Tải bản đầy đủ - 0trang
2 Methodology, Objectives and Hypotheses
MyEnglishLab Component Used in the Distant Part of Blended Learning
Variables and Test Units
As independent variables we determined using MyEnglishLab component. As
dependent variables we determined the improvement of English language knowledge
acquired and detected by didactic tests, and by evaluating increased studentsʼ motivation and their active participation in the education process detected by either interviews, questionnaires, or observation depending on the number of respondents. We
also determined functionality of the technology used (online connectivity, functionality
of projection equipment), different major subjects studied, the starting level of English
language competences as intervening factors.
The basic sample set includes 101 undergraduate students and academic stuff of the
Faculty of Science, University of Hradec Kralove starting their studies in academic
year 2015/16 with a prediction to increasing the number of students commencing their
studies in academic year 2016/17. The sample was divided into two groups - an
experimental group consisting of 57 students and a control group numbering 44 students studying in academic year 2015/16. The assignment of the two groups was done
by a random assignment method in order to avoid any influences.
Students involved in the study research have taken a pretest, three progress tests and
one achievement test since September 2015.
The pretest was assigned in the very ﬁrst week of the semester. Both groups
experimental and control contain the same number of students of Starter level – 9 %,
57 % of students of A1+ level, 27 % of students of A2+ −B1 level, and 7 % of
students of B1–B2 level.
The ﬁrst progress test in grammar was assigned in the fourth week of the semester
and showed that achieved test results were comparable (the average success score in the
control group was 75.3 %; the average success score in the experimental group was
The second progress test in grammar was assigned during the seventh week of the
semester. The test showed the following results: the average success score in the
control group was 73.1 %, the average success score in the experimental group was
The third progress test was assigned during the tenth week of the semester and
included both vocabulary and grammar taught during the ﬁrst ten weeks of the studies.
The third progress test showed the following results: the average success score in the
control group was 68.8 %, the average success score in the experimental group was
The ﬁrst achievement test was assigned after the ﬁrst semester, i.e. after 14 weeks
of the studies. The achievement test included grammar, reading, listening and writing
skills. The test showed the following results: the average success score in the control
group was 67.1 %, while in the experimental group it was 77 %. From these results we
can see that the results in the experimental group were by 10 % points better than the
results in the control group.
D. Vymetalkova and E. Milkova
The ﬁrst results coming from three progress tests and one achievement test comparing our two groups were taken from Excel data tables and were calculated on the
basis of Excel table calculations expressed in percentage.
We ﬁnd necessary to continue testing students in the second semester of the academic year. The amount of subject matter will expand, and according to the pretest
results (most students of A1+ level) we can predict that there will be more subject
matter issues that students will have no experience with or knowledge in. Therefore, we
suppose that most subject matter issues will be unknown to students and students will
learn them with no previous knowledge.
6 Conclusion and Future Work
According to increasing demands on up-to-date teaching/learning materials seen from
both teachersʼ and studentsʼ points of view, we have carefully considered and chosen
blended learning model as most convenient and effective way to meet all requirements
on maintaining the level of studentsʼ English language knowledge and expanding this
knowledge according to studentsʼ area of study. The distant part of blended learning is
applied by MyEnglishLab online component developed and introduced by Pearson. In
order to verify the effectiveness of this component we have been carrying out a study
research in the form of pedagogical experiment within 101 undergraduate students at
the Faculty of Science, University of Hradec Kralove.
As we have mentioned before, we ﬁnd ﬁnishing testing students in the summer
semester as a key factor in order to obtain more data coming out from more tests during
a longer (one academic year) period.
Obviously, we are planning to use statistics in order to analyze all test results. The
data will be statistically analyzed not sooner than after the end of academic year
In addition to this, as a possible basis for another study, we asked students to take a
test of learning styles preferences. With regard to multi-modal and multi-dimensional
approaches as important aspects provided within MyEnglishLab component (see
Sect. 4), we found this test and its results as a good source for future either comparison
or data evaluation.
Acknowledgments. This research has been supported by the Speciﬁc Research Project No.
2136 of the University of Hradec Kralove in 2016.
1. Alberta Education. Inspiring education: a dialogue with Albertans (2010). http://www.oecd.
2. Ausburn, L.J.: Course design elements most valued by adult learners in blended online
education environments: an American perspective. Educ. Media Int. 41(4), 327–337 (2004)
3. Bonk, C., Graham, C.: Handbook of Blended Learning: Global Perspectives, Local Designs.
Pfeiffer Publishing, San Francisco (2005)
MyEnglishLab Component Used in the Distant Part of Blended Learning
4. Bransford, J.D., Brown, A.L., Cocking, R.R.: How People Learn: Brain, Mind. Experience
and School. National Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington (2000)
5. Dziuban, C., Hartman, J., Moskal, P.: Blended learning. ECAR Res. Bull. 2004(7), 30
March 2004. http://www.educause.edu/ecar/
6. Dziuban, C.D., Moskal, P.D., Hartman, J.: Higher education, blended learning, and the
generations: knowledge is power: no more. In: Bourne, J., Moore, J.C. (eds.) Elements of
Quality Online Education: Engaging Communities. Sloan Center for Online Education,
7. Framework for 21st century learning. http://www.p21.org/our-work/p21-framework
8. Long, M., Jennings, H.: “Does It Work?”: The Impact of Technology and Professional
Development on Student Achievement. Macro International, Calverton (2005)
9. Manena, V. et al.: MODERNĚ S MOODLEM Jak využít e-learning ve svůj prospěch? CZ.
NIC, z. s. p. o. (2015)
10. Mishra, P., Koehler, M.: Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for
teacher knowledge. Teachers Coll. Rec. 108(6), 1017–1054 (2006)
11. Osguthorpe, T.R., Graham, R.C.: Blended learning environments. Q. Rev. Distance Educ. 4
(3), 227–233 (2003)
12. Otte, G., Benke, M.: Online learning: new models for leadership and organization in higher
education. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 10(2), 23–31 (2006)
13. Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A.T.: Teacher technology change: how knowledge, conﬁdence, beliefs,
and culture intersect. J. Res. Technol. Educ. 42(3), 255–284 (2010)
14. Picciano, A.G.: Blended learning: Implications for growth and access. J. Asynchronous
Learn. Netw. 10(3), 85–91 (2006)
15. Prensky, M.: Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. On the Horizon, vol. 9(5), pp. 1–6. MCB
University Press (2001)
16. Reece, M., Lockee, B.: Improving training outcomes through blended learning. J. Asynchronous Learn. Netw. 9(4), 49–57 (2005)
17. Singh, H., Reed, C.: A White Paper: Achieving Success with Blended Learning. In: ASTD
18. Schoenfeld-Tacher, R., McConnell, S., Graham, M.: Do no harm: a comparison of the effects
of online vs. traditional delivery media on a science course. J. Sci. Educ. Technol. 10(3),
19. Thorne, K.: Blended Learning: How to Integrate Online & Traditional Learning. Korgan
Page Ltd., London (2003)
Technology Investment and Transformation Eﬀorts
in the Public Schools of Georgia
Eka Jeladze and Kai Pata ✉
School of Digital Technologies (Centre for Educational Technology),
Tallinn University, Narva mnt 29, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia
Abstract. This study explores best cases how schools use and make beneﬁt of
technology investment in Georgia. We consider schools as learning ecosystem of
three types of services - Internal, External and Trade-oﬀ - in three educational
domains of digital infrastructure, learning facilitation and change management.
Multiple case study strategy was used in 15 schools of Georgia with purposive
sampling. K-means cluster analysis was applied to group schools based on the
grid of services. We built Bayesian Dependency model to ﬁnd probabilistic
dependencies of the services in digitally enhanced schools. The model is
explained on the case studies of 3 Georgian schools. The ﬁndings suggest that
trade-oﬀ type of services and change management services are the biggest deter‐
minant of the schools belonging to the innovative technology-enhanced learning
Keywords: Digitally enhanced schools · Learning ecosystem · ICT policy ·
Governments are increasingly investing into building school ICT capacity. However,
how these investments are managed to support learning at schools has little evidence.
ICT per se cannot be catalyst for change unless there’s school wide innovation .
Neither can central policies nor reforms automatically lead to education change as the
schools diﬀer by performance level, innovation capacity and context . Success of ICT
integration depends on the school-level factors like: ICT plan and vision, leadership
guidance through the process, Teacher training and internal support, evaluation and
monitoring on the use of ICT, between-school exchange of ICT related knowledge .
Georgia began modernization of general education system by investing in ICT infra‐
structure and capacity building in 2005. From 2011 it runs the program “Netbooks for
the First graders” to support 1:1 e-learning in primary education. Though, review on the
education reforms in Georgia points to the importance of meaningful use of ICT in
teaching and learning, alignment of individual ICT programs with the curriculum goals,
and systematic understanding of ICT infrastructure gaps . This paper aims to look at
a school level and examine how externally provided and internally existing factors work
to support digitally enhanced learning ecosystem in Georgia. We will identify the
© Springer International Publishing AG 2016
D.K.W. Chiu et al. (Eds.): ICWL 2016, LNCS 10013, pp. 60–71, 2016.
Technology Investment and Transformation Eﬀorts
schools that successfully implemented innovative digital approaches, and characterize
the application of diﬀerent types of digitally enhanced services there. We will particu‐
larly focus at the mutual interdependence of applied services thus depicting how they
form the eﬀectively functioning learning service-ecosystem in schools.
Schools as Digitally Enhanced Learning Service Ecosystems
Ecosystem metaphor has been intensely used to describe the concepts and dynamics of
interaction of the system parts with each other and with the whole . Following this
approach we suggest that schools may be considered as service-based ecosystems that
promote learning – the transformation of information to various types of knowledge.
Services are the species in this learning ecosystem. We deﬁne the service as a ﬂow of
logically combined products (units, inventories, activities) between the service providers
and the users through the operating level management, in accordance to the outlined
processes, rules or deﬁnitions [1, 3, 5]. Services comprise the following components:
attributes (inventories, units, monetary and nonmonetary sources), provider, service
manager, service user, activities (necessary for delivering service to the user), and
accompanying rules and/or processes how user will consume the service. We identiﬁed
three types of services based on who are the provider and service manager, where the
activities take place, and where the user is situated. These are Internal services, External
services, and Trade-oﬀ around services.
1. Internal services are the services that are provided by school itself and managed
within the school with corresponding attributes, supporting activities, processes and
regulations developed there.
2. External services are the services that are provided to schools from outside by the
provider. Therefore, school is the user of arranged external service to consume. The
management of the external services are run and maintained outside the school.
3. Trade-oﬀ services are the services that school bargains for and manages on its initia‐
tive. School either participates in trade-of initiative to receive some external services,
attributes or tools to manage and consume it as internal service; or as a provider
shares the internally developed service externally for other entities to manage.
Recent Georgian ICT Agendas for Schools
MoES equips public schools with technology on the basis of student number. At the
moment the average ratio of desktop computers located in computer labs reaches 30:1.
Out of 2160 schools and educational resource-centers 569 are provided with 100mb/sc
optical Internet connection, the rest 1591 use radio-technology with 256 kb/sc-2mb/sc.
MoES runs the program “Netbooks for the First Graders” for 5years now. The
program aims to advance student’s skills to be aligned to knowledge-based economy
and to improve quality of teaching and learning in Georgia. All the ﬁrst graders and their
teachers receive Intel-powered netbooks on their ﬁrst day at school as a present from
the state. Classroom management software – Mythware - enables teachers to manage
E. Jeladze and K. Pata
the class digitally. Though primary education classrooms often lack Internet connection
and teachers mainly use intranet for the software.
National Center for Teacher Professional Development offers free ICT trainings to
teachers. Trainings differ by the level of complexity in ICT and methodology. All the
teachers of Netbooks program have participated in 1:1 e-learning training, 62 % of them
attended Flipped Classroom module, and 41 % - project-based learning with ICT. The
courses are separately run for middle/high schoolteachers. Up to date 70 % of the teachers
have participated in basic ICT course, 59 % of middle/high schoolteachers attended the
methodology of ICT utilization, and 20 % - project-based learning with ICT.
New edition of National Curriculum of Georgia has been approved recently. It
deﬁnes 2 approaches regarding teaching ICT: (a) Curriculum outlines student compe‐
tences and learning outcomes as a separate subject in 1st, 5th and 6th grade. (b) ICT is
a cross-curricular discipline through 1st to 12th grade through all subject groups. In
addition, school can choose 2 elective subjects on a high school level: Computer sciences
and Multimedia and design.
We used K-means clustering to ﬁnd more successful service application from the sample
schools. We reduced data by creating composites for types of services and built depend‐
ency model for the schools belonging to the group of successful application of learning
services. We will illustrate application of eﬀective digitally enhanced learning
ecosystem with qualitative approach based on 3 cases from Georgian schools.
We used multiple case study strategy in 15 schools of Georgia with purposive
sampling. The schools were selected on the basis of location, size and ICT-oriented
activity. The data within each case was divided into separate primary and high school
sets. Netbooks for the First Graders program caused diﬀerent values on the services for
primary and high schools due to the utilization of 1:1 e-learning program. 2 data sets
were identiﬁed for each case ending up with 30 cases for 15 schools.
We developed the grid of services of learning ecosystem on the basis of the deﬁnition
of services and metaphorical compliances with ecosystem . 196 descriptors were
grouped into 3 types of services through 3 educational domains of digital infrastructure,
learning facilitation and change management. 62 Interviews were held with school prin‐
ciples, teachers and IT managers. 26 lessons were observed to explore how technology
is used in the learning process. The qualitative data were mapped to the grid using 1/0
system. K-means clustering was run to identify schools that had better application of
digitally enhanced learning services. The services that diﬀerentiated the clusters were
depicted with Mann-Whitney test .
In order to simplify our service-based learning ecosystem model we grouped service
variables into 9 composites (3 types of services X 3 educational domains): Internal
Infrastructure, Trade-oﬀ Infrastructure, External Infrastructure, Internal Learning Facil‐
itation, Trade-oﬀ Learning Facilitation, External Learning Facilitation, Internal Change
management, Trade-oﬀ Change Management, External Change Management. Both for
digitally enhanced and less innovative schools we conducted the Bayesian Dependency
Technology Investment and Transformation Eﬀorts
modeling (http://b-course.hiit.ﬁ) and modeled the probabilistic dependencies between
the service types. We selected three schools as cases to illustrate the dependency model
results with qualitative data.
5.1 Two Types of Learning Service Ecosystems in Georgian Schools
2 clusters of digitally enhanced and less innovative schools were identiﬁed through Kmeans cluster analysis with 11 cases in the ﬁrst cluster and 19 in another. The diﬀerence
between clusters was analyzed by Mann-Whitney U test that exposed statistically
signiﬁcant diﬀerence in 54 services . Due to the binary (1/0) nature of the service
descriptors in the grid, we may assert that these are services existing in one cluster, while
in another they are missing. Clusters diﬀered on internal and trade-oﬀ services, since
external services are centrally provided by MoES or related agencies to all schools.
Change management domain revealed the biggest variance between the two groups.
5.2 Learning Service Ecosystem in Digitally Enhanced Georgian Schools
Dependency model in digitally enhanced schools (Fig. 1). represents how 9 components
of the model are closely connected to each other in the whole learning ecosystem. Simi‐
larly to the ﬁndings from U-Whitney analysis the dependency model highlighted the
importance of internal change management.
Fig. 1. Dependency model for digitally enhanced schools
E. Jeladze and K. Pata
Since the service components incorporate several services, we describe the main
services as they appeared in three example schools in the Sect. 4.3. In the Discussion
chapter we discuss, what way diﬀerent services provided synergy to form the learning
ecosystem that promotes digital learning cultures.
5.3 Three Cases Depicting Schools with Digitally Enhanced Learning Service
We describe three cases from digitally enhanced schools’ cluster on the basis of 9 types
of services. “Village school” is located in the region of Georgia, “City school” is located
close to the capital city and “Capital School” is located in the capital of Georgia. We
focus on opportunities and limitations the schools have and highlight some particular
strategies they use to overcome these limitations or make new opportunities.
5.3.1 Infrastructure Services
18.104.22.168 Internal Infrastructure Services
The ratio of computers per students is not suﬃcient for using computers at the
lesson. “Village school” has 315 students and 34 teachers. School has one computer
lab with 9 computers in a working condition. “City school” has 854 students and 57
teachers. School has one computer lab with 22 computers. “Capital School” has 1300
students and 84 teachers. The school has one computer lab with 16 computers and one
innovative technology classroom with 12 computers. All schools participate in the
Netbooks program. In addition to the state provided technology the schools won some
laptops and projectors in diﬀerent competitions. Still, they do not have suﬃcient ICT
technology that everyone at school can develop digital competences. Computer lab is
often occupied with ICT lessons. But even if it is free teachers have to pair students to
work. Capital school rarely uses innovative technology classroom. Teachers can only
accommodate half class there while another half stays with mentor.
Schools still have insuﬃcient and badly functioning Wi-Fi connection. Capital
school manager says that only MoES hired IT manager knows Wi-Fi password, so she
can only use cable Internet at school.
Schools have special maintenance for digital infrastructure and for helping
teachers in using digital devices in learning. The ICT maintenance in school is suﬃ‐
cient to have technology in working order. All 3 schools have ICT manager and MoES
hired IT manager with clearly deﬁned responsibilities. School ICT manager helps
teachers on everyday basis to use technology and digital resources. They diagnose tech‐
nical problem with hardware and software and contact IT manager to solve the issues.
Schools pay for both positions.
Students have extended access to schools’ digital infrastructure. Computer lab is
always open and students are guaranteed free access to Internet and computer technol‐
ogies whenever needed. That makes this group diﬀerent from less innovative schools.
Technology Investment and Transformation Eﬀorts
22.214.171.124 Trade-oﬀ Infrastructure Services
Schools participate in competitions to win additional technology and ﬁnd resources
to set up Wi-Fi at school. MoES provides technology infrastructure, commercial
educational software and Internet connection to schools. In the explored cases, this was
not suﬃcient: Teachers from Village- and City Schools were not satisﬁed with Internet
connection and data exchange speed. Village School has optic cable, but the speed
dramatically and unpredictably changes. They can hardly manage opening the websites.
History teacher at City school has to download resources in advance and take on USB
stick to class.
Schools still have not discovered the additional beneﬁt of BYOD approach to extend
the school infrastructure. Most of the students have ICT devices to work home.
However none of the schools support Bringing Own Devices (BYOD) at school. Village
school participates in Microsoft pilot program to support 1:1 e-learning. 16 students in
6th grade plus 5 teachers (math, English, Georgian, history and science) are equipped
with netbooks. They actively use this opportunity to integrate ICT in learning process
of that particular class, though still do not encourage other students to bring their devices
in the classroom. City school prohibits using smartphones at the lesson. Principal says
that neither students nor teachers are ready for using them. Students are expected to use
this opportunity for cheating or playing in social networks.
The opportunity for parents monitoring students learning with e-system is limited
and not expected by parents. At the moment, parents can only have access to students’
learning data in primary education through netbooks’ classroom management system,
but e-Journal project is underway by MoES. Schools are waiting to get software and use
it as learning analytics functionalities. History teacher at City school tried using educa‐
tional platform - Edmodo (edmodo.com), but abandoned it because of the lack of support
Schools have started to systematically use cloud services for managing information.
City public school systematically uses free cloud solution for managing information
ﬂow and documents that is sound diﬀerence from all other schools from both clusters.
All the teachers have personal e-portfolios in Google drive with required (predeﬁned by
administration) folders. They upload thematic plans, lesson plans, tests, summary
reports, mentor’s portfolio, students’ data, lesson schedule, and learning resources.
Departments have their own folders there they upload: action plans, analysis of open
lessons, administrative documents, contests and etc. Principal says control and manage‐
ment is easier now then it was with printed documents.
5.3.2 Learning Facilitation Services
126.96.36.199 Internal Learning Facilitation Services
Students’ digital competences are taught in ICT lessons, though ICT teacher uses
input tasks from subject teachers. MoES deﬁnes students learning outcome in
E. Jeladze and K. Pata
national curriculum. ICT teacher at Village school says, students ask for help if they
need to accomplish ICT tasks in other subjects and he gives them instruction at ICT
lesson. Sometimes this is only a group of the students, not the whole class.
Subject teachers also use ICT as cross-curricular subject. Subject teachers work in
diﬀerent subject related applications or just ask students to search and present corre‐
sponding information. Oftentimes subject teachers either give digital tasks to accomplish
home or ask students to stay after classes.
Schools use collaborative digital learning activities that address problem solving
in socio-technical contexts, creativity and innovation. History teacher at City school
realizes Mini projects on restoring real situations of historic battles, e.g. Didgori.
Students search information to restore and create the situation where the battle happened,
how the historical characters moved in certain space, where the army was situated in a
Teachers use diﬀerent digital activities and resources to diﬀerentiate learning
according to their students’ needs. Primary school teachers showed more positive
attitude towards this approach. In 3rd class lesson the Village schoolteacher sent to the
students the exercises that were diﬀerentiated by the complexity. Students did as much
exercise as they could and sent back to teacher via classroom management soft. Though
the approach seems to have a lot of challenge for teachers. Georgian language teacher
recalled she tried to diﬀerentiate the tasks, though students protested to be in a “weaker”
group. City school 3rd grade teacher ﬁnds diﬀerentiation easier with netbooks, as there’s
more anonymity there. Otherwise students always ask why do they have diﬀerent tasks.
Schools additionally apply speciﬁc teaching forms to achieve certain digital
learning outcomes. In all three schools speciﬁc teaching forms were applied to achieve
certain digital learning outcomes. Village School initiated Club for programming. ICT
teacher gives free lessons there.
Students are involved in developing the evaluation criteria for their own learning
outcomes. Students’ involvement in developing the evaluation criteria for their own
learning outcomes was one of the statistically signiﬁcant variables that cause variances
between 2 clusters. However, even in our 3 cases only City school showed the evidence.
History teacher in City public school recollects at the beginning she was afraid to involve
students in the process, thinking it would be dangerous for her authority. She planned
learning goals with 10th graders and was surprised with the results. She suggested the
students, which particular skills she wanted to work on with them. On their side students
suggested what they wanted to be assessed on. Now she is trying to do the same with
younger students. Math teacher at Capital school introduces rubrics and then students
can add their criteria.
Technology Investment and Transformation Eﬀorts
188.8.131.52 Trade-oﬀ Learning Facilitation Services
Students develop digital learning scenarios for other students. In City and Capital
schools students developed digital learning scenarios for other students. The digital
learning activities and e-resources developed by students are integrated into the teaching
process of other students. City school teacher prepared texts and scenarios and asked
students to create videos. She shared the videos with 12th graders on Facebook group as
supplementary material. Though as she says, students do not take this material seriously.
They think that textbooks are the only source they can rely on.
Teachers use digital learning activities and resources that are developed by other
teachers. MoES manages international repository of learning resources – Lemill.net –
where teachers upload and share their learning resources. According to ICT manager
50 % of the teachers in Capital school independently prepare digital resources, and create
projects. Information manager provides other 50 % of the teachers with the necessary
Teachers participate with students in international projects. All 3 schools partici‐
pate in international projects, science fairs, IT events, that is characteristic to digitally
enhanced schools cluster. Village school teachers were involved in e-twinning projects.
History teacher at City school had been registered on epal.com for 7 years now. Chem‐
istry teacher at Capital school was involved in Polish project for teaching chemistry
where ICT is intensely used.
Students learning for digital competences are not yet supported in cross-school
e-learning courses. MoES or other organizations do not provide extra e-learning
courses for students; neither do schools cooperate to organize joint e-learning courses
for students, or assign students to e-learning opportunities oﬀered outside the school.
History teacher from City school tried to use edmodo.com. This is an educational plat‐
form to build virtual classroom and connect students, parents and teachers in one space.
However teacher had to cease work on the platform due to a negative attitude from
parents. They did not consider virtual classroom a serious learning process because
students can use open book when doing Edmodo tests at home.
5.3.3 Change Management Services
184.108.40.206 Internal Change Management Services
Schools plan for ICT development. In Georgia MoES do not have long term ICT
development vision. ICT agenda is formed based on one-year action plans developed in
corresponding departments and agencies. Yet all 3 schools had ICT vision and plan.
However, the components they focused, as well as the stakeholders’ involvement
diﬀered from each other. Capital school long-term strategy focused on ICT contribution
to the curriculum and the teaching and learning approaches with ICT. City school had
1-year action plan where it concentrated on building school’s information system and