Post on 06-Feb-2018
Scaling-up ICT-enabled innovation for
learning: Insights from European and Asian
Education innovations
Yves Punie Pan Kampylis
Barbara Brečko
JRC-IPTS
European Forum on Learning Futures and Innovation: The role of technologies, the challenges of scalability
and mainstreaming Brussels, 18-19 March 2013
European Commission Joint
Research Centre
Institute for Prospective
Technological Studies (IPTS):
Research Institute supporting
EU policy-making on socio-
economic, scientific and/or
technological issues
Learning 2.0 Innovation & Creativity in E&T Future of Learning & Skilling ICT for Assessment of Key Competences CURRENT projects: Mapping Technologies for Learning (2012-2013) Digital Competence Framework (2010-2012) Teacher Networking (eTwinning – TELLNET) Mainstreaming “Creative Classrooms” (2011-2013)
Open Educational Resources (2012-2012)
Since 2005, evidence-based policy research on ICT for Learning and Skilling
Past projects:
In collaboration with DG EAC, linked to other policies (CONNECT, ENTR, EMPL)
European Policy Context
http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.europe-2020-flagship
Educational targets * Reducing Early School leaving * Increasing Higher Education Attainment Additional Aims * Making LLL and mobility a reality * E&T quality and efficiency * Equity, social cohesion, active citizenship * Creativity and innovation
5 22 March 2013
• Mainstreaming and Up-scaling ICT for innovating and modernising Education and Training in Europe (E&T)
• New Skills and Competences in a digital society
Educational transformation in a digital world
Up-Scaling Creative Classrooms in Europe (SCALE CCR, on behalf of DG EAC 2011-2013)
To provide a better understanding of ICT-enabled innovation for learning that can be brought to scale and/or having systemic impact. To provide recommendations for policymakers, educational stakeholders and practitioners
• Small-scale, innovative projects but with little systemic impact, often not continued beyond pilot or funding schemes, without any scientific evaluation on outcomes, effectiveness and efficiency.
• Policy response: Creative Classrooms initiative
Why scale? Why sustainability?
• NOT just about going from small numbers to big numbers
• NOT just about replication or duplication of successful initiatives
• NOT about imposing one (pedagogical) model that is fit for all
• NOT about proving tablets to students and then business as usual
What do we mean with scale? Sustainability?
• IS about innovative practice that meets the requirement of digital society and economy
• IS about impact and systemic change (that is cost-effective)
• IS about what works and what does not work (implementation)
• IS about a flexible, dynamic, context-specific model with local autonomy and shared ownership
Methodology
• Literature review, interviews (7), experts workshops (2)
• Case studies:
• 3 from Europe (eTwinning, 1:1 computing, Hellerup School)
• 4 from Asia (Hong Kong, Singapore, S-Korea, Japan)
Upcoming
• April 2013:
• Online consultation on policy recommendations
• Policy validation workshop
• May 2013:
• Case studies report
• June 2014:
• Policy brief
Progress is slow related to
mainstreaming and up-scaling.
Why?
Need for a more systemic approach…
Scale CCR Reference Parameters
Understanding ICT-enabled innovation for learning
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): level of change
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): stage of
development
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): geographical
coverage of the innovation
Impact area (process, service, organization): the extent of innovation
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): the actors
addressed by the innovation
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level
of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements
(incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a
profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI,
2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current
stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a
more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use
(mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the
geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al.,
2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of
innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means
(services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat,
2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the
actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single
actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous
innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and
revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis,
Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu,
Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
It refers to profoundly new ways of doing things made possible by the use of ICT
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
Cases from Europe
24 22 March 2013
34 countries 1 CSS - 35 NSSs 25 languages 198,000+ registered users 100,000+ schools 27,000+ projects (~5,000 active)
Scale and geographical coverage
http://www.etwinning.net/en/pub/news/press_corner/statistics.cfm
Brief history #1
2005 2008 2014
Launched Jan 2005
Entering Phase 3
(Erasmus for all)
2009 2012
New portal – improved
usability
New motto: The community for
schools in Europe
Social Networking approach
2007
Lifelong Learning
Programme within Comenius
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Policy goals (Barcelona European Council in March 2002): to promote school twinning as an opportunity for all students to learn and practice ICT skills and to promote awareness of the multicultural European model of society.
Brief history #2
Source: Vuorikari, 2010
Cross-border collaboration and networking
Outcomes from eTwinning • A case of educational change and ICT-enabled innovation for learning across
Europe with significant scale and impact
• Contributes to teachers’ continuous professional development and lifelong
learning (Fostering of soft skills and pedagogical innovation)
• Sustainability guaranteed through stable EU funding (also for 2014-2020) for
structure and organisation but room for flexibility and (new) grass-roots, bottom-
up activities -> "multimodality and evolving over time"
3.3%
eTwinning reach (2012)
Challenges
• Opening up to other actors, countries
• Interoperability with other networks
• Wider take-up for impact at system level
Mapping eTwinning
The case of 1:1 Learning in Europe
• 1:1 Learning study launched by JRC -IPTS and carried out by
European Schoolnet (from Jan to Dec 2012)
• Building upon EUN study (Nov 2010) "Netbooks on the rise:
European overview of national laptop and netbook initiatives in schools"
• Identification of 29 recent initiatives in 19 EU countries, involving
circa 620.000 schools and almost 17 million students!
• Inclusion criteria:
launched within an educational framework (primary and secondary)
started not earlier than 2008 (*ongoing)
significant scale and/or impact
33 22 March 2013
34 22 March 2013
35 22 March 2013
Time line
36 22 March 2013
Different aims and orientations
Outcomes from 1:1 Learning
37 22 March 2013
• Improved participation levels and students’ motivation
• Extended learning opportunities outside the school
• Student ownership important (-> BYO device)
• Development of 1:1 pedagogies
• Mixed results on learning outcomes
• Teacher training and support are key
• Impact on school organizational practices
• Shift from initial 1to1 devices to 1to1 Learning
• Different funding models but sustainability is an issue
Mapping 1:1 learning
Hellerup School, Denmark
public primary and lower secondary school (6-16 years old), since 2002
750 pupils and 65 teachers and assistants
Keywords: flexibility, creativity, learning styles and systemic innovation
Implements a systemic approach to educational innovation that involves and impacts the whole school community.
Innovative physical space – Emphasis on stakeholder and user participation in the design process
Hellerup School, Denmark
Integrated flexibility for learning: no classrooms, personalized and self-regulated learning
Wi-fi everywhere, BYOD, mobile learning
Teachers work autonomously in small teams
Wide-ranging partnerships (e.g. European SchoolNet)
Distributed leadership
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
Hellerup school
Consortium for Renovating Education of the Future (with ICT) in Japan
Digital Textbooks in South Korea
e-Learning Pilot Scheme in Hong Kong
Singapore’s Master plan for ICT in Education
mp3
4 Cases from Asia
Collaboration with
• Nancy LAW, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
• Seungyeon HAN, Hanyang Cyber University, South Korea
• Naomi MIYAKE, University of Tokyo, Japan
• Chee-Kit LOOI, National Institute of Education, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
Consortium for Renovating Education of the Future, Japan
• Bottom-up classroom activity reform by teachers, backed up with learning sciences (Univ. of Tokyo) and supported by local boards of education and industry
• Building upon tradition of learner-centered practices: collaborative "knowledge-constructive jigsaw model" based on "understanding"
• Started in 2010, 300 high schools, 80 elementary schools, 600 teachers, all subject areas and all school types
• Impact: better learning outcomes, 21st century skills, increased motivation to learn outside school & stronger sense of learning among students "and" teachers
• Conditions for scaling-up:
• Collaborative and flexible organisation, strong teacher involvement
• Networks of small networks of actors (5-10)
45 22 March 2013
46 22 March 2013
Singapore’s Master plan for ICT in Education mp3 • Circa 5 million people – 362 schools in total
• Central, longer term planning: Innovation (& PISA)
• Emphasis on SDL and Collaborative Learning
• Strong link research and practitioner's
• Impact: "Cultural change" towards embracing ICT by school leaders, teachers and students
48 22 March 2013
4th Master plan on ICT and Education: focus on digital textbooks
Digital Textbooks in South Korea
Digital Textbooks in South Korea Aims
• To create learning-centred learning anywhere and anytime
• Reduce digital divide & develop 21st century skills
• 5th 6th and 7th grade
• No. of pilots 2008 (20), 2009 (103), 2010 (132), 2011 (63)
• Monitoring and evaluation
Challenges
• Shift to interactive, flexible and open textbooks
• Costs for parents and schools
• Pedagogical foundation for ICT projects
• Teacher concerns
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
Digital Textbooks KR
e-Learning pilot scheme in Hong Kong
53
Aims
• Call for proposals: 21 pilot projects for 3 years (2011-2014)
• Similar aims (including digital divide) + development of learning resources
Challenges
• Lack of common pedagogical theory - not highly innovative
• Difficulties in higher level learning performance
• Learning outcomes greatly depend on teacher pedagogical designs – Most teachers are not ready
• Parental concern on ebooks – how to help children
• Unclear if and how pilots will be continued
• Importance of vision, strategy, planning, stakeholder involvement and shared ownership
• Links between research, policy and practitioners
• Teacher training and support
• Pedagogy first
• Clarify 21st century skills and their assessment
• Evolving over time – organic growth – combination of top-down and bottom-up, centralised and decentralised
• Embrace diversity of approaches
• Monitoring and evaluation
Cross-cutting issues
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
1:1 Learning
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
1:1 Learning
eTwinning
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
1:1 Learning
eTwinning
Hellerup school
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
eLearning Scheme HK 1:1 Learning
eTwinning
Hellerup school
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
eLearning Scheme HK
Masterplan 3 SG 1:1 Learning
eTwinning
Hellerup school
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
eLearning Scheme HK
Masterplan 3 SG
Digital Textbooks KR
1:1 Learning
eTwinning
Hellerup school
Nature of innovation (incremental, radical, disruptive): it captures the level of change with respect to the progressive introduction of some new elements (incremental), to a relevant number of innovative elements (radical), till a profound and comprehensive change (disruptive) (Cooper, 1998; Doig, 2005; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; OECD/CERI, 2009).
Implementation phase (pilot, scale, mainstreaming): it describes the current stage of development, ranging from a limited application (pilot), increasing to a more consolidated up-take (scale), till reaching an established use (mainstreaming) (e.g. OECD/CERI, 2010).
Access level (local, regional/national, cross-boarder): it captures the geographical coverage of the innovation, from interesting a restricted area (local), to a broad realm (regional/national), up to international/world wide level (cross-boarder) (OECD/CERI, 2010; Punie, et al., 2006).
Impact area (process, service, organization): it illustrates the extent of innovation, from affecting practices (process), to introducing new means (services), up to undertaking systemic reform (organization) (OECD & Eurostat, 2005; Robinson, 2001).
Target (single actors, multiple actors, wide-range of actors): it describes the actors addressed by the innovation, from involving a specific target group (single actors), to diverse set of actors (multiple actors), up to a variety of stakeholders (wide-range of actors) (Cairney, 2000).
Several terms have been used, including sustaining , evolutionary , or continuous innovation instead of incremental as well as discontinuous, breakthrough, and revolutionary instead of disruptive (Ansari & Krop, in press; Carayannis, Gonzalez, & Wetter, 2003; Leadbeater & Wong, 2010; Shavinina, 2003; Xu, Houssin, Caillaud, & Gardoni, 2011).
1:1 Learning
eTwinning
Hellerup school
eLearning Scheme HK
Masterplan 3 SG
Digital Textbooks KR
CoREF JP
Co-development of flexible and
research-based curricula
Open Educational Resources
ICT tools to reform
assessment practices
Ownership of assessment
to learners
Initial Teacher Training
Proficiency in data handling and methods (E.g learning analytics)
Open research and free dissemination of data
Shared metrics
Innovation agenda with long
term vision and short term goals
Research-based changes in
organizational structures and routines
Diversity of ICT-enabled innovation
Small teacher networks
Bigger networks of networks
Partnerships for technological
innovations
Physical space/infrastructure
Initial recommendations for policy and decision makers
Online consultation on mainstreaming
• 60 recommendations
• Ranking in terms of relevance
• End of March – End of April
• Please contribute!!!!!!!!
Another consultation… Open Education and OER in Europe 2030 • Call for vision papers
• Lifelong Learning (31/03/13)
• Obligatory Schooling (28/04/13)
• Higher Education (7/5/13)
• Seville Foresight workshops
• Lifelong Learning (29-30/04/13)
• Obligatory Schooling (28-29/05/13)
• Higher Education (6-7/06/13)
http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/openeducation2030/
65 22 March 2013
Publications
Framing ICT-enabled Innovation for Learning: the
case of one-to-one learning initiatives in Europe.
(2013). European Journal of Education.
Fostering innovative pedagogical practices
through online networks: the case of eTwinning.
(2013). INSPIRE XVII - Education matters.
Innovating teaching and learning practices: Key
Elements for Developing Creative Classrooms
(2012). eLearning Papers (also in the 4th Special
Edition of eLearning Papers).
Towards a Mapping Framework of ICT-enabled
Innovation for Learning (2012). JRC Scientific and
Policy Reports
Innovating Learning: Key Elements for Developing
Creative Classrooms in Europe (2012). JRC
Scientific and Policy Reports
Thank you for your attention
Yves Punie, Phd
Action Leader ICT for Learning and Inclusion
yves.punie@ec.europa.eu
http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/eLearning.html
http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/eInclusion.html
http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/SCALECCR.html