2. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick1 NettLæR, Nettbasert Læring i Rogaland Fra lokalt orientert forskning til Europeisk forskning. 1 amanuensis, Dr Jan Frick

3. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick2 The NettLaeR project  NettLaeR (Net based learning in Rogaland) was a research project running in Rogaland County in Norway 1999-2003 partly funded by the Norwegian Research Council.  It involved many partners and courses. The NettLaeR covers levels from 10 th grade secondary school to PhD students. The role of many partners changed during the project

4. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick3 Partners in NettLæR  Research –Stavanger University College/ Høgskolen i Stavanger, Rogaland Research Institute, Telenor Research Institute  Manufacturing Companies –TESA: collaboration network of 14 companies  Vocational Schools –RKK: collaboration network of 32 schools  ICT companies –InfoNett: collaboration network of 12 companies  Maintenance companies –Centre for maintenance and asset management: collaboration network of 30 companies  Petroleum and Marine –Stavanger Offshore and Maritime Forum: collaboration network of 40 companies  Hotel –Norwegian Hotel Management School: Hotel and restaurant network

5. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick4 1.Blended learning  By “blended learning” we define a mixed use of technology based methods and traditional classroom.  The use of technology/ ICT in courses must be adapted depending on: –1) The subject and content of the course, –2) The participants' and the teachers' knowledge/ ability/ capability and interests for using ICT, and –3) The available technology for the teachers and the participants.

6. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick5 Pedagogic method  2.Frequent dialogue or follow-up –Motivation is an issue for many students. A person regarded as an authority by the learner should check the progress as often as possible, preferable once a week.  3.Active learners or action learning –There is a change when going from traditional classroom to e- learning. Traditional Focus : the teacher set the progress and coordinate all activities. E-learning Focus: the learner determine when and where the learning takes place, and thus generates an individual progress. –This change move much of the responsibility from the teacher to the learner.

7. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick6 Organizing  4.Use of Learning Management Systems (LMS) –Learning Management Systems have a short development cycle where new functionality and new systems becomes available often. Such systems are a collection of content and communication functionality together with management tools. –Simple and stable access provides confidence and improves learning process.  5.Groups –The use of groups may have good impact on learning. The tutored groups may provide the individual with confidence and a social context both promoting the progress. –The creation of groups may also have a good function if the group can function as a common first- help for its members.

8. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick7 Content  6.Animation –We find no evidence that increased use of animations and special made effects increases learning as such. There are exceptions : a mass – marked product, And: creating a game-like learning environment  7.Sequence of content –Several Learning Management Systems have structures that make the learner follow a “path” through the content and tasks. –Having a more or less obligatory path to follow seems to be an advantage for employees long away from the schooling system.  8.Content –Many people think that all content should be provided within the elearning system. –Our experience is that there is no reason to move a book to web pages without other reasons such as a need for upgrade.

9. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick8 Volume and money  9.Number of participants –Many suggest that the number of participants in elearning is limited to about 20 persons. Our experience is that this is the case in a standardized set up. Higher numbers is possible but more demanding  10.Where is the money –For a similar number of learners, the cost involved in using a kind of elearning is similar or higher than with traditional classroom. –For companies elearning provide higher flexibility in delivery and integrate with daily activities much better. It also reduces need for travel and accommodation, which in many known cases has been more than 80% of cost.

10. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick9 NextLeap NoE: site of partners Delivered April 24th 03.  Symbol for a partner organization  “Technology enhanced personalized, mixed mode learning”                               

11. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick10 “NextLeap: Technology enhanced learning communities for individualized lifelong learning”

12. 20 Feb 2003J. Frick11 Other projects/ activities  RKK: 11000 participants, 1400 teachers, 4 employees.  Boxer: ”Coursekeeper”  Jærtek: ” RealDOK for kartlegging og dokumentasjon av realkompetanse”  HiS og RKK: IKT for lærere  ”Norge Rundt”, øk adm utdanninger på Nett  Projects –RedMeis Leonardo, 2000-03 Relocation and Development of Model for Education, Industry and Society in Collaboration. Norway, Greece, Spain, Latvia –R3L: ”Competence Centres and Information and Communication Technologies as Tools of Learning Regions", is a project under "European Nets of Learning Regions"(R3L-Initiative). –InterReg: "Continuing education in the practical use of ICT for teachers " to Finland, Estonia,Latvia,Lithuania and Kaliningrad in Russia. –InterReg: ” Regional Strategies & Solutions to enhance ICT access & use for SMEs”, North Sea Region