study

eLearning and Virtual Universities

At the height of the dotcom bubble Peter Drucker predicted that “universities won’t survive … as residential institutions” (The Guardian, April 13, 2004), and others, along the same lines, foresaw that universities would become content providers and learning facilitators to for-profit producers of “learningware”.

In the late nineties, several US universities formed commercial companies alone or in collaboration with other universities, cultural institutions and providers of e-solutions. Among others, New York University invested $20m in NYU Online and Columbia University formed Fathom together with 14 universities, libraries and museums, using $40m. None of these ever launched an e-learning course. At the same time, Cornell University invested $12m in eCornell without registering any significant numbers of students. Also, the attempt by the Open University of the UK to deliver education on the US marked failed with a loss of approximately $20m.

One of the few successful e-learning providers in the USA is University of Phoenix, and its success seems to be related to a focus on a limited and specialised market in the business and health field.

At the same time, in Europe, the European Council adopted a grand scale plan called Europe. An Information Society for All (Lisbon, March 2000) with the goal of becoming ‘the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world’ by 2010. In May the same year, the European Commission published a communication entitled e-Learning – Designing tomorrow’s education.

Parallel to these political initiatives, but without coordination from the European Commission, many national European projects for e-learning were launched, e.g. the UK e-University, the Digital University in the Netherlands, the Bavarian Virtual University, the Virtual University in Finland and the Net-University in Sweden.

Five years later, the UKeU has ceased operations. What was launched as a worldwide 21st century successor of the Open University never attracted financial support from commercial partners and recruited only 900 students at a time when 5000 were expected. £60m of public money was spent on the operation.

The Dutch Digital University - a consortium of universities in the Netherlands together with some it-companies and publishers - is still in operation, but the volume is in no way significant, and partners are considering withdrawing.

The Finnish Virtual University and the Swedish Net-University – both government-run initiatives - have increased their amount of online courses, trying to recruit students from other institutions and regions in the country, but the expected inter-institutional collaboration is still missing.

At the Bavarian Virtual University, also a government initiative, the amount of courses offered as e-learning and available for students from all institutions in Bavaria has been successfully achieved, but with no side effects along the lines of improved inter-institutional collaboration.

The most important lesson learned from these European virtual university and e-learning experiences is that none of the initiatives have reached a level of sustainability – they will not survive if government support is withdrawn.

Considerations regarding eLearning development

In his presentation at the eLearning Conference in Brussels in May 2005, Fabrizio Cardinali from Giunti Interactive Labs, Italy, characterised e-Learning the development in the late nineties as ‘the big wave of e-learning’, and the development at the start this century as ‘the Tsunami of e-learning’.

Nevertheless, in a report published as early as 2001, the OECD spotted the difficulties of implementing e-learning: "In spite of having spent US$ 16 billion in 1999 in OECD countries on ICT, there is (…) no clear evidence that ICT investments made by the public sector have resulted in improved performance of teachers and/or learners, nor that it has improved the quality and access to educational resources on the scale predicted.” (E-Learning. The Partnership Challenge, 2001, p. 24).

Recently, another OECD report entitled E-learning in Tertiary Education. Where do we stand?, published in 2005, has elaborated on the same problem:

“e-learning has not really revolutionized learning and teaching to date. Far-reaching, novel ways of teaching and learning, facilitated by ICT, remain nascent or still to be invented. (…) The adoption of learning management systems (LMS) (…) appears to be one of the prominent features of e-learning development in the tertiary education worldwide. (…) The current immaturity of online learning is demonstrated by low adoption of content management systems (…). ICT has penetrated tertiary education, but has had more impact on administrative services (e.g. admissions, registration, fee payment, purchasing) than on the pedagogic fundamentals of the classroom.” (p. 14-15)

Although the reports express scepticism regarding the integration of ICT in tertiary teaching and learning, they also stress a general confidence in the use of educational technology. The first one gives an analysis of the situation that points to technology fixation and lack of cultural specificities as the main cause for the absence of success in e-learning:

“Technology alone does not deliver educational success. It only becomes valuable in education if learners and teachers can do something useful with it. (…) educational content and e-learning services (…) need to be tailored to local needs and cultures." (E-Learning. The Partnership Challenge, 2001, p. 24-25).

In the British debate following the collapse of the UKeU in 2004, the national funding council explained with a certain degree of bitterness that the lack of interest in e-learning was caused by universities focusing on ‘blended’ learning. But, already a year earlier, at the opening of the Learntec Forum in Karlsruhe on February 4, 2003, Commissioner Reding promoted blended learning as the future for e-learning:

“Modern e-learning solutions now recognise the importance of learning as a social process and offer possibilities for collaboration with other learners, for interaction with the learning content and for guidance from teachers, trainers and tutors. (…) Teachers and trainers once more play a central role, using virtual and traditional face-to-face interaction with their students in a “blended” approach. An approach in which they are no longer seen simply as consumers of pre-determined e-learning content, but as editors, authors and contributors to a contextualised learning scenario”.

This statement by Mrs Reding is not to be read as a total decline of e-leaning or online education, but as recognition of the need for teacher-student interaction and shared responsibility in the learning process. Neither should the statement be taken as an indication of lost confidence in ICT as the means by which to realise the vision for the Knowledge Society by the Commission.

Taken together, the OECD reports, the VET-report and Mrs Reding’s statement indicate that the success of e-learning depends on pedagogical development and the closer integration of technology within students’ previous learning experiences.

Attempts to dig deeper into the problems of eLearning

Parallel to the experiments with virtual universities over the last decade, many universities, particularly open universities, have implemented e-learning solutions in their programmes, often with a touch of the blended approach. Let me use the Open University of the UK as an example.

The success of the UKOU has often been seen as a direct consequence of its well-prepared educational resources and the conscious use of educational technology in a speed adapted to students’ needs. The point I want to make is that this interpretation overlooks an essential feature in the UKOU concept: the integration of learning activities in the resources and the tutorials – and the ability to make these activities culturally relevant. The success of the UKOU is related to the implementation of a social constructivist approach to learning. They shifted the concept of learning from knowledge acquisition to knowledge construction.

The difficulties faced by many of the e-learning and online learning initiatives mentioned above have been caused by viewing learning, and especially e-learning, as a process of knowledge transfer instead of knowledge construction - too much emphasis has been placed on the concept of stand-alone courses and resource-based learning. This approach has been supported, on the one hand by a relative success of short, practice-orientated just-in-time and just-in-place courses available on the Internet or on CD-ROM and, on the other hand, by a focus on learning objects – reusable learning resources - as a possible means of reducing costs in education.

My point is not to diminish the achievements of the learning object concept, but to question the concept of learning, which in many cases is incorporated through instructional design theory. “Instructional design is based on the empiric assumption that behaviour is predictable, and that educational design, therefore, can occur in isolation from educational execution.” (Koper, 2000 p.14), but: “(…) a lot of learning does not come from knowledge resources at all, but stems from the activities of learners solving problems, interacting with real devices, interacting in their social and work situation. (…) it is the activities of the learners in the learning environment which are accountable for the learning.” (Koper, 2001 p.3).

Learning resources (learning objects) broadly taken only become active during the learning process when the learner is doing something useful with them. The creation of relevant learning activities becomes essential. Successful learning activities mobilise the capacities (present knowledge, cultural heritage, etc.) of learners and establish a dialogue with the new learning resource as the basis for learning. Hereby, teachers and tutors are reinstalled in a position as responsible for organising the learning process. They are choosing relevant learning resources and creating learning activities needed in order to reach defined educational objectives.

Technologies to enhance learning as e-learning should augment these realities of the learning process – interaction, communication, collaboration and construction; in order to be successful and meet expectations, the knowledge society has to offer ICT-based learning in the future.

Introduction

The implementation of a rich Open and Flexible Learning Environment (OFLE) strongly support the Dalton concept. Examples of an OFLE are Blackboard, Fronter, N@tschool and Profiler. Dekeos and Moodle are examples of Open Source OFLE's. An OFLE manage the process of education by pupils themselves.

An OFLE is a rich digital environment, where the pupil is able to study based on the basic assumptions of constructivism (Vrielink, 2003). The name rich is not incidentally chosen. It should encompass more than a traditional environment within which the teacher and/or the curriculum are the distinctive factor. The use of ICT should contribute to the design of teaching, to authentic teaching, integrative teaching, active-reflective teaching and to social or collaborative learning (Kral, 2005).

The Dalton principles

The three Dalton principles are freedom (responsibility), cooperation and assignment (self-reliance). These principles lead to the formulation of three questions:

1. How can we increase the self-reliance of pupils through an OFLE?
2. How can we stimulate cooperation among pupils through an OFLE?
3. How can we increase the responsibility of the pupil for his own learning process through e-learning?

Ad 1. Teachers are obligated to put study planners on the OFLE. Pupils can study any were ant any place if there are ready for it.

Ad 2. The products should be delivered electronic in a drop box or on the discussion board. Peers and teachers can give feedback. The quality of the products will rise

Ad 3. Put the answers on assignments on line. The pupil is responsible for his digital portfolio. This portfolio will be assessed.

Implementation of an OFLE

When a school starts to implement an OFLE there should be a strategic action plan, which includes:

• A shared vision on the use of an OFLE
• Goals
• Participation of the management
• An exchange - celebrate successes!
• School arrangement on structure
• The OFLE must be on the agenda of the job evaluation

To make online courses more attractive for pupils the enjoyment could increase by:

• Improve the usefulness
• Same simple structure
• Attractive announcements
• Figures
• Animations
• Applets

Critical factors

A number of critical factors distinguish the use of Web based tools and OFLE's, like Blackboard.

The study of Selim (2003) revealed four major critical factors for the perceived usefulness of course web sites. The first of these factors is course work interactivity. Several Web-based tools improve course work interactivity. For example, asynchronously offered course material allows pupils to retain control as to when and where they wish to engage in the instructions. Electronic discussion forums are a qualitative improvement tool, which enhances communication and interaction among pupils. Deinum (2003) investigated the implementation of Blackboard on 35 schools in the north of the Netherlands. This research pointed out that the use of the discussion board in courses is low (4%).

Another critical course web site usefulness factor is, to enable pupils to complete their course work quickly by providing them with on-line components such as animations and multimedia modules. The third factor is to make studying course material easier by promoting its availability of: anytime and anywhere, by facilitating pupil-pupil and pupil-instructor communication lines, and by using interactive tools to explain the course contents. The last critical factor is to increase the pupil’s productivity and effectiveness.

Although a Blackboard supported lesson will enhance the quality of education, teachers do not tend to see the benefits of a Blackboard supported lesson.

Working with Blackboard more or less forces the teacher to look more critically at the structure of his or her lesson. Therefore the quality of the lesson will rise. The lessons get a clearer didactics (Helder, 2004). Another point is that it will become easier for pupils to start the lesson themselves. A certain degree of independency allows pupils to take responsibility for their own learning process and this will increase when Blackboard supports the lesson (Oudshoorn, 2004). This electronic form of communication combined with a proper use (good assignments and tasks) makes it possible to engage oneself in intensive exchange, more time-on-task, and effective discussions than is the case with many face-to-face groups in education (Deinum, 2003; Kanselaar, 2004). The quality of the pupil’s products will increase because pupils will become more motivated when the assignments are supplied in a digital form (Helder, 2004). For instance, Power Point promotes linear-hierarchical thinking (Laanpere, 2005).

The Seven Principles of good practice in undergraduate education

If a school introduces an OFLE without sufficiently formulating the different goals and without a teacher’s experience how to actually use the OFLE, there is a great change that the use will be under utilized (Vrielink, 2004) or sometimes abandoned because of the lack of user acceptance (Yi, et. al., 2003). The critical factors as mentioned above prove, that the assumptions, which have been used to analyse courses in Blackboard, were good. Investigated were the present and use of the following functionality's: the use of announcements, study planners, the possibilities of answers, tests, the discussion board, the use off group work and e-mail (communication) and the drop box . Analysing courses at a secondary school in the Netherlands in this way, Vrielink (2004) found that only 20% of the teachers use Blackboard; the barrier is considered (too) high and working with Blackboard implies extra time investment. The facilitation present is poor.

Therefore, it is important that managers and teachers are aware of the critical factors and conditions e-learning is based upon. The critical factors as mentioned before flow in the Seven Principles of good practice in undergraduate education (Chickering et. al., 1986). Understanding and awareness of these principles are essential for a successful implementation of a rich OFLE.

Those principles are:

1. Encourage contact between pupils and school: frequent pupil-school contact, both inside and outside class, is an important factor in pupil motivation and involvement. (Baars, et. al., 2003). The pupil’s intellectual capacities will increase. Current communication technologies such as e-mail, chat and discussion boards make it more accessible for pupils and teachers to ask questions and to give feedback. Shy pupils, for instance, will more easily start asking questions than when they are confronted with an actual face-to-face situation.

2. Develop reciprocity and cooperation among pupils: School should create and encourage opportunities for collaborative learning among pupils. Collaborative learning stimulates the involvement of learning. Exchanging ideas and giving and receiving feedback improves the thinking en engrosses the understanding (Weiland, 2002).

3. Encourage active learning: School should require that pupils apply their learning process in oral as well as in written form. Pupils should actively work with their knowledge and skills. Interaction is an important feature of an active on-line way of working. Interaction is essential in order to receive feedback on the learning process. Feedback is a relevant factor in the interaction between the pupil and the teacher as well as between peers. Next, it is important that an assignment is geared to the pupil’s perception of his or her environment. This can be made possible, for instance, when data is used coming from the pupils themselves. Pupils tend to become more motivated developing their own product. If this product is really actually used in a factory or at school than it works extra motivating (Andernach, 2005).

4. Give prompt/immediate feedback: School should provide appropriate and prompt feedback on performance. Pupils need assistance in assessing their actual competence and performance, and they need frequent opportunities to perform and receive suggestion for improvement. Such feedback should be an ongoing process in collegiate settings; it is essential to the pupil’s learning process. Periodically, pupils should also be given the opportunity to reflect critically on what they have learned so far. An OFLE offers the possibility to give pupils feedback in different ways. A digital portfolio makes it possible to assess on the learning process, to see if their is prove that the learning goals are reached.

5. Emphasize time on task: School should create opportunities for pupils in order to enable them to practice good time management. This includes setting a realistic deadline for pupils to complete assignments and to use class time for learning opportunities. A teacher’s support is made effective when clarity on the overall aim, time investment and choice of literature is provided. As a result, pupils are able to learn more efficiently. Furthermore, pupils tend to lose time by searching for resources on the Internet. However, on-line communication can be efficient if you organise it well.

6. Communicate high expectations: School should set and communicate high expectations of pupils. Such will turn into a self-fulfilling prophecy and pupils will often endeavour to meet the challenge. When a pupil has a clear awareness of his/her own expectations, he/she will work harder.

7. Respect different talents and ways of learning: School should create learning opportunities that appeal to the different ways pupils will process and attend to information. A variation of presentation styles and assignment requirements will allow pupils to highlight their own personal and unique talents and it offers them different ways about how to learn on an individual level. Pupils differ in talent and style of learning and they should be offered the possibility to show their talents in a way that suits them. This can be made possible by taking account on the different styles of learning by supplying a variation in ways of working (Winkel, et. al., 2004). We have to be aware of another dimension; does the OFLE consider different learning styles?

Learning styles

Pupils possess their own way of learning; our “traditional” education does not respond to the differences in the individual learning process of pupils. The study of Sandra Seagal and David Horn “Human Dynamics” (1997) supports this idea. In general, Human Dynamics divide people into three categories namely mentally centred, emotionally centred or physically centred. To avoid any misunderstanding: no discrimination whatsoever is implied by drawing this distinction! The mentally centred pupil proceeds in a linear way and does so mostly alone. He gathers information and he asks himself what the use of this information is, next he comes to a product. The emotionally centred pupil starts immediately. The process looks chaotic. He proceeds by trial and error. His product gradually improves but is never finished. He has an eye for detail. The physically centred pupil gathers a great amount of information, many details and after a (long) time he completes his product. That is the end; they do not chance it any more.

A rich OFLE has the intention to be in account of these different learning styles, to be in account of independent working of pupils and their own responsibility of their learning process. A rich OFLE fits with social constructivism. Nevertheless, if there is no master plan and without a pedagogical or didactical component introduction of Blackboard has no extra value to education; “Moore’s gap; Mind the gap.” (Siekkinen, 2000).

Significant effects of factors which influence the use of a OFLE

Recent research (Vrielink, 2005) pointed out that by the arrangement of courses in an OFLE there should paid attention to its Usefulness. Usefulness is the key factor. It predicts most powerful the use of an OFLE.

Picture: Significant effects of factors, which influence the use of an OFLE

Usefulness is influenced in two ways. First, learning goal orientation influences usefulness through enjoyment. This is an intrinsic factor. If a pupil or a teacher is able to sufficiently clarify the goal, and render it obtainable, then there is enjoyment. It has a direct and positive effect on usefulness and on the ease of use. Second, a goal within one’s reach, affects application specific self-efficacy. This deals with competency. If a pupil thinks he/she is competent enough to work with Blackboard, there is an experience of ease of use, which effects usefulness. Again, enjoyment has a positive effect on application specific self-efficacy. The relation between learning goal orientation and application specific self-efficacy indicates that users who orientate themselves on learning and mastery of content are more likely to develop a higher sense of confidence in using the specific target system (Yi, et. al., 2003).

Understanding the factors that promote effective utilization of OFLE’s continues to remain an important issue for researchers and practitioners.

By the arrangement of courses in Dalton education, the recommendation is to pay attention to its usefulness. This can be done by putting the study planners on line as well as the answers on assignments. The use of the discussion board and the drop box should be promoted too.

Reinder Vrielink is headmaster VMBO Stedelijk Daltoncollege Zutphen, the Netherlands and manager/owner of Revédi Consultancy Deventer, the Netherlands. He is holder of the Diplome Masters in eLearning, Multimedia and Consultancy of the Sheffield Hallam University (UK).
Email: reinder.vrielink@freeler.nl
Web: http://www.revediconsultancy.nl

References
Andernach, Toine. (2005) Activerende online werkvormen. Digitale Didactiek: E-Journal voor het onderwijs, nummer 3, Januari 2005 Last accessed on 15 July 2005 at URL:http://www.digitaledidactiek.nl/dd/ejournals/846

Baars, Gerard. Jager, Karen. (2003). Hoe kun je pupilen motiveren om actief bij te dragen aan een online cursus? OECR, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam;. Last accessed on 15 July 2005 at URL: http://www.digitaledidactiek.nl/dd/didactiek_algemeen/357

Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. F. (1987). Seven Principles of good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39 (7): 3-7.

Deinum, Jan Folkert. (2003). Brainbox rapportage 3; Statistieken en eindconclusie. Rijks Universiteit Groningen november 2003.

Helder, Anke.(2004) Brainbox vervangt het boek. Van 12 tot 18 februari 2004

Kanselaar, Gellof.(2004). Invoering Blackboard. Intervieuw. Onderwijs Expertise Centrum. Faculteit sociale wetenschap Universiteit Utrecht 31 juli 2004.

Kral, Marijke. (2005) Hoe leren leraren constructivistisch leren en onderwijzen met ict? HAN. Februari, 2005.

Laanpere, Mart. (2005) Pedagogical foundations of Web-based learning management systems: a comparative analysis. Seminar Thursday 27 January 2005 (Sheffield/Nijmegen).

Oudshoorn, Ton. (2004) Ict-in de praktijk. Van – 12 – 18. Nr 1. February 2004.

Seagal, Sandra & Horn, David (1997). Human Dynamics. A New Framework for Understanding People and Realizing the Potential in My Organizations. Pegasus Communications, inc. Cambridge.

Selim, Hassan M. (2003) An empirical investigation of pupil acceptance of course web sites. Computers in Education 40(2003)343-360.

Siekkinen, Pertti. (2000) Background and milestones for ICT policy development; Adopting ICT in Finnish education & “Moore’s Gap”; A presentation at Helsinki Education Department (Media Centre Kuutio) 10 March 2000.

Vrielink, R. (2003) How can Blackboard become a rich Open and Flexible Learning Environment (OFLE) in Dalton-education for pupils aged 12 to 16. A research of the use of Blackboard in secondary schools in the North of the Netherlands. MSc in e learning, multimedia and consultancy. Sheffield Hallam University/HAN. Module 1: OFLE.

Vrielink, R. (2005) Predicting the use of Blackboard with the Technology Acceptance Model. MSc in e learning, multimedia and consultancy. Sheffield Hallam University/HAN. Module 6: Dissertation.

Wieland, Annemiek.(2002). Hoe organiseer je online discussies met weinig pupilen?
OECR, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam;Last accessed on 12 March 2005 at URL: http://www.digitaledidactiek.nl/dd/opdrachten/31

Winkel te, Wilco. Jager, Karen.(2004) Hoe zorg je ervoor dat pupilen actief met de leerstof omgaan? Organisation: OECR, FSW EUR. Last accessed on 8 June 2005 at URL: http://www.digitaledidactiek.nl/dd/opdrachten/810

Yi, Mun Y., Yujong Hwang. (2003) Predicting the use of web-bases information systems: self-efficacy, enjoyment, learning goal orientation, and technology acceptance model. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 59, 431-449.

What was your motivation in participating in the projet of eTwinning?

The eTwinning project was launched in 2005, but since 2001 the Philosophy Club of the lycée of Sevres had an idea of the need for a kind of "twinning", initially inside the lycée, with other disciplines, and then outside the lycée, with other European establishments, becoming its partners eTwinning from 2005. Perhaps that requires an explanation.

In France, philosophy is taught in all the final classes of the lycée, with the idea of having the pupils reflect on a certain number of questions which they raise, or which they will be posed later in their life of adult and citizen, so that they develop a concern for the freedom of their judgement and the responsibility for their control. It is in this context of initiation to philosophy that our Club of philosophy was born, with its Internet site: http://lyc-sevres.ac-versailles.fr/ and, and, a little later its project Europe, Education and School: http://lyc-sevres.ac-versailles.fr/projet-eee.php

Proposing conferences and debates to the pupils, it invites them to be confronted in their reflexion with all that can enable them to look further into their analysis, and to thus facilitate the development of their personal thinking.

The first step, taken in the direction of this opening, thus started with the recognition of multidisciplinarity in the centre of our lycée : together, with colleagues from Literature, history, languages, or the International Sections, the Club of philosophy could make a success of its first steps with discussions often filmed and even broadcast on the Internet. The second step came in parallel, with the active appropriation of communication technologies, strongly stimulated by the close cooperation with the Regional Center of Teaching Documentation (CDRP) of the Academy of Versailles. Their integration in the reflexive stages of the Club made it possible to open up our lycée to a really external partnership and to set up the basis of a networking project nourished by the preparation, with our partners, of the conference-debates diffused on the Internet : http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/projet-europe/direct/

The enrolment of the project Europe, Education, École within the framework of the eTwinning action was a decisive stage for the entire partnership, initially because it thus obtained not only recognition of its "electronic twinnings" (which was already in existence), but also a remarkable visibility on the eTwinning portal. It was also important because this European label guaranteed our partnership a stability permanence which counts much for its future development. Lastly, since the spirit of the action eTwinning consists in developing experiments with communication technologies, our project, which proposes combining the experiment of the reflexion and the experiment of these technologies, fully took its place there. The honour which we have received today for Pedagogical Innovation by the European Commission confirms us still more in the idea that our project needed a framework like that of eTwinning, to be able to affirm its true nature and, perhaps, to obtain additional means for its realization.

What was the most satisfying aspect and and what the most difficult in the realization of your project?

What was undoubtedly the most difficult to assume in our project, was to make a success of its setting up and to face a quasi total absence of means of realization, both in ICT back up as well as financial. I believe that the only true remedy for the frequently encountered difficulties, lies in the motivation, will and devotion of all the partners, some of whom remain anonymous: pupils, alumni, colleagues, former colleagues, volunteers etc, all inspired by this simple idea, according to which the promotion of a culture of quality to the service of the school institution constitutes the true justification of our teaching engagements. And it is this conviction which made it possible to continue the development of the project until its enrolment within the framework of the action eTwinning at the time of the launching conference in January 2005.

The second difficulty is due to the resistances generated by our fears of communication technologies and by our isolation in our teaching and with our pupils. It is sometimes amplified by difficulties of a structural origin: rudimentary data-processing equipment, timetables unsuited to the innovating initiatives, administrative slowness, etc. Moreover, the constant acceleration of the technological developments, which one awaits until they become finally, one day, completely accessible, makes it so that one is tempted indefinitely to defer their integration in our teaching practices.

As for the Club of Philosophy, it took the risk of launching itself a spirit of experimentation both technological and pedagogical, and to beginning its adventure with the means at its disposal. Fortunately in that, it was supported with competence and benevolence, by the Regional Center of Teaching Documentation of Versailles (CRDP), its first true partner, who allowed the project to test its feasibility and thus check whether it was worth all the effort. But what is really interesting in a project like ours, is that it makes it possible to discover completely remarkable resources of creativity, at the same time very close to us and also far from us. Federated within a true educational project, they generate an unsuspected synergy, which makes the achievement of the objectives at the same time more effective and easier. The "differences", the "diversities" and even the "oppositions", worked in the long run from a properly cultural point of view, far from being an obstacle, create a feeling of shared success, and significantly change our way of working.

According to you, what does the eTwinning project add to your usual school work?

This kind of project upsets a little the teaching practices of the establishments concerned. To organize a video conference, in which several lycée take part at a distance, or simply to timetable common work sessions in partnership, all that necessarily brings an additional batch of material problems to solve. But beyond the disturbance and the concerns of the organization, which it involves, it seems to me undeniable that the experiment of such a multilateral co-operation not only brings a rather exceptional broadmindedness, but also stimulates within each establishment the emergence of competences which sometimes one did not even suspect to be there.

To want to work in partnership is to give the opportunity to all the talents and all competences to appear. Pooling all these energies, essential for the success even of only one video conference, develops the contribution of each participant and renews the idea of what one can achieve pedagogically. In this kind of demonstration, the contribution brought by pupils is perhaps quite as significant and relevant as that of their teacher. For my part, it is always with a feeling of humility that I refer to the debt I owe to some of my pupils, or alumni, who were able to give an impulse to our project and to realise the technological possibilities effectively.

As a teacher, this project perhaps has given me the opportunity to check the saying of Plato, in connection with education, that it must "produce with the most possible facility and effectiveness a change of orientation". Indeed, it is significant to be able to change one’s manner of seeing, including the manner of working and of teaching! To assume the risk of innovation, to open oneself without prejudices to the differences which can meet there, that does not resemble much the choice of Plato’s "facility”. But a partnership which works, sometimes gives the impression that gradually everything will become easier. The implementation of this project, centered mainly on the idea of education, is likely indeed to have also an educational effect on those undertaking it.

And what kind of impact has your project had on other classes, or other establishments? How could they benefit from your experiment?

Our project has perhaps had initially more of a local impact. Indeed, our lycée, encouraged by the successful initiative of the project Europe, Education, School, is currently seeking to launch projects similar to ours, on topics like sustainable development, or co-operation with the countries of Africa. For them, distance networking and ICT video conferences obviously constitute a very important element. But our experiments in this line interest perhaps especially our colleagues who teach in the international sections of the lycée of Sevres and who are completely ready to establish networking partnerships with English or German establishments.

They will be probably among the first to be quickly investing in this type of experiment. For this reason, we have proposed the establishment, in Sevres, of an introductory course in ICT and digital imaging, which should lead to the training of a video team able to operate broadcasts on the Interne autonomously. In addition to this extra teaching dynamism that a project of the eTwinning type can cause, one can also expect the emergence in its wake of a new way of working in class. Indeed, to agree to teach under the eyes of someone else, another colleague or other pupils, and to propose to them joint working sessions, carried out simultaneously in several towns of Europe, from Lithuania to Greece, t is not only to push back a little more the walls of the classroom, so that it grows rich by the diversity of knowledge and experiments, but is above all to want to find the major direction of the "culture", whose natural place should be precisely at the school, and which consists in giving oneself the means of integrating into the deepest part of oneself that which exists outside of oneself and beyond.

Lastly, if I were authorized to speak from the point of view of our partners, I would perhaps say that the project which links us, and which develops the practice of reflexion and debate, interests them because it is French-speaking, and because it brings to their pupils, bilingual and open to cultural diversity, the possibility of taking part a little in the teaching of philosophy in final classes in France. But without going so far with my assumptions, I would like especially to say that our project, which is certainly French-speaking, leads us initially to open ourselves to the diversity of our school systems and languages, and to hope sincerely that we will be able to soon find the means of an adequate expression of our debates in English as well in German. Our eTwinning partnership, also, is not exclusive, and we are always ready to accommodate amongst ourselves new and active members. It is perhaps the quickest way those who wish to do so can benefit from our experiment.

After this project, which are your plans for the future?

Currently, it is especially the development of the project, such as we imagined it, who drives us. Indeed, our objectives are far from being achieved. Most urgent would be to arrive at a point where our partners all have adequate data-processing equipment, and our work scheduling can be suitably harmonized. Then, in the medium term, it would be necessary to arrive at a real parity in teaching co-operation, so that it would make it possible for each one of our partners to propose, in turn, the design and the diffusion of an annual program of video conferences and debates. Lastly, since our permanent objective consists in offering our pupils a reflexion on the importance of culture for the school and Europe, I must say that "the after-project" is not on the agenda. Our pupils all change every two or three years. We, too, under the effect of our collaboratives teaching practices, are also changing our views on how teaching should be carried out.

More concretely thus, our action today can be summarized in three points:

1. We have initially to prepare the diffusion on the Internet, next 20th March, of our video conference-debate with Bernard Bourgeois, Professor of philosophy and Member of the French Academy, on the topic : To educate in Europe. We should also prepare, in this same dynamic, the delegations of our six partners who, preceded by eTwinning, will go from 27th-30th April to the European campus of Lanzerote, to form a sufficiently homogeneous group in order to establish and spread on the spot the spirit of our project, and to broadcast a video conference allowing us, in our respective lycées, to take part on line in their work over there.
2. Then, it is necessary for us to manage to coordinate the timetables of our partners, so that we can, as of September and the return of classes, lay out a weekly common schedule , reserved to our working sessions in network, so that the new pupils can get to know each other and prepare together their participation in the annual video conferences of January, March and May. This practice of communication technologies and these exchanges of ideas, repeated each week, transform our remote co-operation into a true teaching relationship likely to make our pupils really reflect on the questions treated in annual conferences.
3. Lastly, we have also to reflect on our relationship to communication technologies, for even though they are for us a powerful means of cultural development, they also require wisdom, so that we can make a reasoned and reasonable use of it. The Philosophy Club of the lycée of Sevres has the privilege to be closely associated with the research undertaken by the Regional Center of Teaching Documentation of Versailles (CRDP).

This latter taught us for free how to handle the techniques of video conferencing and put at the disposal of the public, on line, our digital resources numerical, such as for example:

http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/projet-europe/diff/vernant.htm
http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/projet-europe/diff/adler.htm
http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/projet-europe/diff/grimaldi.htm
http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/projet-europe/diff/penaruiz.htm
http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/projet-europe/diff/linz.htm

These are consultable even from a modem

http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/telecharge/confadler.wmv
http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/telecharge/penaruiz.wmv
http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/projet-europe/diff/vernant.htm

2006

Education et psychanalyse:

• en streaming: http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/projet-europe/diff/fontaine.htm
• en téléchargement: http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/telecharge/fontaine.wmv
  

Éduquer à l'Europe:

• en streaming:http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/projet-europe/diff/bourgeois.htm
• en téléchargement:http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/telecharge/bourgeois.wmv

Apprendre à vivre, philosophie et religion:
mms://melies.ac-versailles.fr/etabliss/lyc-sevres/ferry/ferry-1.wmv

Czeslaw Michalewski
Professeur de philosophie au lycée de Sèvres,
Projet Europe, Éducation, École
E-mail : c.michalewski@crdp.ac-versailles.fr

Présentation du projet lors de la conférence eTwinning à Linz, le 13 janvier 2006 :
VIDEO : http://melies.ac-versailles.fr/telecharge/linz.wmv