E-Mode: the findings of the project on the attitudes and practises of trainers concerning the development of their own educational material and modules, with the use of ICT E-Mode/Lifelong Learning Programme Final Conference in Athens, November 19th, 2010 By Associate Professor Leif Emil Hansen, PAES/Department of Psychology and Educational Studies, Roskilde University, Denmark

Methodology and data BG: desk survey; 48 questionnaires; focus groups – all among adult educators and volunteers DK: desk survey; questionnaire with 25 respondents among diverse adult educators; a focus group GR: 53 semistructured interviews with educators (diverse age, experience and gender) SE: Policy paper plus reflective summary that refers to the E-Mode project TU: 55 questionnaries among vocational adult educators (diverse age, gender and experience) plus one focus group with 14 participating educators – in general highly educated

Findings NationsTeachers development of teaching materials BGThe majority (app. 60%) of the Bulgarian educators use ready-made educational materials % of the teachers are partially developing their own material (10-15% are creating more than 80% of their material themselves) DKIn general (app. 75%) the Danish trainers are focused on developing, implementing and evaluating own educational materials; they especially emphasize the importance of evaluation GRThe majority finds it very important to develop material themselves; 47% actually develop most of the material themselves, while 34% develop it to some degree SEIn general they use ready-made materials – and they are not satisfied with the (pedagocical) adequacy of it TUThey all agree on the importance of designing, implementing and evaluating their own educational material (60% ‘strongly agree’, 40% ‘agree’)

Findings NationMotives to elaborate own teaching materials BGThe institutions are not making the right incentives due to the competitors on the educational market, who use ready-made materials with the same (financial) success DKNo significant findings GRThere is a low quality of the ready made educational materials; furthermore, in many cases teachers are not offered any materials at all. Both elements create motives to develop their own material – which also enables a student centred approach SEA more consistent effort in the educational field for trainers would motivate the trainers to develop their own educational material TU(It is not clear from the national report what the motives are or could be for the trainers to develop their own educational material)

Findings NationITC competences BG40% feel completely OK with their ICT skills; they also have access to computers (90% in the big cities and over 50% outside) DK38% feel very competent, 42% feel competent, while 20% do not feel competent at all GRMost of the respondents feel very competent in integrating ICT in their teaching – through work practise, not courses. 33% would like to develop further their ICT skills – especially within design and evaluation SEICT is a great part of the general training in Sweden; that indicates the trainers’ good and comprehensive ICT competences TUIn general they are willing and feel competent in developing, implementing and evaluating their own materials, but they (app. 56%) do not feel competent enough in relation to the required standards for using information technologies

Findings NationSupport in designing, implementing and evaluating educational material BGThere is a general (app. 55%) feeling that authorities and institutions do support the trainers. 45% state that the employers support them. 32% get help from their colleagues DK48% have not addressed the question. Among the other half there is no consensus: 25% are satisfied with the support they get; 25% are dissatisfied. The satisfied ones point to colleagues, employers and institutions for further support (from colleagues they already get some valuable support) GRThe majority is dissatisfied with the support they get. 39% of the respondents wish that the adult education institutions would improve their support, while 25% think it should be the lifelong learning providers (what is the difference?). 20% point to ‘educational technology departments’ SEThere are no national programmes or effort to develop the general standard of the trainers’ ICT competences TU60% mention that they get support from the universities or by their colleagues (56%) and via the trainees (they get valuable feedback). It is uncertain whether the trainers are in general satisfied with the support they get

Barriers Nation BGApp. 50% are not capable of developing their own teaching by the use of ICT. The government is not supportive enough. Financial incentives, i.e. gratification of the trainers, could create an extra effort DKThe trainers need more time, space, and resources to handle the challenges of ICT; there is a need for courses and ‘sparring time’ with colleagues GRThere is no political strategy for exclusively adult education initiatives. Some teachers experience so many restrictions that they are not able to develop their own education materials. There are also facility problems. 54% feel a lack of competence and a need for courses etc. SEA more consistent effort in the educational field would motivate the trainers to develop their own educational material. There is a demand of programmes that are anchored in a European system; also a need for higher mobility between the countries; the trainers’ skills should be recognized internationally TUChallenges in creating a sharing-culture; a need for standardization of the use of technology in the educational system; there is to some degree a limited technological competence among the trainers

Conclusions In general the trainers are interested in developing their ICT skills – they want to get updated and to renew their knowledge, BUT: They experience a lack of resources and support, in terms of: – Time – Access to relevant technology – Incentives in terms of agreements on work conditions, salaries and wages – LLL specific ICT programmes (i.e. sensitive electronic evaluation methods and schemes) They do not – in their own opinion – have sufficient advanced ICT skills (for instance, the majority miss competences in the designing and evaluation part)