GROUP C (ICT IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING): EDUCATION AND TRAINING 2010 PROCESS

Referat fra møte 11. >06.04 , Morten Søby, ITU, Universitetet i Oslo

Møte 11. juni samlet 30 deltagere fra EU og EØS . 10 deltagere fra Kommisjonen var med under deler av møtet. Gruppens koordinator Corinne Hermant, presenterte kort de sentrale punktene i agenda:

Dette var Corinne H. siste møte som koordinator. Hun tar et års permisjon fra DG Education and Culture. Maruja Gutierrez-Diaz leder for Multimedia Unit i DG education and Culture vil overta rolle som koordinator med assistanse fra Jose Pessanha.

Claire Bélisle (Universitetet i Lyon) har vært engasjert som forsker og assisterende koordinator. Hennes kontrakt går ut 1. august 04.

Corinne og Claire har holdt gruppen sammen og fått frem systematisk faglige rapporter med høy kvalitet. Det har vært god kontakt mellom Corinne/Claire og undertegnede. Vi har ofte spist lunsj sammen. Lunsjen har vært viktig som en uformel kanal for synspunkter og diskusjoner. Uformelle samtaler og email er viktige kanaler. Det er ikke tilstrekkelig med innlegg under møtene.

1) Presentation and discussion about indicators:

Gruppen har flere ganger tidligere diskutert utvikling av indikatorer for IKT i utdanning. Corinne H presenterte et nytt dokument som summerer diskusjonen (i CIRCA og per email) i gruppen. Her har undertegnede spilt inn poenger fra ITU monitor undersøkelsen og SITES studien. En utfordring er at antall datamaskiner, nett tilgang ikke viser bruken av IKT i faglige og pedagogiske sammenhenger.

Her har jeg bl a gitt denne kommentaren:

We now have a good deal of information on the propagation of ICT in schools. We know that many schools use ICT, and the use varies significantly at the same time according to the type and size of the school. This applies to the propagation of PCs, age of the machine park, type of connection to the Internet and the speed of this connection, availability of ICT outside ordinary classroom instruction, what type of digital learning resources are used, etc. We have at the same time less knowledge of how this equipment is used in a pedagogical manner, as evaluated from the pupils', teachers' and administration's points of view. This applies, for example, to the question of how the use of ICT can be linked to learning goals, learning needs and academic content in various learning models. Even though most of the schools offer instruction in basic ICT use, the pupils themselves often find that they have more knowledge than the teachers in this area, and that the application of ICT in subjects other than IT subjects is limited. Many also complain about the condition and availability of the equipment.

Notatet om indikatorer fra Corinne H ble sendt ut 5 juni.

Faglig input til indikator diskusjonen:

• Anne Godenir presenterte den nye rapporten fra Eurydice: “Key data on ICT in schools in Europe”: Fra Godiner poengterer for eksempel at: …”the level of computerization at home is linked to GDP, that the educational use of ICT is compulsory in initial education in only half of the European countries. Data presented were mainly based on the PISA and PIRLS surveys, even if the study contains a number of Eurydice data (qualitative and quantitative). The Eurydice publication does not only contain information regarding technology/equipment but also Structure and organisational issues, information about teachers and the teaching process”.

Flere kommenter er at rapporten bygger på flere åre gamle data og derfor ikke er representative for situasjonen idag. F eks brukes PISA 2000 (data fra mai 2000) og PIRLS (Progress in International Reading Literacy Study). En ny Eurydice rapport vil lages neste år for å få med mer oppdatert informasjon fra 2002/2003.

Anne Godenir forklarte at rapporten bygger på nasjonale rapporter fra utdanningsdepartementene. Hun undestreket også at det ikke er mulig å forklare hva som skjer i skoler i de ulike land og det ut fra rapportens data er vanskelig å trekke sammenligninger mellom land.

http://www.eurydice.org/Doc_intermediaires/indicators/en/frameset_key_data.htm1

• Spyros Pilos (Eurostat) presenterte: « Statistics on ICT and education and training and explained the Eurostat definition 1Definitions, which were adopted by Group C members in the 2002 progress report:<br >Target: This is the desired level (quantified) of progress to be achieved towards a policy objective. To set a target, in the sense used here, it is necessary to quantify the objective. The quantified objective is itself the ultimate target.<br >Indicators: An indicator is processed information that is used for measuring quantitative or qualitative progress. They have to be relevant, able to summarise information, structured, precise, reliable, and comparable. <br >Benchmark: Benchmarking is a defined method of evaluation and of monitoring the progress achieved in relation to a common objective to be achieved.<br >for indicators”. Han undertstreket at: “…indicators are resulting from political will and their role is to compare existing national situations to objectives mentioned in political decisions. No data is collected by Eurostat in the framework of the European Statistical System (built around the National Statistical Institutes) at the level of schools. Policy analysis is the basis: for example, a country wants to reduce the distance between the existing situation (stats) and the desired situation (policies). Statistics need contextualised information to inform policy analysis. Any data provides always an historical view referring to reality in context.Two issues correspond to the policy discussion in the framework of the objective "ICT for all": having/using ICT and having ICT skills or e-skills. The first corresponds to usage of ICT in different contexts, while the second looks at the offer in basic skills and qualifications and at how the offer can be improved.

The Eurostat survey on ICT usage in households (ICT-H) has been identified as the most important source to exploit in this context. The participants were informed about its planning (Data collection: 2nd quarter 2005, Reference period: 1st quarter 2005, Results available: November 2005). The target population are 15+. A module on e-skills that was already decided to be included in the survey was presented. Moreover information about other relevant information included in the ISS in Households was given [access to selected ICT at home (if no access to internet why), Use of computers (location and frequency) and use of internet (location, frequency and purpose)].

Moreover a module on e-learning has been developed with the intention to propose it for inclusion in the ICT-H. Gruppen var enig at det er viktig å bli orientert om dette arbeidet.

Hans Pelgrum presenterte the planene for “SITES Module 3, a 3rd international study on information technology in education study”. Module 1- 1998-1999 was a study at the level of schools –elementary, primary, lower secondary and upper secondary (25 countries). Module 2 was a case study focused on promising innovative practices supported by ICT.Module 3: (Data collection in 2006, setting up of tools in 2005 – only lower secondary level). The aim is to redo school survey as in M1, and a teacher survey. IEA will tender the international co-ordination in June 2004. For M3 online data collection is being tested. Thus it will be possible to obtain data not only for country and date comparisons, but also taking into account classroom and social context levels.

• Research questions for SITES 2006:
• • To what extent and how is ICT used and how does it support and enhance ICT teaching and learning? Find out what is really happening
  • What is the situation in schools with regards to the factors that are seen as conditional for the use of ICT, for example, the pedagogical vision of the school, the teacher training, the facilities available, the need for consistency between the pedagogical visions external to the school and the school internal visions?

Such a large scale international survey involves a negotiation process with the different countries involved and the stakeholders, which could result in influencing the core of the project, international options and regional options.

• Anders Hingel (Head of Unit, Socrates coordination and transversal actions) presnterte situasjonen fra Standing Group on Indicators and Benchmarks: “The SGIB has been asked to provide, for October, information on the indicators that are to be used for monitoring the Lisbon objectives. Group C should provide a new contribution to be then discussed during the October meeting of the SGIB.At this point, there is no indicator agreed upon with Group C and the Standing Group on Indicators. Group C needs to take a stance how to statistically approach this field in the future, whether the group will use existing data, working closely with Eurydice on how to interpret the data, or propose new data to be investigated. Indicators are a very clear tool for measuring objectives set in Lisbon. It is the tool agreed upon by Ministers in the open method of co-ordination.

Under lunsj ble Corinne takket for sin innsats i gruppen med taler og champagne.

2) Discussion on indicators

Spyros Pilos: “Indicators are quantitative in general, relate to policy, and indicate what needs to be improved. It is information that is needed as background in order to monitor progress. That is why indicators should be measurable, clear and indicate direction of policy.” Corinne Hermant reminded mainly the conclusions of the draft report on indicators that she sent to the group:

• Address the need of common methodologies.
• Develop common questionnaires or agree on common questions into existing questionnaires. Some of the ICT objectives may be addressed within the broader eEurope context, while the Education and Training 2010 process may focus on the more educational side. Work has been done with DG INFSO in order to build on the existing e-learning benchmark and enrich the two questionnaires which were produced upon by DG INFSO (with support from DG EAC and Eurydice), to be used in the context of the eEurope strategy.
• Agree on common target publics and then, whatever is the target, develop indicators that would handle the evolution of three parameters: motivation; access and use.

Corinne minnet gruppen om at: two or three indicators maximum could be chosen if the list of 29 indicators was to be updated and that this should mean that if one indicator of access was proposed, for example broadband access of households (category out of which students’ parents could be approached as well), related indicators of motivation and use could be proposed in order to assess how ICT is used.

Diskusjonen refekterte at det ikke er en felles politick om hva som er ønsket utviklingstakt for å utvikle IKT bruk og infrastruktur i utdanning.

3) Mapping the Recommendations

Claire Belisle presenterte utkastet til basert på utkastet til fra 2003 rapporten: “In order to bring ICT integration into education to the best level of practice possible in each country, four recommendations had concluded the 2003 Report of the ICT Working Group (“Education & Training 2010” program) on “good policy” practices. This document briefly presents concrete examples providing information on how to implement each of the recommendations:

1. Linking ICT implementation to long-term education objectives

Whether ICT integration is done through large-scale inclusive policies that have a national and multi-year framework, and that aim to mainstream ICT, or through small-scale regional policies that can organise new partnerships, mobilise new stakeholders, as well as attend to the specific needs of the local communities, fundamental educational goals are essential to ensure long lasting involvement of educational actors. These goals, all too seldom present in ICT policies, concern for example the acquisition of basic skills and knowledge: reading, writing, arithmetic, critical thinking, etc.; of disciplinary skills and knowledge; but also more encompassing objectives such as developing responsible citizens, who have to cope with scientific challenges and ethical issues, Fourteen examples of concrete actions from nine different countries are presented for the first recommendation”.

Her er Program for Digital kompetanse 2004-2008 med.

2. Attending to the needs and demands of educational actors involved with ICT by developing new services

“Current ICT integration into education is focussing attention on the formal and non-formal contexts of learning, on their organisation, on the time and space environment as well as on the heart of learning, knowledge itself. New support services are required in order to ease the use of ICT and to multiply the achievable pedagogical bargain, from services that facilitate the use of technological equipment, to services that ensure Internet security; and to services that provide a better personalisation of the learning process in guiding, coaching, tutoring individual learners. Twenty-five examples of concrete actions from twenty-two different countries illustrate this recommendation”.

Her er IKT ABC; Strategisk IKT ledelse og VITEN (naturfags web) med.

3. Training educational actors for change with ICT

“With the introduction of IC technology frequently preceding the training of teachers, most courses and workshops for teachers had initially focused exclusively on earnestly needed technical skills. But, pedagogical and didactic issues rapidly came to the forefront and are now being addressed. Furthermore, training in the educational use of ICT is being offered not only teachers, but also to headmasters and even to parents, as facilitators and peripatetic teachers are put into place. Twenty-three recommendations from twenty countries provide concrete examples of ongoing actions”.

Her PLUTO (Program for IKT i lærerutdanning) med.

4. Developing evaluation, measuring results and linking ICT educational use with research.

“Research, evaluation, sharing of results and promotion of best practices is essential if educational actors are to produce correct appreciation of good practices, evidence of improved academic and learning achievements and basically enlighten decisions, implementation choices and educational priorities. Three types of actions are particularly targeted in this recommendation: evaluation, dissemination and interaction with research. Twelve examples from ten different countries illustrate this last recommendation.

Each example was reformatted (and sometimes translated) to allow for a homogeneous presentation with titles, key words and hyperlinks to more extensive information. The choice was made to make these new contributions short and easy to read, so that they could be made available to a general public on the site of the European Commission”.

Her er PILOT med.

4) Draft of Progress report 2004

Et utkast til Group C Progress Report ble presentert. Flere poengterte i diskusjonen at utdanningssystemer endres langsomt, at anbefalingene gitt i November 2003 report fortsatt er gyldige.

Det ble også påpekt at eksempler er kontekst relaterte. Kontekst informasjon er nødvendig før man kan gi et politisk råd. Utkast til rapport sendes ut i begynnelsen av juni.

Neste mote er 4. oktober.