individual characteristics would in isolation».

The use of technology in education creates an environment where learners work together to help each other to construct new knowledge. Children like talking about their work and strategies. This helps children who may not do very well, who may be developmentally behind, to work with their peers and progress better. They feel that they are included in the learning process instead of feeling alienated by the complexity of the knowledge that teachers traditionally try to teach them directly. This also makes them feel more confident and be less reliant on an adult to learn. Networking also allows children to communicate and collaborate with other students around the globe through E-mail. Chat groups not only let children exchange and share knowledge, but additionally allow teachers to develop themselves further through sharing their lesson plans and teaching strategies with other educators via online communities.

Using technology in the classroom develops a new form of communication where children become a part of the wider community by using search engines, online libraries and joining web based classes. Teaching and learning is not limited to the classroom. With the help of technology, children can visit places, speak to other students, access their work from home and complete it, get instant feedback from their teacher etc. The opportunities are endless. Technology in the constructivist view shifts the structure of the classroom; whole class teaching transforms itself into small group work where children are coached by their teacher, encouraged to take part actively and work collaboratively, thinking both verbally and visually.

Constructivism is simply about questioning, investigating, autonomy and personal expressions of knowledge. Technology allows for investigating, explorations and self-expression. Effective use of technology helps children to be more collaborative, allow them to learn at their own pace.

Using technology to support Constructivist learning such as iEARN and Oracle Thinkquest provides authentic learning experiences for children. They work on projects that are based on issues which are relevant to everyone from around the world that participates. This enables children to experiment with different situations either individually or in groups.

The Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow (Dwyer, 1994) research project shows that children who have been given 2 computers; one to use at school and one at home acquired advanced skills. According to this research, students:

  • Explored and represented information dynamically and in many forms.
  • Became socially aware and more confident.
  • Communicated effectively about complex processes.
  • Used technology routinely and appropriately.
  • Became independent learners and self-starters.
  • Knew their areas of expertise and shared that expertise spontaneously.
  • Worked well collaboratively.
  • Developed a positive orientation to the future. (Apple Inc, 1995)

Teachers who took part in this project expressed that they became comfortable with the technology and they acted as a mentor rather than lecturers with their students. Their efforts to integrate technology into classroom made them rethink about the way they approached education and creating an environment with opportunities for learning.

Interestingly exploring information, working collaboratively, becoming an independent learner, talking and sharing their knowledge, teachers being mentors; all these outcomes are the bones of the constructivist approach to education. It appears that constructivism and technology are trying to achieve the same outcome.

 All of these issues have significant implications for the role of the teacher and student in constructivist views of technology-based learning. It is widely believed, for example, that traditional approaches to education don’t equip teachers with the constructivist skills required to support learners. Teachers need to adapt a new technology based learning model (Dool & Kirschner, 2003) which will enable them to teach students to design and apply strategies for solving problems and develop inquiry based high level thinking skills.

In this perspective of constructivism, teachers must be prepared to provide technology supported learning opportunities to the students. They should be trained to use technology and be aware of how technology can support students’ learning. Both physical and virtual classes must be led by teachers who are equipped with the knowledge and skills to teach incorporating well developed technology skills and correct pedagogical approach.

Technology can support teachers to create a learner-centered environment (Forcier et al, 2005). Teachers who use a constructivist approach to education, value cooperative learning and technology. In this way teachers act as a guide, not the lead, additionally they become a student, learning from the students, just as students become their own teacher as they construct their own knowledge. They also understand that not all students will understand everything in the same way, so through cooperative learning, they engage students in activities which will support them to understand their own thought processes and their peers. They will have opportunities to use and see how others use technology in different ways.

In contrast to the role of the teacher, students are seen to need to use technology in a creative and effective way to seek and analyze information; to solve problems and making decisions; to communicate and collaborate with others. They need to ask and search for the knowledge instead of waiting for the teacher to deliver and construct the new knowledge through their own experience and understanding as a learning outcome.

Advantages and disadvantages of adopting a constructivist approach to technology in education

These views of technology-based learning are seen to have a number of strengths and resonances with contemporary notions of learning. For example, in arguing that learning is built upon what learners already know, the constructivist view promotes customized education instead of following a standardized curriculum. Using computers and the internet learners can now access information anytime, anywhere. This takes the time constraint away so that teachers can spend more time on topics that students are interested in.

There is no doubt that children learn better and enjoy more when they take an active part in learning instead of passive listening. For example telling them about the British Isles will not engage them with the lesson directly, but by allowing them to do research about the British Isles using the Internet will help students to get involved actively in the learning process. This will also help learners develop a better understanding of concepts such as; reasoning, creativity, taking an active part in problem solving, and meaningful technology. By using technology as a tool, learners get directly involved in activities. This helps them to relate the knowledge to their own lives.

Using technology as a tool to teach creates an environment for working in groups. Using different technological tools such as computers, digital cameras and the internet, children can work either as individuals or as a group on different projects. The World Wide Web also removes the problem of physical distance and allows learners to work with peers out of classroom too. Web 2.0 technologies provide learners with cooperative and collaborative learning experiences and encourages learners to actively construct their own learning and meaning.

The constructivist approach promotes higher level thinking skills. Use of technology such as Web 2.0 applications promotes constructivist learning principles in the classrooms. Web 2.0 applications can be seen as ‘intellectual partners’ in the collaborative learning process to promote critical and higher level thinking (Voithofer, 2007). Using graphics, photos, animation and videos, learners can design and complete creative, higher-level tasks. The use of the constructivist approach together with Web 2.0 in the classroom provides learners with a ‘complex laboratory in which to observe, question, practice and validate knowledge’ (Dillon, 2004). Using constructivist pedagogy to support the use of technology encourages learners and teachers to concentrate on how to think and understand rather than memorizing parts of the knowledge.

Use of technology to support lessons motivates learners by accommodating their interests. Using a simple projector and the internet, teachers can take students on a virtual field trip on any subject that interests learners. They also provide virtual simulations of real life experiences which can be integrated as part of the curriculum.

The constructivist approach encourages teachers to design learning activities in an authentic context so that learners will engage with the lessons. The most important outcome is that students learn to question things and apply this skill to finding out more about the world outside of the classroom. If they search for answers to their questions using an online library or encyclopaedia, they can then continue asking questions in other areas after school and use the same Internet search skill that they had developed in the classroom to overcome their curiosity.

In a constructivist classroom, students construct their knowledge. Online technologies can be used to gather, communicate and construct knowledge by pupils according their needs and what they already know. For example by using a CD ROM learners are able to explore and construct information at their own pace. They can also transfer the skills that they have developed in the classroom to outside the classroom and apply it to different situations.

These arguments notwithstanding, it has been argued that there are disadvantages of adopting the constructivist approach with the use of technology in education.

Constructivism suggests that learning should build upon the prior knowledge of students. All the students will have different starting points from which to acquire new knowledge. Customizing activities to every single student may not be achievable as it requires time and staffing.

Another issue that may arise is; implementing learner-centered teaching doesn’t happen overnight. It requires a long-term planning for training educators to understand and practice the constructivist approach in their classroom. The cost of this professional development may not be manageable.

Additionally, the difficulty to assess children’s level in a technology integrated constructivist learning environment can be also seen as a disadvantage. As constructivism encourages learners to start from their prior knowledge and work at their own pace, this means their starting point to acquire new knowledge will be very different as will their progress. Designing a standardized assessment method to assess their learning may not be possible.

From the view point of technology; the rapid and continuous developments in technology might make it difficult for teachers to gain the new skills to use these technologies in the classroom. Again it requires a very well organized systematic continuous teacher training programme to support educators with up do date knowledge and skills.

Conclusions

Technology can make learning better when it is guided by a pedagogy that suggests a well structured, learner-driven curriculum. As suggested by Riel (1990), new tools such as technology don’t suddenly change education. The relationship that the tool offers learners and the collective vision as an outcome of this relationship can define the curriculum which will then shape the learning process.

Technology is widely used by children outside of school, which they readily grasped and made this new tool a part of their life. Schools therefore can take advantage of this by integrating technology into curriculum with the correct pedagogical approach which is constructivism for creating a child-driven, interactive learning process.

There are some important steps to be taken in order to achieve this. Teachers needed to be trained to follow up the rapid changes in technology. But most importantly they need to stop seeing technology as ‘electronic books’ and understand the pedagogical potential of technology. This can be achieved if the teachers are provided with the time and support to familiarise themselves with the new technologies and how to use them in the classroom.

As it can be difficult to use a standardised assessment method in a technology integrated constructivist classroom, educators then will need to develop a new form of assessment method to record children’s progress. One suggestion to this can be creating a portfolio of children’s work. This portfolio can be created and recorded easily by use of Virtual learning Environments. These records of children’s progress in learning will help teachers to evaluate learner’s progress and identity their individual needs. This will have an effect on their planning; as a result they will plan activities according to individual learner’s needs and interests which will motivate the learners to learn.

Technology can only be effective if the learning environment supports changes and new experiments. Only then can technology offer well structured learning concepts that will change the culture of learning in schools. A constructivist approach to learning supports and encourages exploring and investigating new concepts. Therefore not instructional traditional teaching that behaviourist approach supports but constructivist philosophy can be merged together with technology to change the culture of the learning in schools and thus have a dynamic effect on a pupils’ ability to learn. Allowing teachers to control the learning as behaviourist theory suggests, will discourage children working in groups and focusing on facts more than knowledge and an end product. Using technology only as a direct instruction or assessment tool as behaviourist theory implies will not motivate children to learn or gain knowledge but it will make learning irrelevant to their experiences. As an outcome of this students will create a negative attitude toward learning and schools.

In conclusion; if technology is added to a poor practice then the teaching/learning will still be of a poor quality, as the technology will not be able to enhance learning like a magic wand. Having the latest PCs and software in the classroom doesn’t mean that learners will learn better, however, the pedagogical approach that supports and shapes how technology is used in the classrooms will help learners to do better.

References

Ackermann, E. (2001), ‘Piaget’s Constructivism, Papert’s Constructionism:

What’s the difference?’ [Online]. Available at <http://learning.media.mit.edu/content/publications/EA.Piaget%20_%20Papert.pdf>

Apple Inc, (2008), ‘Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow—Today , Learning in the 21st Century’[Online]. Available at <http://ali.apple.com/acot2/global/files/ACOT2_Background.pdf>

Apple Inc, (1995,) ‘Changing the conversation about Teaching, Learning

&Technology: A Report on 10 Years of ACOT Research’ [Online]. Available at http://imet.csus.edu/imet1/baeza/PDF%20Files/Upload/10yr.pdf

Azarmsa, R. (1995), Educational computing: Principals and applications, New jersey: Educational Technology Publications, p.125

Bagley, Carol, & Hunter, Barbara. (1992),’ Restructuring, constructivism, and technology: forging a new relationship’, Educational Technology, 32(7), 22-27.

Bruce, T. (2006), Early Childhood: A Guide for Students, London: Sage Publication

Bruner, J. (1960). The Process of Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press

Dillon, P. (2004), ‘Trajectories and Tensions in the Theory of Information and Communication Technology in Education’. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol. 52, No: 2

Dmock, V & Heath, M.(1998), ‘Constructivism and Technology On the Road to Student-Centered Learning’. Tap into Learning, 1(1), 1-8. [Online] Available at <http://www.sedl.org/pubs/tapinto/v1n1.pdf >

Dool, P. C. van den, & Kirschner, P. (2003), ‘Integrating the educative functions of information and communications technology (ICT) in teachers’ and learners’ toolboxes: a reflection on pedagogical benchmarks for ICT in teacher education’. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, Vol.12, No: 1, 161-179. [Online] Available at <http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a751265721&db=all>

Dwyer, D , Ringstaff, C & Sandholtz, J (1991), Changes in teachers’ beliefs and

practices in technology-rich classrooms, Educational Leadership, vol.48, No: 8

Dwyer, D (1994), ‘Apple Classrooms of Tomorrow: What We’ve Learned’, Educational Leadership, Vol.51, No: 7 <http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational_leadership/apr94/vol51/num07/Apple_Classrooms_of_Tomorrow@_What_We’ve_Learned.aspx>

Forcier, R., & Descy, D. (2007), The computer as an educational tool: productivity and problem solving. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall

Grennon Brooks, J., & Brooks, M. G. (1993), In search of understanding: The case for constructivist classrooms, Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

Ivers, Karen.S. (2003), A teacher’s guide to using technology in the classroom, Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited, p.40-41

Jonassen, David H. / Howland, Jane/ Moore, Joi et al. (2003), Learning to Solve Problems with Technology. A Constructivist Perspective, 2. Ed. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education.

Jonassen, D. (1994), Thinking technology: Toward a constructivist design model. Educational Technology, Vol.34, No: 4

Leadbeater, C. (2008), What’s next? 21 Ideas for 21st Century Learning [Online]

Available at < http://www.innovation-unit.co.uk/images/stories/whats_next_-_21_ideas_final.pdf>

Lin, C.A., Atkin, D,J. (2007), Communication technology and social change: theory and implications, New jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, p.66

McKenzie, W.(2000), Are You a Techno-Constructivist? [Online] Available at <http://www.educationworld.com/a_tech/tech/tech005.shtml>

Oakley, L. (2004), Cognitive Development. East Sussex: Routledge.

Papert, S. (1985) Different visions of Logo. Computers in the Schools 2(2-3): 3-8. [Online], Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J025v02n02_02

Papert, S. (1987). A critique of technocentrism in thinking about the school of the future. [Online], Available: http://www.papert.org/articles/ACritiqueofTechnocentrism.html

Papert, S. (1991) Situating constructionism. In I. Harel & S. Papert (Eds.). Constructionism. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation

Piaget, J. (1954) The construction of reality in the child. New York: Ballantine.

Piaget, J. (1970) Logic and psychology. NY: Basic Books.

Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of the child. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Savery, J. R, and Duffy, T. M. (1995). ‘Problem based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework’, Educational Technology, Vol.35, No: 5

Vygotsky, S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. Mind in Society pp. 79-91 [online] Available: http://www.psy.cmu.edu/~siegler/vygotsky78.pdf

 

European Young Innovators Forum, in partnership with Huawei, launched the 3rd edition of Inno Apps2016 , an interesting competition for apps developers! This year the focus is in on the IoT (Internet of Things), as a crosscutting technology domain and on Smart Cities as a vertical application area, to address the specific challenges related to Safe Cities . Learn more about InnoApps 2016 : http://bit.ly/InnoApps16

Twitter:

1. Interested in #smartcities & #IoT? @EYIF & @HuaweiEU launched the 3rd #InnoApps2016 Challenge. Send your application http://bit.ly/InnoApps16

2. Passionate about #smartcities? Our partners from @EYIF invite you to register for #InnoApps2016: http://bit.ly/InnoApps16 (+ pic)

3. Have a bright idea for # SmartCities App? If so, send your application for # InnoApps2016 & you can win €20.000! http://bit.ly/InnoApps16

Facebook [with #] /LinkedIn [without #]:

Do you have a bright idea for a #SmartCities App? If so, send your application for # InnoApps2016 and you can be the winner of €20.000! Find more details on http://bit.ly/InnoApps16

For groups:

Hi All! European Young Innovators Forum, in partnership with Huawei, launched the 3rd edition of # InnoApps2016 , an interesting competition for apps developers! If you have any bright idea Smart Cities, check the rules and don’t hesitate to apply! http://bit.ly/InnoApps16

 

 

Imagine leading global technology companies – Apple, Google – uniting to reimagine the future of education. Imagine world-leading universities – Harvard, Johns Hopkins, London School of Economics, King’s College London, the University of Manchester, Queensland University of Technology – coming together to reimagine the future of education. Imagine both of these groups joining forces in one place, and imagine them being joined by a group of enthusiastic innovators from across the world. Imagine them, imagining how academics, technology practitioners, and top global investors can work together to solve problems facing, and create opportunities for, the world of higher education.

Imagining this won’t be necessary if you were at the 2015 Reimagine Education Conference, held in Philadelphia last December – and nor will it be necessary for those attending this year’s edition, now open for delegate registration. The conference, organised by QS Quacquarelli Symonds – compilers of the QS World University Rankings – the Wharton School, and the Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania, will again bring together world-class universities, technology companies, and prominent global investors to discuss how the world can improve teaching, learning, and employability.

This year’s conference will feature four main tracks, each devoted to a different strand of the educational world. The conference organisers – unifying the corporate and the pedagogical – recognise that education is the broadest of churches; the conference structure is designed to provide all attendees with a focus and a voice. The first track concerns itself with hybrid learning and e-learning, while the second moves away from this explicit focus on EdTech: it is concerned with Learning Assessment, Teaching Delivery, and Presence Learning.

The third track focuses on Nurturing Employability, Ethical Leadership, and Sustainability, while the fourth will be explicitly concerned with the ways in which EdTech – namely, ICT Tools – can transform education. Each track comprises keynote speeches and panel discussions led by luminaries in the specific area, numerous networking opportunities, and presentations from relevant finalists of the 2016 Reimagine Education Awards.

Prominent figures at last year’s conference included Jaime Casap, Chief Education Evangelist at Google; Huntingdon D. Lambert, Dean of Continuing Education at Harvard University; Jim Shelton – former Deputy Secretary of Education for the Obama Administration; and Jeremy Rifkin, bestselling author of The Third Industrial Revolution. They were joined by 330 delegates from six continents, and representatives from prominent media institutions across the world – including Caroline Howard, Senior Editor at Forbes, and Sean Coughlan, Education Correspondent at the BBC.

The conference, as in previous years, will also represent the culmination of the Reimagine Education awards competition. Featuring 14 award categories upon which the conference tracks are broadly based, it is designed to award the most innovative projects, initiatives, and ideas in the world of education – and the trailblazers that bring them into being. The winner of the Overall Award will receive US$50,000 for their efforts, and global visibility for their successful project. Six of these award categories are designed to focus specifically on innovation in the Information Technology sector, including the inaugural Best Use of ICT Tools Award.

The opportunities for educators and trailblazers seeking to be a part of Reimagine Education are greater than ever before this year; the organising committee have this year invited prominent global investors, who will be providing delegates with Connect 1-2-1 session. These are designed to allow those with successful project ideas to discuss feasibility, investment, and implementation with those who can help make imagination reality.

For more details about the conference and/or competition, visit www.reimagine-education.com, or contact Serena Ricci at reimagine@qs.com.

For more information follow us on Twitter at @ReimagineHEdu, email serena@qs.com, or give us a call at +44(0)20 7284 7287.

We look forward to seeing your application materials, and welcoming you to the Reimagine experience.

Sincerely,

Serena Ricci on behalf of

Yoram (Jerry) Wind
The Lauder Professor
Professor of Marketing
Director, Wharton SEI Center for Advanced Studies in Management
Nunzio Quacquarelli
Managing Director
QS Quacquarelli Symonds

Call for Papers

International Journal of Computer Science Education in Schools (IJCSES)

is a double-blind peer reviewed, open access online journal.

The main objective of IJCSES is to develop a research network in teaching and learning in Computer Science Education in schools and related topics through high-quality research that focuses both theory and practice. This would enable academics and educators who are interested in research about theoretical developments in Computer Science Education to access most recent studies. The network would also provide a communication point for teachers who are interested in engaging in research projects, but not feeling confident.

Topics of interest include but are not limited to:

  • Computer Science Education
  • Computing
  • Theory of computation
  • Programming language theory
  • Algorithms and data structures
  • Psychology of Computing
  • Computational Thinking
  • Teacher Training in Computer Science
  • Programming theory
  • Creativity and Computing
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Computer graphics and virtual reality
  • Computer Game Design in schools
  • Text based coding
  • Visual coding
  • Teacher research in Computing

The journal welcomes studies from diverse research orientation. Studies that are based on qualitative data, such as case studies and historical analysis, are equally highly regarded as studies based on quantitative data.

IJCSES is inviting papers for Vol. 1 No. 1 which is scheduled to be published on October 31, 2016. Last date of submission: September 30, 2016.

Registration and login are required to submit items online and to check the status of current submissions. For more information, visit the official website of the journal www.ijcses.org

With thanks,

Editors:

Yasemin Allsop

Dr. Sue Sentance

 

by F.Günseli ÖZKAN. R.Tayfun GEDİK www.office-fr.com, http://elearning-turkey.eu, gozkan@office-fr.com


 

Introduction:

A nos jours, grâce aux environnements sociaux et éducatifs reliant les communautés virtuelles sectorielles, la formation ne se limite plus à la classe. Elle se transforme en solutions tout à fait exclusives du fait de la caractéristique globale et durable des compétences professionnelles. En fait, ni les développeurs des technologies de l’information, ni les décideurs et acteurs qui influencent les politiques éducatives n’ont su prévoir la vitesse de l’impact sur l’éducation des technologies émergents. L’internet s’est introduit à l’improviste dans notre vie quotidienne en tant qu’un instrument servant à développer les compétences et la connaissance.

Ceci se base sur deux raisons :

La pression de la concurrences sur les qualifications professionnelles force les standards des expertises. Parallèlement, les technologies offrent des outils illimités pour accéder à l’information. Par ailleurs nous observons un nouveau profil d’apprenant qui adore la technologie et préfère un accès rapide à l’information, d’autre part nous faisons face à des acteurs de l’éducation professionnelle se positionnant distancés à la technologie.

Pour le succès d’un programme éducatif en ligne il importe de bien analyser ces deux profils. Ceci concerne toutes les étapes de l’apprentissage allant du design de l’interface web à l’architecture, des paramètres d’enregistrements aux méthodologies etc. Dans cet article nous allons passer en revue l’expérience acquise durant un programme pilote en ligne exécuté dans le cadre d’un projet européen LLL programme, exécuté à l’internationale avec la participation de plus de mille bénéficiaires.

Nom du projet :

“ F4ESL ,Cours sur la Législation Européenne sur la Sécurité Alimentaire du Champ à la Fourchette” Profil participant: Licence, maitrise, Phd En langues: Anglais, Turque, Bulgare

L’objet: Cours en ligne pour enseigner la législation européenne sur la sécurité alimentaire Bénéficiaire cible: Ingénieur en agriculture, ingénieur alimentaire et stagiaires. Les cours sont préparés en collaboration avec les projets partenaires sous la coordination du projet leader KSL, Kalite Sistem Merkez Laboratuarlar grubu (TR), L’Universite Agricole Nitra, Slovaquie, TACIYL l’Institut Espagnole des Technologies Agricoles Castilla et Leon , office-fr Turquie, L’Association de la Sécurité Alimentaire, Accent Consultance Bulgarie, SKY Consultance qualité, Tr, Le Ministère turque de L’Agriculture, la Direction en charge du Controle et Protection Alimentaire, Les services Alimentaire et Vétérinaire de Lettonie, Le syndicat des Employeurs de l’Industrie Alimentaire, l’Association des Exportateurs Alimentaires.

Notre Approche:

Les règles et standards visant une standardisation des droits sur les propriétés intellectuelles, les infrastructures de communications, les matériaux d’apprentissage, les softwares se développent d’une grande vitesse. Le monde, axé sur la valeur économique de l’usage des technologies de l’information dans les secteurs non TIC et grâce aux standards qui le permettent, s’oriente de plus en plus vers la production des matériaux d’éducation bon pour tous.

Aussi bien au sein des Universités que dans le secteur public et privé, des projets géants sont déployés à l’international. De ce fait, dans ce projet, nous avons développé nos cours et leçons dans les standards internationaux, éditable et réutilisable. Comme les outils de l’éducation se diversifient durant la formation en ligne par rapport à l’éducation traditionnelle nous avons intégrés tous les outils disponible de Moodle dans notre plateforme. Les outils de communication, dictionnaires en trois langues, forum, chat , vidéo, facilités y ont été implémentés. Comme les cours étaient en trois langues, notre budget n’a pas permis l’intégration de sons aux leçons, de ce fait elles ont été conçues sans son. Les matériaux éducatifs ont été préparés sous le format de Scorm 2004 , implémenté sur la dernière version de Moodle. Nous avons aménagés les utilités catégorisation, statistique, évaluation et reporting de Moodle suivant nos objectifs d’apprentissage. Nous avons crée un environnement déployant toutes les sources et outils de Moodle.

Les objets d’apprentissages ont été développés pour chaque leçon dans les standards internationaux, sous le format Scorm 2004, ces paquets de Scorm indépendant, réutilisable et modifiable chacun de 15-20 minutes ont été implémenté au sein du plateforme. Nos paquets Scorm, sont d’une interopérabilité reconnue, peuvent communiquer avec différent LMS’s. Dans les cours, le parcours d’apprentissage est contrôlable . Chaque leçon offre un environnement contrôlant les séquences et le processus. Des accents flash en sont utilisés. Des règles régissent le rythme et le surf à travers les leçons. Le fait que chaque leçon est indépendant permet une flexibilité pour des modifications ultérieur.

Nos objets d’apprentissages et le plateforme LMS «F4ESL» que nous avons modifié d’après nos besoins, ont été fortement appréciés par les étudiants, enseignant du point de vue de sa facilité d’usage, son indexation interne, le déploiement des sujets, matières, contenu et son accessibilité. Nous disposons de tous les outputs des sondages effectuées à travers les cours, ainsi que tous les “records” des bénéficiaires durant l’apprentissage.

Les partenaires ont fourni, le scenario d’apprentissage, les textes, images, vidéo relatifs aux cours au fur et à mesure du développement de chaque leçon. Les documents instructifs relatifs à l’utilisation du plateforme et les règles régissant ont été préparés et intégrés tout au début du lancement des cours, ainsi que la biographie des enseignants, leur adresse électronique, les liens de références, l’aménagement des outils de communication et d’instruction ont été mis en exécution en premier lieu. Les bénéficiaires ont été sélectionné et inscrits. Ils ont accedé aux cours, un service de support leur à été disposé, les étudiants et enseignant ont été autorisé a télécharger leur propre document.

Les cours n’ont pas été développé sous le format d’ebook. Le scenario d’apprentissage en respecte les besoins des bénéficiaires sous une forme particulière à ce sujet. Les matières et contenus sont bien categorisés et facile à suivre, encouragent l’usage des méthodologies d’apprentissage similaires.

Les cours ont été fortement apprécies par les bénéficiaires , d’après un sondage effectue (%95-98) auprès des bénéficiaires. Les étudiants sont invités dès leur accès au plateforme à respecter le code d’utilisation, les propriétés intellectuelles des contenus et d’accomplir les taches clairement définis au lancement des cours. Durant les cours, l’attitude des bénéficiaires a été suivi quant’ à l’apprentissage, la communication, les tests, et le forum. L’atout additionnelle des LMS par rapport à l’éducation traditionnelle est sa fonctionnalité de traçabilité. Cette fonctionnalité n’est pas très bien connu par les bénéficiaires. Au fur et à mesure de l’avancement des cours, cette capacités a été de temps en temps dévoilé par l’administrateur ou découverte par les bénéficiaires mêmes. Âpres avoir réalisé que leur succès et suivis, ils se sont beaucoup plus concentré aux cours. Finalement ils ont complété 35 leçons groupées sous 5 modules, ont été forcé à compléter une évaluation du cours après chaque module. Ils ont été invite une évaluation finale après l’ensemble des cours. Nous avons observé les dernières 24 heures un rush des participants souhaitant le compléter à la dernière minute. Les cours ont été lancé en premier lieu en anglais, le profil de bénéficiaire était comme suit: des cadres travaillant dans les institutions internationales en matière de la sécurité alimentaire, des académiciens et des professionnels du secteur privé. Ils ont complété une forme sur le web, sélectionné d’après les critères pré établies sur leur métiers ou sur leur précédente formation. Les identifications et mots de passes de chaque bénéficiaire leur ont été communiqué peu avant le lancement. Les 415 premier participants ont eu plein accès au plateforme durant deux mois 24 heures sur 24. Ils ont été invité à changer leur identifiant et mot de passe à leur premier accès. Cependant nous avons observé que certains utilisateurs ayant oublié leur mot de passe ont rencontré certaines difficulté à le récupérer par leur adresse électronique du fait qu’ils avaient apposé une différente adresse (de celle utilisé lors de l’inscription aux cours). Quelque bénéficiaire qui se sont inscrit en utilisant deux adresses de messagerie différentes ou bien qui ont utilises la même adresse électronique et deux noms differents, ont naturellement été inscrits mais pas admis aux cours. Une autre expérience découlant des services de support : l’accès aux cours qui est limité à 1 seul utilisateur a été refusé aux utilisateurs qui avaient oublié de fermer leur compte sur un autre ordinateur ou bien qui on partagé leur identifiant et mot de passe avec quelqu’un d’autre. Ces cas nous ont été signalé comme problèmes techniques or, il s’agissait des problèmes d’utilisateurs.

D’autre part, les utilisateurs ont souvent confondu les notions «accès web»et «accès LMS», ont fait part des problèmes d’accès au plateforme, pourtant ils essayaient leur identifiants sur la page d’accueil au lieu d’aller sur l’LMS.

C’est pourquoi, nous avons décidé d’ajouter dans le futur une note explicative à l’attention des bénéficiaires au moment de l’envoi des identifiants par email et ajouter un visuel sur la page d’accueil.

Du fait que les bénéficiaires du premier cours ( en anglais ) venaient de 55 pays (de different time zones) cette situation a créé des difficultés durant les services de support.

Pour le second et le troisième cours, le plateforme initiale structuré en anglais a été lancé en deux nouvelles langues le turque et le bulgare. 700 nouveaux bénéficiaires ont été inscrits a cette phase. Nous avons reçu au total 2026 candidats, après une sélection initiale, plus de 1000 participants ont été inscrits et bénéficié des cours. Les deux mois consacré à chaque langue a été est satisfaisant du point de vue de l’apprentissage. Nous estimons aussi utile de conseiller de temps en temps aux bénéficiaires de ne pas attendre la dernière minute pour compléter les cours. Il sera aussi utile de les informer que leur parcours d’apprentissage concernant l’accès, les leçons suivis, les enquêtes remplis, test etc sont tous enregistrés par le système. Concernant les tests, nous avons due envoyer à certains utilisateurs à titre de justification. Les copies d’écrans relatives à leur activités au sein du plateforme…

Des le début, toutes les phases se sont déroulé en ligne de l’annoncement des cours, à la sélection, l’inscription, l’évaluation, le reporting et la certification. Deux services de support l’un administratif l’autre technique ont été lancés. Les examens ont été effectués à base de module, les questions sont sélectionnés randonnées à partir du récipient de question. Les examens étaient limites au temps. Les utilisateurs ont bénéficié de 3 accès, le meilleurs point a été pris en considération. L’obligation d’accomplir toutes les modules est sollicité. Finalement les utilisateurs ont demandé un examen de compensation pour refaire les modules qu’ils n’ont pas réussi.

Sources:

-F4ESL – From Farm to Fork European Food Safety Legislation Training Programme Lifelong Learning Program (LLP) “Leonardo da Vinci” (2009-1– TR1–LEO0508647).

-SK/01/B/F/PP-142 243 – Online Distance Learning Module in European Agrarian Law by The Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra.

-http://www.office-fr.com

-http://elearning-turkey.eu

Du fait que les cours sont clôturés en 2012, les liens du projets ne sont plus actifs mais les cours sont disponibles en soft format: http://www.f4esl.eu , http://trainee.f4esl.eu

Version turque de l’article : http://www.midasebook.com/dosyalar2/eogrenme2.pdf page 389 Hard copie: E-Learning en Turquie, etat des choses et examples publication de l’Universite Anatolie