1. Experience gained using asynchronous teleteaching facilities at TEI of Crete Kalogiannakis M. (keynote speaker) Liodakis G., Psarros M., Vassilakis K. Virtual Electronic Learning For Vocational & Initial Teacher Training VELVITT 6 th Meeting in Heraklion Crete - Greece TEI of Crete Heraklion, 11 October 2005

2. Main questions The main questions of our research deals with: (1) The teacher’s attitudes in an ODL environment (2) The tutor’s profile through ODL environments and the teacher’s role that emerge (5) The evaluation and critical approach of the services provided to students and teachers by an ODL platform and finally, (3) The importance of the ODL pedagogical material (4) Advantages - Disadvantages of an e-learning system (6) The inquiry of tutor’s perspectives and proposals about the specific LMS of TEIoC  We are presented the results of an evaluation study for the asynchronous education, carried out at TEIoC 2/18

3. Platform of asynchronous education  Authorized users can access the platform at: http://eclass.cs.teiher.gr  This platform provides tools for setup, operation and administration of remote courses  Supports synchronous ways of communication 3/18

4. Theoretical framework (1)  I ncreased possibilities for student to collaborate, communicate and learn through web-based systems 4/18  This kind of educational approach, that supports distance-based teaching, is characterized by: a. reduced number of physical gatherings and b. independence, regarding time constraints  However, the quality of online experience varies across and often within, different institutions  Flexibility and distance education (Castells, 2002)  Distant learning can mean: - asynchronous (educator’s absence) or - synchronous (educator’s presence) facilitation of distance learning through the network

5. Theoretical framework (2)  ODL environments are spreading rapidly in all sectors of education opening up an extraordinary variety of potentially useful educational possibilities (Castells, 2002, Rafaeli and Sudweeks, 1998) 5/18  CMC systems have begun to capture the attention of scholars from a wide variety of disciplines and are used for educational purposes  CMC systems are believed to have powerful effects on social relationships (Kollock and Smith, 1996)  CMC technologies enable user interaction on a larger-scale than was previously possible via face-to-face group meeting (Baron, 1998, Rafaeli and Sudweeks, 1998, Wellman and Gulia, 1999)  A learning activity in virtual learning environments  Project (Dillenbourg and Jermann, 2002, Henri and Lundgren-Cayrol, 2001)

6. Theoretical framework (3)  Platforms  collaborative learning, 3 rd generation learning platforms (Laister and Koubek, 2001) 6/18  Different approaches try to focus on social and individual aspects of learning in an ODL environment  At the core of implementing an asynchronous e-learning environment is the networked software, referred to as LMS  The transition to online teaching and learning presents new challenges  Major part of this research constitutes the different perspectives that emerge for the optimization and the readjustment of the traditional educational process

7. Methods and samples (1)  The platform is operational since 2004, GUNet  Based on the open source software Claroline 7/18  Our study was based on a survey which was constructed and designed by means of:  a. semi-directed interviews and  b. two types of questionnaires (for students and for instructors)  In this research we present the results only for the instructors  At first we conducted 9 interviews with instructors and students  Content analysis of these interviews  Results based on both qualitative and quantitative approaches

8. Methods and samples (2)  The structure of both types of questionnaires covers the following three categories: (1) Exploitation issues of the e-learning platform (2) Assessment of the e-learning platform services (3) Prospects and proposals 8/18  The closed-form items of the questionnaires were rated using a Likert scale  The questionnaires were completed by 17 instructors of TEIoC  All participants are active users of our e-learning platform  Sample not representative of all teachers at TEIoC  Our research was conducted over a period of 9 months (September 2004 – June 2005)

9. Results (1 st axis) 1 st thematic axis, frequency of use of the system and its facilities, First results show a rather satisfactory frequency of use (Figure.1)  Instructors use the platform on a frequent basis (5-8 times per semester) 9/18  Overturning of the relation teacher-student (platform’s users)  Educational process transferred at the student’s space  Exploitation of the platform as a complementary educational tool  Communication between instructor-student is not promoted considerably Figure 1. Frequency of platform use

10. Results (1 st axis)  T he lecturer acts rather as consultant, in addition to his traditional duties  Teacher also has to further encourage and support the student during such educational process 10/18  Our analysis points out the lecturers’ opinion for the re- definition of the educational process as a main need for the student progress  As it concerns the instructors’ view about platform’s usefulness for planning their teaching activities, a disparity was revealed; while: - some of them believe it was helpful, - others believe that its contribution had no effect at all  Platform’s lecturers consider that they are more active, instructional and productive in the asynchronous education environment

11. Results (2 nd axis)  Instructors’ responses on the 2 nd thematic axis, assessment of the e-learning platform services, shows that the format and organization provided by the LMS is fairly good and that access to the services is easy  Exploitation of the platform as a complementary educational tool (Fig.2, 3)  Teachers of our research do not feel that they are loosing control over the learning process in the ODL environment  They cooperate with their students but they do not perceive the platform as a replacement of the instructor Figure 2. Platform as a subsidiary teaching tool Figure 3. Platform use as fundamental teaching tool 11/18

12. Results (2 nd axis) (a) The immediate, easy and in a cost effective manner availability of lecture notes and transparencies, the convenient update of the educational material (b) The fact that the instructors become more active, including the necessity for updating their educational material on a continuous basis (e) The need for the availability of an Internet connection for full exploitation of the platform’s services (d) The additional time needed for the organization of a course and for the preparation of the educational material in an appropriate format (c) The environment and facilities provided by the LMS are consider to be fairly good for the development of an electronic course  Some of the main advantages and disadvantages for further exploitation of our LMS system, as mentioned by the instructors, include: (g) The additional time required for the management and the updating of their e-courses 12/18 Advantages Disadvantages

13. Results (3 rd axis) 3 rd axis, prospects and proposals of the instructors about distant learning  An online teacher must create a coherent learning experience for students and develop new support strategies  They consider that pointing the students via web-resources or online lecture notes is not enough  Developing an online course, instructors need to think about the instructional challenges and learning objectives specific to their courses and then introduce tasks to help students meet the learning objectives and overcome the instructional challenges  Furthermore, the instructors regard as important the support of educational scenarios by the LMS and the need for helpdesk support (for technical and operational issues) 13/18  Understanding the course content, the online educational environment requires learning activities (tasks) to engage students with the material

14. Results (3 rd axis) 14/18  Teachers do not agree on the student stimulus and participation (Fig. 4)  They argue that educational material and pedagogical framework in an ODL environment are crucial  Important questions have been raised about the new roles assumed by teachers when they use distant learning environments Figure 4.Students’ active participation Adequate 19% Not very much 31% Insufficient 6% Not at all 19% Very much 25%  They seem to develop a new image for their job with more responsibility on the students’ part

15. Discussion (1)  Regarding teacher’s profile in an ODL environment and considering the new roles that emerge, teachers argue that they are more active and creative 15/18  The teacher’s role in distant education is changing  The next figure (Fig.5) summarizes the teacher’s roles through the distant learning environment studied in our research Tutor Figure 5.Teacher’s role Mentor Coach Facilitator Advisor Critic Supporter Administrator

16. Discussion (2)  The necessity of establishing an appropriate pedagogical framework, as it is related to a well organized presentation of the educational material  The need for institutional support, in terms of policies and the availability of the technological infrastructure Some other important results of our research:  The definition of teaching goals, and the use of teaching methods which are adapted to the needs and knowledge level of students 16/18

17. Epilogue  We argue that further research is required to understand the roles and the demands of students  As it concerns the instructors, specific training in their additional and new tasks for such an enhanced role, is required  With uses of ODL environments, we ought to study more deeply the complex pedagogical issues involved in the uses of ICT 17/18  The development of distant learning should be followed closely because it could be the basis of the development for the education in the information era  ODL platforms will become an increasingly important aspect of all institutions of tertiary education in the future

18. A(E)nd … Thank you for your attention … 18/18 Kalogiannakis M. (keynote speaker) Liodakis G., Psarros M., Vassilakis K.