Supported by

FP7 (IST-257822) Christian Voigt, Elisabeth Unterfrauner, Adam Cooper

Table of Contents

EXEC SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................................... 3 1 2 3 4 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................. 4 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 4 PARTICIPANTS ................................................................................................................................................... 5 RESULTS ............................................................................................................................................................ 8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5 GAMIFIED LEARNING .................................................................................................................................................. 9 MASSIVE OPEN ONLINE COURSES............................................................................................................................... 14 FLIPPED CLASSROOMS .............................................................................................................................................. 20 SEAMLESS LEARNING................................................................................................................................................ 26

ANNEX: SURVEY AS PUBLISHED ........................................................................................................................31

1 of 31

Table of Figures
Figure 2: Participating countries (119 respondents from 26 countries) ............................................................................. 6 Figure 3: Age and gender distribution of respondents (n=119) .......................................................................................... 6 Figure 4: Distribution of respondents across sectors .......................................................................................................... 7 Figure 5: Attrition rate throughout the survey, based on n=119 (100%) ............................................................................ 7 Figure 6: Time Horizon - Gamification elements in the majority of courses ....................................................................... 9 Figure 7: Impact of gamified assessment ......................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8: Feasibility of banning gamified learning ............................................................................................................ 11 Figure 9: Time horizon for an increase of MOOCs ............................................................................................................ 14 Figure 10: Desirability of EU funding for MOOCs .............................................................................................................. 16 Figure 11: Desirability of regulating the use of learner data ............................................................................................ 16 Figure 12: Impact of students preference for online lectures on education ..................................................................... 20 Figure 13: Time horizon for students sitting in the driver seat ......................................................................................... 20 Figure 14: Impact of students sitting in the driver seat .................................................................................................... 21 Figure 15: Desirability of teachers’ risk taking when innovating learning ........................................................................ 21 Figure 16: Desirability of media professionals producing online lectures ......................................................................... 22 Figure 17: Time horizon for ‘reducing online activities’ .................................................................................................... 27 Figure 18: Impact of massive data collection ................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 19: Desirability of strong data regulations ............................................................................................................ 28 Figure 20: Desirability of possibly limiting access to online networks .............................................................................. 28

2 of 31

1 Introduction
Surveying innovative learning practices serves mainly 2 objectives: (a) practice foresight – asking for the time and the impact of specific developments characterising the innovative practices – and (b) policy foresight – asking for the feasibility and desirability of given policy interventions meant to channel or boost certain developments. It was important for both objectives to formulate statements that would allow multiple viewpoints (e.g. gamification could be seen as ‘pointless pointification’ or as an ‘intrinsic motivation measure’) so that respondents could subscribe to alternative policy measures (e.g. promote or ban gamified learning in schools). The report is structured as follows:  A brief methodology section is dedicated to the purpose of practice- and policy foresight, the means we used to promote the survey and some details on the programming of the survey using the open source software Limesurvey. The next section describes the participants of the survey in terms of their demographic data and their response behaviours. We then go through each innovative learning practices highlighting some general developments as well as some weak signals, which we derived from differing, groupspecific responses or whenever a development was seen very far in the future. The annex at the end includes the survey as published

 

2 Methodology
As described in D2.6, foresight is an important complementary method to roadmapping. Context scenarios provide the background for future developments, which lead to statements being rated on ‘time to develop’ and ‘impact on the quality of education’. The strength of foresight lies in being open and inclusive of emerging signals whereas roadmapping is more strategy-driven and advocatory of a particular solution. The main reason for Foresight is “the indispensability of judgmental information, which may arise in cases where no historical data exist” (Rowe, Wright, & Bolger, 1991)1. In practice, however, Foresight Delphis often reveal polarized responses rather than consensus (Mullen, 2003)2. In this context, deviating responses characterised through atypical standard deviations or multimodal distributions of ratings can reveal weak signals (Turoff, 1970). Hence the foresight methodology supports organisations to be prepared for changing outlooks, taking anticipatory measures at the right time. Based on socio-cultural constructivism, our foresight approach follows Miles and Keenan’s (2002)3 definition: “Foresight is a systematic, participatory, future intelligence gathering and medium-to-long-term vision-building process aimed at present-day decisions and mobilising joint actions . . . . Foresight involves bringing

1

Rowe, G., Wright, G., & Bolger, F. (1991). Delphi: A reevaluation of research and theory. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 39(3), 235-251. 2 Turoff, M. (1970). The design of a policy Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 2(2), 149-171. 3 Miles, J. and Keenan, M. (Eds) (2002), Country Specific Practical Guides to Regional Foresight, CORDIS, FOR-LEARN Project, available at: www.cordis.lu/forresight/cgrf.htm

4 of 31

together key agents of change and sources of knowledge, in order to develop strategic visions and anticipatory intelligence. Of equal importance, foresight is often explicitly intended to establish networks of knowledgeable agent, who can respond better to policy and other challenges”. Technically, we used the off-the-shelf, open source product ‘Limesurvey’ (www.limesurvey.org/). Following a few recommendations for constructing the Delphi as shown above. Access to Delphi Study To maximize ease of access, the chosen format was ‘anonymous / no access tokens’ – so visitors were not required to register. However, neither was the survey publically listed, hence only people who got the access URL through an invitation would find the survey. A helpful feature: respondents can stop answering and resume at any time later, with the help of an email including login, PW and link for continuation.

Expression Manage- EM allows for ‘on-the-fly’ calculations and classifications based on ment (EM) respondents input. However access range of EM is limited to the data from the current respondent, hence EM can’t be used to calculate means across past Delphi responses. Not used in this survey, though potentially useful, experts could classify themselves and get only a subset of questions served. Question Outline We mainly used ‘array dual scale questions’ – six blocks a 5 statements (30 ratings). Before we had seven blocks (35 ratings) but initial testing suggested to reduce the total number of questions to 30 For each question ‘Show in public statistics’ needs to be enabled under ‘advanced settings’. Although the automated generation of a visualiz ation of final results is very tempting, this can become a rather lengthy report, taking a while to be generated. Unfortunately, the system doesn’t allow yet to filter out specific graphics.

Visualisation via Publ. Statistics

3 Participants
As of 3rd of May, a total of 119 experts responded to the invitation. As shown in the figure below, 18 EU countries and 8 non-EU countries are included. The top three countries are UK4 (30%), Spain (12%) and Austria (8%). The strong UK presence can be explained by the large CETIS network we were able to tap into as well as the above average promotion the survey received through social media by UK respondents.

4

Respondents from Scotland have been excluded due to having a different educational system to the UK. 5 of 31

Figure 1: Participating countries (119 respondents from 26 countries)

Who part icipat ed?

Most respondents were above 40, which can be seen as an indicator that judgements are based on longer-term experiences. Female and male respondents are balanced, except for the first age group (18-29).

Figure 2: Age and gender distribution of respondents (n=119)

Most respondents had teaching experience (74%) followed by research (51%). The sectors more difficult to engage were businesses (18%) and government officials (10%). Though one might speculate that the latter are less present in the targeted mailing list or social media outlets.

6 of 31

Figure 3: Distribution of respondents across sectors

What can be said about t he respondent s’ engagement level?

About 70% of all respondents left their email addresses in order to receive follow up information and evaluation results. Hence demonstrating an interest in the topics addressed by the survey. Also, from the first to the second question block 5% of respondents left the survey unfinished and a further 2% aborted the survey after the second question block.

Figure 4: Attrition rate throughout the survey, based on n=119 (100%)

A further indicator of engagement is respondents’ preparedness to write ‘free text’ comments. A total of 108 comments were submitted, many of which had considerable length above 150 words. The most commented topics were ‘gamified learning’ and ‘flipped classrooms’ with each receiving 29% of all comments.

7 of 31

4 Results
The forecast survey asked respondents to rate statements describing four innovative practices in terms of likely developments as well as the potential of specific policy interventions. Each learning practice included 3 statements on practice developments and 2 statements on possible policy interventions. A full description of innovative practices is available in D4.3b), however, each subsection includes a short summary of core elements and issues around each learning practice. Results are presented in a summary format, highlighting main outcomes, points of interests and a sample of comments. The following procedure is applied to practice and policy statements: 1. 2. A general interpretation on time and impact (for practice statements) and on feasibility and desirability (for policy statements)5. Where applicable, a tendency map highlights interesting overlaps between ratings (e.g. respondents who rate a policy measure as highly desirable are also likely to see this measure as very feasibility). Weak signals are derived from: a. Practice developments show sector-specific differences (Δ >10%) … that is, researchers and educators have more or less differing views. b. Policy measure that are rated highly desirable but considered difficult to be implemented.

3.

Following an example screenshot on ‘gamified learning’:

5

The analysis of practice statements is presented in red and policy related diagrams use blue. 8 of 31

4.1

Gamified Learning

Gamification: using game mechanics and elements of game design in non-game contexts in order to motivate learning. Game mechanics can be levels, challenges, virtual goods, leader boards and gifting Controversial issues evolve around 'hunting for points as a distraction of learning', neglect of demographic particularities (e.g. digital literacy levels, preferred genres, etc), availability of gamification strategies.

A re we going t o see Gamificat ion in t he majorit y of courses?

Most respondents (46%) see here a long-term effort, stating it will take more than 10 years or possibly never come to the point where gamification elements will be part of most courses.

Figure 5: Time Horizon - Gamification elements in the majority of courses

Nonetheless, 71% state that gamification would have a positive or very positive impact on the quality of education. Weak signals:  One third of researchers indicate that gamified learning will never happen, 19% of respondents with educational background share this view whereas 36% of educators sees this happening in 5-10 years.

Will t eachers develop t heir own gamificat ion mat erials?

Over a third sees gamification tools within reach in 5-10 years, and another 28% states that more than 10 years are needed to get there. Views on this issue are relatively homogenous, with most groups rating similarly within a variation of 5%.

9 of 31

Weak signals:  Although not a near term achievement, impact is estimated overwhelmingly positive (75%).

Will assessment be based on game-lik e element s such as scores, levels, et c.?

Expectations when this would happen lean towards a long term development (as gamification in general) with 46% indicating that gamified assessment needs more than 10 years to develop or might not develop at all.

In terms of impact, one third sees no improvement through game-like assessment. Interestingly, those who think this will never happen see a more negative impact than those who see this happening in 5-10 years.

Figure 6: Impact of gamified assessment

Weak signals:  The business sector had the most positive outlook on this development (52%) versus educators (40%) and researchers (39%).

10 of 31

Should gamified learning receive more sponsoring or should it be banned?

Increasing support or banning gamification were stated as possible policy interventions. 61% found the former desirable and 75% found the later undesirable. Desirability depended only marginally from respondents believe about feasibility.

Figure 7: Feasibility of banning gamified learning

Banning gamification was seen as feasible by 37% and increasing investments were assumed to be possible by 64%.

The following comments were provided; new concepts or critical remarks are highlighted in bold letters.  In terms of assessment it may depend how far open online badging is successful for informal learning - if taken up for CPD (Continued Professional Development), then this could mean that badging (and other gaming approaches may become more mainstream in a formal context) - however may remain compartmentalised It may also be reflected by particular subject discipline communities within institutions to take gamification forward - rather than being led by institution wide policy. although policy will have a big effect re providing infrastructure to support these approaches - both technologically, and pedagogically I think the term "game" is unhelpful for many not in the learning technology area. Scenario, simulation, case-study and even role-play better convey what is actually happening. My concerns are that the individuality of teachers and their choices of teaching methods/tools should be recognised. Gaming is already an appropriate method of learning and is appropriate in some situations but not others. High tech tools should be available to enable the teacher to seamlessly organise a game based learning experience for their students alongside their other curricular activities. However, whether that happens or not
11 of 31

should be teacher led in negotiation with their students and in consideration of their needs.     The teachers and leaders of educational institutes do not recognise the pedagogical value of games. Technology will promote access to quality education in Africa. However major challenges in terms of training, hardware and internet access need to be addressed Education should not just be about one method and therefore games would only be part of the solution. The subject is a little difficult because there are two distinct sides to consider (in SA): Private and semi-private schools will embrace these changes sooner rather than later, Government schools may take somewhat longer with all the formalities, red tape etc. Curriculum restructuring, associated technology component upgradation in teacher education curriculum ,Bring Your own Device (BYOD) classrooms and Learning environments from the Australian point of view - economic circumstances/budget cuts may prevent substantial investment. to gain significant traction at the coal face of teaching the simulations / games will need to be easy to build for the average academic without the need for a small army of technical and educational developers. in general 'easy to use tool' development lags behind the 'idea' in many areas of technology enhanced learning which slows its uptake. As a group of researcher we tried to implement gaming as a form of motivation to encourage students to participate more online, but management did not agree with any gaming strategies. Funding was refused. "Gamified learning has great potential for skills practice, since it can help train the learners' conditioned responses and achieve "fluent performance". This is essential for a piano player, since it frees the conscious mind for interpretations of the performed music. However, there is a huge risk that the reflective and contemplative elements of learning will be more or less left out - thereby producing what could be called "mor(e)on(liners)" The change in the formal assessment result will probably be highly dependent from the country: for example, people attach considerable importance in exams and grades, it will be hard to change this mentality. Assumptions are not made clear in gamification and without clear objectives to reflect grade changes or representative skills this complexity can work against students, therefore only being assistive should the student select the course against receipt of those specific elements. Typical equivalence is with business schools offering a percentage of a grade against assignment, group work and exam so that early assignments relying on personal relationships often gain 80-90% for well-respected students with anonymous exams which show greater depth of understanding offering maximum contributions of typically 70-80%. Yet this 'weighting' is amalgamated into a single end of course grade. This means strengths and weaknesses 'smear out'. I do not feel like I know enough about games and learning. I believe it would be highly undesirable for all formal education to be gamified. This is only one approach out of many and it does not meet the learning needs of all individuals. Also, I believe that authentic learning experiences, service learning, and other types of learning
12 of 31

 

(such as opportunities to work across disciplines and geographic location ) will be far more important than gamification.    think it will be a few niche players with significant investment. Gamification can certainly facilitate inclusion of sensitive groups such as children with learning difficulties. The first comment that comes to my mind is the Latin sentence "Est modus in rebus" (there must be fairness in everything). Games can be certainly useful in many situations but it would not make sense to impose them everywhere and for everything, nor to ban it from school. So, it is certainly positive to investigate the potential benefit of different kinds of games for what kind of tasks/subjects/ situations, so as to create a base of knowledge to help teachers/educators to chose the most likely profitable game(s) for each situation they are addressing, but without imposing games everywhere and for everything. One of the challenges of accredited games is students learning to 'game the system' to gain undeserved credit. This phenomenon is already well established in the computer gaming world, so one would expect it to extend into educational gaming - especially given that the stakes and costs are higher. "Difficult to answer as much formal education is not suitable for gamification while other formal education is very suitable. Gamification is just one among increasing variety of approaches and methods, it will never become dominant or replace other methods and techniques of teaching and learning. I gave a "never" to the first question, because I think that there are fields were the approach is not the best option. However, the technology will be there. The implied assumptions about learning styles and engagement as an underpinning that systematically devalues the educational (as distinct from the measurable 'learning' assessable experience.. which is exactly where universities are rapidly losing their attractiveness to learning and education to many younger people(as a student as well as a professor, i hear this frequently- but only from the other students who feel the lack of staff contact and engagement and resent the careful inaccessibility that online systems enable: in fact I suspect that the university model is already broken) I thoroughly approve the spirit of educational research that seeks to take account of experiential factors in learning and move away from metrics that are exclusively formal and grade-based. I think this is definitely feasible (it has been one of my central interests for 30 years or so), but I don't think that the culture of educational games as currently conceived and implemented is anything like adequate. In other words, the experiential aspects of learning demand much richer and more subtle support than can be provided simply via a gaming metaphor. This accounts for my ambivalence as to whether such developments are in all respects desirable (I think they are too limited and over-hyped for instance) and scepticism about how feasible they are (as of now, with the kind of understanding of learning that the gaming culture reflects, we would lose a lot by substituting game-based learning for more conventional approaches, and I think this is something that will be recognised by its critics). Basic developer-tools to be used by teachers/users are already in research and development; however it still will take a long time until such tools will be matured enough and will penetrate the educational market.

   

13 of 31

While it is likely that games will become much more important in many areas of learning they are unlikely to impact on the majority of courses in secondary and post-secondary learning. They are already very important (with or without technology) in primary and pre-school. As with most new technologies we will see a range of activity with proponents claiming it is good for everything, and others saying that it is dumbing down. Inevitably formal assessment will lag, especially given the current trend away from authentic assessment to more essay based assessment promoted by Gove. Complex games require complex planning and developing which will be beyond the time, skill or interest of the vast majority of teaching staff at all levels. Complexity cannot be removed; tools may make it easier to handle but it still has to be handled so, whilst teachers may be able to modify games / scenarios most will be unable or unwilling to create complex games. Formal assessment results will change, but I am not sure game-like elements will become a relevant component. In times of economic crisis, investment in gamification may not have the necessary social, political or academic support, except for technologically advanced institutions." Using collective intelligence in developing new approaches should be a leading thought

  

4.2

Massive Open Online Courses

Free Massive Open Online Course: bringing existing courses to an extended audience by driving technological and economical innovation. Controversial issues evolve around funding models, accreditation, high attrition rates and possible ways of highly automated learner support.

Will M O O Cs become a major learning delivery model?

This was not seen as a very likely development – 46% stated that this would never happen and only 19% saw this possibility in 510 years or less.

Figure 8: Time horizon for an increase of MOOCs

14 of 31

More respondents see the impact of MOOCs on the negative side (38%) rather than the positive side (32%). Weak signals:  With around one third of their sector-specific responses, businesses and government are rather undecided about the impact of MOOCs.

Will st udent s acquire t he necessary sk ills t o complet e a M O O C ( self-regulat ion, endurance, et c.) ?

An almost even distribution of responses in terms of when students will have these skills. 68% of respondents deemed developing these skills as positive. Weak signal:   24% of business responses rated the impact of acquiring specific MOOC skills negative. 50% of government responses rated the impact of acquiring specific MOOC skills very positive.

Will learners follow aut omat ed guidance ( e.g. int elligent t ut oring) ?

Automated guidance is seen by most as a long-term development (61% estimate more than 10 years or never). Impact on education is undecided with almost equal votes for negative (27%), neutral (25%) and positive (31%).

Weak signals:  Businesses see the impact of intelligent tutoring slightly better than researchers (37% vs. 48%)

15 of 31

Should European M O O Cs be funded by t he EU ( half of cost s) .

A relatively high percentage (57%) found this funding proposition undesirable or ‘neutral’ at best. 42% estimated such a policy as unfeasible compared to 45% who see this as a possibility. Those who find it unfeasible do also find it less desirable.

Figure 9: Desirability of EU funding for MOOCs

Does t he use of personal dat a generat ed t hrough M O O Cs need more regulat ion?

Definitely a highly desirable policy measure as indicated by 86%, feasibility is also not perceived as an issue by 80%. The diagram below shows a relatively homogenous response pattern, so all groups are in favour of regulating the use of learner data.

Figure 10: Desirability of regulating the use of learner data

The following comments were provided; new concepts or critical remarks are highlighted in bold letters.
16 of 31

MOOCs right now is both about experimenting and about claiming specialized market shares in future global structures and markets of education. New professional roles in education will develop around this “glocal” phenomenon , when MOOCs are used in social settings, become part of other education solutions, etc. An issue not covered here is identity - how will institutions know who is completing an online exam for sure? Presently the effectiveness of MOOCs are week regarding the high number of dropouts. Only very small part of the students is able to take up the learning style of MOOC . Technology will promote access for all and reduce the cost of education. We need to promote OERs however the private sector should have a level ground . This will promote innovation and diverse content MOOCs are just part of a suite of tools - not sure students would learn what they need. A good community of learners would need to be created for this . Can’t comment of EU issues. From Australian perspective, government wont be funding MOOCs as large budget cuts to higher education are on the agenda. Given the high drop-out rates for MOOCs it is unlikely that this will be seen as a replacement for traditional education over the longer term, particularly for undergraduate learners where self motivation and self discipline may be an issue for many . MOOCs may be better suited to 'professional learners' (i.e those already working who are looking to update their skills or branch into new areas) who have higher levels of self motivation but who are looking for very specific chinks of knowledge. These people are time poor and the availability of short sharp modules online in a MOOC format with self guided structures and 'intelligent' tutors may make it feasible for them to join. But MOOCs in their current format (i.e weekly time forced schedules won’t attract these people). Business models for making MOOCs viable are yet to be worked out so it could go either way." Mooc is an ill defined term when used without qualification. The experience of a learner in a cMooc and an xMooc will be quite different. There is also a chicken & egg situation with q2 - will students have the abilities. If Moocs become formalised through the tertiary system then more support will be given to allow students to develop and work well in that paradigm. Students prefer the blended model, F2F with online activities. Personal data would need to be regulated only if the assessment to be undertaken was directly related to the MOOC delivery system. More of an issue is transfer of the knowledge being recognised and registered to be allowed to take the exam. Delivery and content does not need to be regulated - usually this happens because the student as customer wishes to have a reasonable chance of being accredited to a standard (protected by examination process) with minimal effort at reasonable cost. Skills to complete only matter if these are commensurate with what is being taught and ethos of provider and/or assessing body. At the present time, my research let me think student do not have the needed skills... It's hard to evaluate the potential of MOOC in that context since we are not sure how their skills will change in the future.
17 of 31

  

  

 

Given the current fiscal environment it is possible that governments will decide to close universities and invest entirely in MOOCs. Whether or not students will have the skills to complete courses that are offered through MOOCs is not something that I foresee happening in the near future. Although adaptive and intelligent tutoring systems have the potential to support knowledge acquisition and reinforcement at the lower levels, it is doubtful to me that they will be able to support advanced post-secondary activities. As well, it is doubtful to me that an intelligent tutoring system would prepare skilled trades or other professions (e.g., physicians, nurses, etc.) who require a high degree of personal apprenticeship, training, and professional development. If our experiences to date are any indication, MOOCs are expensive to fund and it is unlikely that grants would be a sustainable funding mechanism to support such endeavours. I believe that prior learning assessment of knowledge whether or not someone has participated in a MOOC should be better supported. The use of personal data, no matter where it is stored, should be protected and closely regulated. While I am very fond of collaborative online courses, I only feel rather tepid towards MOOCS - but this judgment is certainly biased by the fact that I know them conceptually but never took part in one myself. Based on my readings and experience, I think that it should be difficult to really take fully advantage from a MOOC unless the learner is very self-regulated, and self-regulation competence usually develops though wise guidance, not by trial-and-error. So, I see positively the idea of MOOCS in some situations but not in others. The huge potential in MOOC should and will be exploited however the added value of human interactions in learning should not be forgotten. E.g.: mentoring, peers' supports. It is also desirable that MOOCS will largely contribute to the development of traditional universities due to the increased competition for students. I'm involved in the development of MOOCs at a UK university, and the whole question of what institutions get out of them (for all the effort they require to develop and run) has yet to be made clear. At this early stage, the experimentation is fun and academics are keen, but will they keep on being prepared to invest so much time in running the same MOOCs year after year? And of course they only seem to work for students who are already self-regulated and highly motivated. For the last question I would say that the personal data should not be used at all for commercial purposes; I recently heard a scenario about a MOOC where data about the student was automatically available to companies, etc. I think this should not be the future. Participants should at all-time be aware of who can access their data. Again, MOOC is just one way among many others to organize studies - and by far not the most effective or reliable. Majority of learners will never reach the level of selfdirectedness needed for MOOCs, and this cannot be compensated by intelligent software agents replacing human facilitators. University staff will need to support their students using MOOCs. Back towards the tutorial system? The record of education and governments in student surveillance is ever racketing upwards, so that even students are beginning to get uneasy. The security of this data is no better than the million plus leaks from the NHS etc etc, and the minimal penalties for such leaks (and the huge commercial and political gains) will lead to self-selection of the most
18 of 31

 

trusting and naive as students in the surveyed domain- and to markedly less risky choices in courses by the others to manage their rising risks.  I am a great believer and enthusiast for small group learning. I think the richest learning experiences are directly mediated by person-to-person communication - as for instance in learning to play a musical instrument. I appreciate the potential benefits of MOOCs, but think that the educational technologies surrounding automated support are still immature and in some ways ill-conceived (learner models based on material consulted, exercises answered etc are very crude compared with the kind of assessment of understanding that can be achieved in personal teaching, and I don't think our modelling of learning activity to date is anywhere close to - or even well-oriented towards - overcoming this). I think the problems of student motivation to engage go deep, and it is unlikely that they can be resolved without a very radical change in the kind of communication that technology affords. At present, I think our understanding of computer-mediated communication is too superficial. But in principle any personal qualities and skills that improve our capacity to learn are to be encouraged. MOOCs require students to have a high degree of motivation, organisation and independent study skills. By the time they graduate these should be there, and thus by their final year almost all students should have the skills to use MOOCs, but in the first year they are unlikely to (at least until the very nature of A levels changes to encourage independent study rather than learning to the test). Automated guidance is a different issue, and given the value of peer assessment I suspect (hope) that peer assessment will become much more important. Automated guidance is also really only possible in closed environments (ie with a tightly controlled curriculum). In more open situations it is simply not possible to do. There is a very slow move toward competency based accreditation of learning, and as that grows the source of the learning will become irrelevant . We will be able to move away from attendance based qualifications to the ability to demonstrate the competence. MOOCs will then be one of many sources of learning. NB this implies a disaggregation of learning and assessment (as already happens in schools) MOOCs seem well adapted to continuing professional development, ie, lifelong learning, but not so suitable for first level degrees, where tutoring and a direct social learning context are important. I must confess I had not yet thought about regulation of MOOCs date use for commercial purposes, but I think you have hit a very important issue. You start off talking about university education - it's not clear whether all your questions relate to university level (or why that would be the case). MOOCs can be used by school students and people undertaking on-the-job training, they don't have to be confined to universities.

 

19 of 31

4.3

Flipped Classrooms

Flipped classroom: inverting classroom situations so that the lecture part is moved from school to home and the exercise part takes place at school. Online videos and podcasts substitute the lectures and are now homework. Time in the classroom can be used more interactively for group projects or discovery activities. Controversial issues evolve around managing differences between learners being more or less successful doing their homework, which requires fundamentally new types of in-class activities.

Will st udent s prefer online lect ures over class at t endance?

Many think that students already have this preference (less than 5 years = 42%). Yet 22% find the idea negative.

Figure 11: Impact of students preference for online lectures on education

Will st udent s decide how in-class t ime is used?

Almost half of the respondents think that getting students in such a position would require more than 10 years (29%) or it wouldn’t happen at all (19%).

Figure 12: Time horizon for students sitting in the driver seat

20 of 31

Also the impact of such a development is seen as neutral (30%), followed by positive (25%) and negative (18%). Again, negative impact is related with a view that it won’t happen.

Figure 13: Impact of students sitting in the driver seat

Will t eachers’ risk t ak ing be professionally ack nowledged?

About 80% believe this is desirable as well as feasible.

Figure 14: Desirability of teachers’ risk taking when innovating learning

21 of 31

Will online lect ures be produced by media professionals and not t eachers t hemselves?

Unlike the first policy suggestion, the use of media professional is not seen as a desirable objective (51% see it as undesirable).

Figure 15: Desirability of media professionals producing online lectures

The following comments were provided; new concepts or critical remarks are highlighted in bold letters.  Access to broadband doesn't always mean a good enough connection to learn (eg sharing with others in a household, rural areas - connected but not fibre optics, access to power/electricity). Last question could have included an option for shared roles/ collaborative development as this is a current model for OER that works well . (note: a third policy suggestion) First question, feasibility of student preference of recorded lectures - only if they have good other activities for collaboration Flip concept makes campus to a student daily work place for information processing, not longer a fill-up station in an " banking" concept of education. Many teachers of the performance type will dislike this for a while. And these new learning activities can be place-distributed as well, engaging satellite groups of students in a more redesigned learning process. Connectivity and the cost of that connectivity is a major issue. Particularly if students are mobile/transient and particularly if they live in shared accommodation . There are also categories of learners who are not able to access the open internet, e.g. prisoners, serving members of the armed services. Again there is no one size fits all method of learning, universities have seminars, labs and tutorials as well as lectures. Lecturing itself varies with the group's size. Teachers and lecturers should have the time and support to become confident with using alternative, widely based information sources eg MIT or Khan academy online lectures

  

22 of 31

  

Teachers should be motivated and trained to use ICT in education as well as develop content We already do this and elearning provide the support for the lectureres to develop these. Although I like the idea of student led class time, experience shows me that this may be incredibly difficult with large cohorts or even more difficult with smaller cohorts where a 'stronger/louder' student may drive other students in an alternative direction . It would take a very experienced tutor to effectively manage such an approach - sadly, I believe many tutors simply don't have the skills to be able to deal with the myriad of directions they could be forced to explore. Teachers are extremely reluctant to hand over the design of their lecture to someone else - just look at the reticence in so many that are against OERs. Teachers have expertise in pedagogy and unless the design templates for the MOOCs are easy to access and produce what appears to be professional interfaces the students will have poor experiences. User Experiences, Accessibility and Usability must be considered at the outset not seen as bolt-ons. New roles for teachers , no room for traditional teachers and conceptual lectures, competency of teachers threatened by technology specialists, knowledge and pedagogy experts take a back seat Australian perspective. Flipped patterns are already coming to the fore. In my current institution 'flipped classroom' has received positive interest from a large number of academics, more so than any other 'educational concept' for many years . Lecture recording is already wide spread and popular with students. The next stage is to break these down into smaller digestible chunks and intersperse them with short reflective activities and check points for more effective self directed learning while at home. Having students decide the in-class learning activities may be a bit further away although the distribution of time spent on topics and particular activities can easily be directed via inclass audience response tools. As such the academic will be able to direct work into problem areas based on the status of student understanding. Such a scenario is feasible and doable. Production resources are very limited and it is unlikely significant funding will be made available for production. lo-fi self recorded videos are likely to be the norm for the foreseeable future. Some large high profile courses may receive some development assistance. National broadband network build is coming in late. Highly likely that there will be a change of federal government later this year which will cut it off further rollout so it wont be considered for at least another 10 years. This is a historic lost opportunity for education and national development. There seem to be assumptions in these questions that online learning equates to putting 'lectures' online. This is a fundamentally flawed pedagogy. It isn't clear what geographical region this survey is referring to when asking if all students will have broadband. I've answered yes for western Europe and New Zealand but this won't be true in a global context. Flipped classrooms require good teachers with a passion for teaching. Online lectures should be produced by media professionals under the supervision of teachers.
23 of 31

 

 

Again, cultural differences among countries could be revealed by such methods: I know that flipped classrooms are already used for vocational training in UK; in France, it has a bad connotation for the employers that pay for the training of their employees ("people will not train properly", "they will pretend to train and not do anything"...) Last question: I think 'teaching' changes constantly - and good teachers today already are media professionals (well, not BBC level, but definitely better than typical home use : teachers are supposed to be good in structuring lectures and being good speakers -- often they are not, but still its still the ideal and there are many positive examples). With regard to the first question, the lecture is what will change, - it will no longer be a lecture per se but classroom activities that support student learning. This is already happening at our university. Students still prefer to meet in class and to interact with their peers and the instructor. The online resources are supplementary, - they support student activities. We're already seeing student determined activities and assessments. Even though it is desirable for all students to have broadband access, we still have pockets of people across Canada who do not have this access. We are already seeing incentives, awards and recognition of innovation at our university. With regard to online lectures, - in our experience the production of lectures is best supported through a team approach that involves instructors as content experts, media professionals, and other supports such as instructional designers, computer programmers, and students who have taken the course previously. I would not exclude homework from the idea of flipped class ; it is fine that students get acquainted with the theoretical background by listening recorded classes or the like at home, and that class time is devoted to applications of the theory/practical joint activities, but students need anyway an individual moment of reflection of what they have learned , if they want to suitably connect the new knowledge with their overall mental picture of related knowledge. Media professional have the *technique* to produce good-looking recorded classes, but they do not have the pedagogical and content knowledge to make classes really worth listening. If we expect all educational videos to be produced to a professional standard, then we are heading towards a world in which standardised courses are offered by big publishing houses eg Pearsons. Just like gamification or MOOCs, replacing face-to-face sessions (even lectures, which can be sometimes very enlightening) with watching online videos at home is not a silver bullet that solves all problems in today's education and schooling. Content creation might be done by media professionals, but I prefer to enable teachers to do the task in a professional way The whole trend of these questions lead in a direction totally alien to the educational interactions that most of my fellow (very bright) students are seeking and are already being short changed on. Only highly linear procedural learners will accept this level of disengagement, let alone pay for it From my experience, there does appear to be a strong trend towards independent learning and lower lecture attendance. I think that the dynamics of teacher vs student led educational process is very complex. It is a good thing that technology can help teachers to
24 of 31

 

know what students are learning and are interested in learning. It would be a bad thing if students came to imagine that they could anticipate what teachers are capable of telling them. So whether it's a bad thing that students don't come to lectures depends on the quality of the lecturing. To my mind, there is no substitute for the personal experience of attending lectures by enthusiastic experts and deep thinkers in a discipline, and full appreciation involves more than watching a video - it involves the richer level of personal engagement and incidental observation that enables us to appreciate teachers as people. Likewise, I don't think we can begin to understand students' learning experiences fully without knowing something about them personally as well as academically .  The question about more than half students preferring online lectures is too simplistic. Most students will use a mixture of online and physical attendance for a long time. Whether they prefer to attend physically or not is likely to depend on what is happening in the lecture (how didactic it is), how it fits in with the rest of their timetable etc. Broadband will vary, we will still face the same issues about socio-spatial variations creating access inequalities. As designers we will still need to be mindful of this. Secondly online should be seen as a medium that allows the sharing of content, we might also want to look at how it can be used to support and develop place and practice based competencies. Teachers must raise to technological challenges, one of which is the use of classroom time. This is clearly their responsibility. Student participation is also essential - as essential as teacher participation, no more, no less. Professional quality of learning materials contributes to better learning. The balance between media experts, teaching experts and subject experts (the best researchers are not necessarily the best teachers) is a major challenge. Dealing superficially with difficult, maybe still obscure points of a discipline, is as negative as delivering boring and counterproductive lectures because of lack of media skills. Obviously embracing serious games, moocs and flipped classrooms will drastically change the role and status of teachers, and possibly also their training. While nowadays it seems unlikely that teachers would take a leading role in the development of online lecture (mostly due to time constraints and lack of media skills), this could very well change in the future as a new generation of more technology-oriented teachers emerges.

 

25 of 31

4.4

Seamless Learning

Seamless Learning (Ubiquitous Learning): obliterating borders between different technologies and learning formats such as formal and informal learning or individual and social learning. The aim is to support continuous, fluid learning experiences. Controversial issues evolve around the ownership of learning tools and data generated by learners' activities, or the potentially invasive character of learning technologies to the detriment of a balanced life style.

Will everyday object s become act ive part of our learning / ( inst ruct ional) environment ?

This question wasn’t very well formulated and caused some misunderstandings. Comments pointed out that learning always included ‘everyday objects’. What was meant though falls into the area of ubiquitous computing and developments around devices such as raspberrypi6. The above might be the reason for the relatively flat line concerning the time horizon for this question.

Will learners reduce t heir online act ivit ies?

The judgement here was fairly clear. 64% would consider such a development negative and more than half think that this will never happen.

6

“… a credit-card-sized single-board computer developed in the UK with the intention of promoting the teaching of basic computer science in schools“ (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi) 26 of 31

Figure 16: Time horizon for ‘reducing online activities’

Weak signals:  Almost half of all business responses (45%) see reduced online activities negative, whereas educators and researchers lean towards ‘neutral’ or ‘positive’.

Will pervasive t echnologies accumulat e massive amount s of dat a?

41% think that this will happen rather soon, plus 30% who estimate it will take another 5-10 years. Only 8% think this will never happen. Although comments outline positive aspects of data analysis, the development is generally considered to be negative (47%) versus 15% positive impact ratings.

Figure 17: Impact of massive data collection

27 of 31

Will any dat a be fully owned by learners?

A huge percentage (79%) thinks that this is possible as well as desirable (74%).

Figure 18: Desirability of strong data regulations

Will l earners’ access t o online net work s be monit ored and limit ed if necessary?

More than half respondents would find this an undesirable policy intervention. 62% think limiting access would be feasible. Those who don’t think access can be curbed also see it in a more negative light (see diagram below).

Figure 19: Desirability of possibly limiting access to online networks

The following comments were provided; new concepts or critical remarks are highlighted in bold letters.  Very interesting aspects of ownership/control here - difficult to answer because for some learners being in control of this stuff will be feasible/desirable but others will not want or not have the skills to manage this - so need to be both options in future developments.

28 of 31

Fluid lifelong learning only possible if schools education changes dramatically - from a focus on facts and memory to supporting real learning and the development of learning competencies to take them forward to further study, employment or learning for fun." Rather than to think of f2f and online as two separate worlds, on we live in and one we log in to and sometimes get lost in, let’s instead think of how this unhealthy ontology of "digital dualism" (Floridi) can cease or be transformed into a one and only world with a better and more accessible and customizable information layer. Isn't "learning online" simply "learning", only by use of new human tools? We must think more of design of social processes than of distribution of information in worlds/ places. Free use of Internet should be encouraged as long as one is not abusive. Laws on cyber security should be well implemented 'Digital diet' !!!! I would rather teach people how to manage their time and equip them with the knowledge and tools to make the right decisions for the right reasons than restrict their access - we're trying to produce well-rounded individuals capable of managing their lives. Their lives include these networks and 'distractions' and will continue to do so. Big brother ... controlling parents .... hmmmm, can't see that one being taken up! It is feasible in terms of controlling access to the institutional network but you cannot curb access to personal online usage / networks so I do not see how helpful my answer has been. Australian perspective. Timelines are in doubt. Data privacy will not be implemented adequately in Australia. There are too many commercial interests with an influence over government for this to happen. If data privacy and control could be implemented it would have a positive impact on learners and their willingness to engage with the technology. Desirability of 'diets' depends on whether this is construed as addictive behaviour or necessary to achieve the assessment results to complete. Massive amounts of data as long as they are relevant and can be processed may not be an issue. Everyday objects have always been part of the learning environment - this is a silly question. "Delete at will" - this depends on what they are able to delete. If you fail an exam and are able to delete this from your track record, this may be undesirable (or let's put it differently: different EU school systems deal with this in a different way: some allow, some don't). So: if data collection is formative and excludes high stakes exams, then a definite yes (feasible and desirable). If it includes assessment data of high stakes exams, then it's more complicated. With regard to the first example of T-shirt and cups, we are already seeing the use of technologies such as Raspberry Pi to turn everyday objects into useful tools. As well, the rise of maker spaces and sharing of information to support 3-D printing is another trend that we are seeing. At this point it is difficult to tell if learners will reduce their online activities and whether this is desirable. Although it is possible to track learner data and gather massive amounts of information, I don't see the point. However, we do see the use of tools to support the monitoring of health data (e.g., heart, temperature, etc.). Data collected by learning tools about learners should be owned by the learners themselves, this is the way it is currently understood in our country, - all work created by students belongs to the student. It is the student who decides what is provided to the instructor /
29 of 31

 

IT system for marking. Although it is definitely feasible to restrict access, this is undesirable if the learning activities are legitimate and lawful.    Pay attention not to make "ubiquitous" become a synonym of "obsessive". Formalization helps deep understanding; don't let an excess of informality decrease soundness. All that data could be used for positive purposes (adaptive learning technologies) or negative purposes (social control) - so we need to have policies that aim to prevent the latter occurring. I did not understand the question about students reducing their online activities - if computing becomes ubiquitous, my T-shirt might be also online, kind of. Big data and its valorization through learning analytics are clearly one of the most important (and controversial) trends in learning technology. Learners rarely need to reduce their online learning activities yet, but use of facebook etc could be usefully reduced. The picture that you paint would stop my lifelong learning in its tracks, However it is the path on which universities are going, and will cause alternative institutions to emerge. The risk aversion already apparent in students in course choice and tasks will be reinforced by the retrospective rollup of the surveillance. I cant image myself or my children going anywhere near this sort of institution.,. the rise of individual tutoring by highly expert elders (emeriti etc) will grow, and as most of them are not paid anyway by universities will happen a lot quicker than you think Not sure that I understand what these questions are about! Hard to speculate on what developments will occur in learning. Broadly, I think that everyday objects are part of the learning objects and always have been, which is why I'm uneasy about technology that substitutes a screen for everyday interaction. That said, I have spent progressively more time online / in front of a computer as my career has developed, perhaps at some cost to my personal life. I have some concerns that there are unforeseen social and psychological problems in store for the Facebook and virtual world generation, but I do appreciate that these developments cannot be pigeon-holed as positive or negative wrt enriching experience, potential for embodiment, level of personal communication etc. And though I like the idea that learners should have autonomy and freedom to control their own learning environment etc, and am very concerned about issues of data protection, the whole premise of a teacher-student relation is that students can benefit from teachers' experience and guidance. I think that there will be a very clear cut division of opinion on the desirability of an intense form of technology mediated learning including adaptation to the learner using analytics; I think the division will align itself on economic and demographic lines (put simply; people with an appetite to develop their skills and knowledge and increase their employability and therefore use MOOCs come from countries where the education system cannot readily suit their desire to shift themselves from poor economic positions: as we see with the BRIC countries). The other perspective (that learning is underpinned human relationship, that identity is enormously significant for learning, and some kind of personal relationship with moreknowledgeable others is vital) will become more prominent in other parts of society; i.e.
30 of 31

 

some version of a backlash against digital culture - but it will be a complex and interesting development that does not deny the involvement or possibilities of use of technology."  I have been thinking a lot about pervasive technology and big data, I do not think its about deleting to protect privacy, I think it’s about openness and aggregating to protect identity The meaning of tue question on everyday objets is not clear to me. Aren´t they already a part of our lives, ie of our learning? T-shirts or posters as thinking messages bearers are not new. Learning services are also entitled to use of learning data. Careful regulation and in particular a strong development of learning and teaching ethics in a digital culture are essential. Addiction to social networking is already a problem which needs to be addressed, even if there are signs of the fever subsiding a little bit. However, learning addiction is a rare ailment, and only a social problem in ""anti-cultural"" (eg Taliban) regimes." In order for learners to be able to manage their personal data, they need to be educated regarding the legislative framework and the available tools to manage their digital identity. Assuming this is done, learners will be able to become more independent in the management of their personal data. Nonetheless, risks regarding the misuse of learners' data need ot be addressed and mitigated by their respective institutes or content providers to ensure that learners - who in this case are also consumers - are protected.

5 Next Steps
The next step will be a more comprehensive analysis of the results and disseminating the results through diverse Facebook, LinkedIn or Twitter channels. The data obtained so far provide starting points on issues that are more specific such as ‘gamified assessment’ or ‘media production support’ for teachers / lecturers. Following two examples of how the debate could continue. Gamified assessment: although respondents were in favour of gamification, the connection with assessment was seen as particularly problematic as students might learn to 'game the system' gaining undeserved credit or learning objectives less prone to gamified assessment might be cut short; leafing out ‘reflective and contemplative elements of learning’. Media production support: in this area, a slightly ambivalent position was visible. On one side losing control over parts of designing the educational experience was seen as a risk and on the other side it was suggested that ‘collaborative development as seen for OER’ could be part of the answer. Furthermore, there was a tenor to empower teacher in their competencies of using ICT; as they already have expertise in pedagogy but transferring this expertise into digital settings is easily hampered by non-intuitive interfaces or too restrictive templates. The above examples highlight the potential of the data for a sustained dialogue as concepts move towards implementation and practitioners need answers to their specific questions.

6 Annex: Survey Statements

31 of 31

14.03.13

TEL-Map :: Information about you

TEL-Map
0% 100%

Information about you

Please indicate the occupational sector(s) that reflect your experiences with educational technologies best. Remember that multiple choices are possible (eg you are a researcher in a business or you work for a government agency and also do some teaching after hours).
*
Check any that apply

Government Education Research

Business Other:

In which country do you work? Please use 'Other' for unlisted countries.
*
Choose one of the following answers

Austria

*

Please choose an age group.

Choose one of the following answers

over 70 years

*

Please choose your gender. Female Male

Your email (this is optional, but helpful for our follow-up Delphi round):

www.survey.innovatenow.net/index.php

1/2

14.03.13

TEL-Map :: Gamification

TEL-Map
0% 100%

Gamification

Gamification: uses elements of game design to address traditionally weak spots such as motivation, provision of immediate feedback and rich media involvement. Nonetheless, too many teachers feel threatened by gamified learning and controversies evolve around 'hunting for points as a distraction of learning', neglect of demographic particularities of learners or the lack of gamification strategies.

*

Please rate the following developments in each of two dimensions: 1. time horizon - how long will it before until the statement is true? 2. potential impact - if the statement does become true, will it have positive or negative consequences? Less More than In 5-10 than 10 5 years years years Never

Don't know

Very Very Don't negative Negative Neutral Positive positive know

The majority of courses in formal education will include games (strategies, role plays, 3D simulations etc). Development tools will enable teachers to develop gamified learning, even for very demanding learning scenarios (ethics, creativity, etc). Formal assessment results will change from being exclusively expressed as grades to include some game-like elements such as status scores, game level, etc.

*

Please rate the following policy measures in each of two dimensions: 1. feasability - can technical, organisational or cultural challenges be mastered or not? 2. desirability - is the policy measure goint to have an overall desirable effect or not? Definitely Possibly Possibly Definitely Don't Very Very Don't unfeasible unfeasible feasible feasible know undesirable Undesirable Neutral Desirable desirable know

Educational institutions invest substantially in games and good gamification design. Educational institutions ban gamified learning.

Please add further developments characterising the topic, policy measures or comments - your additions will inform the
www.survey.innovatenow.net/index.php 1/2

14.03.13

TEL-Map :: MOOCs

TEL-Map
0% 100%

MOOCs

Massive Open Online Course (click for more information): MOCCs bring education to thousands of learners for free, e.g a course from Stanford University attracted more than 200.000 non-credit students. meantime several start-ups adopted the concepts.

*

Please rate the following developments in each of two dimensions: 1. time horizon - how long will it before until the statement is true? 2. potential impact - if the statement does become true, will it have positive or negative consequences? Less More than In 5-10 than 10 5 years years years Never

Don't know

Very Very Don't Negative Negative Neutral Positive Positive know

More than half of the courses, currently offered through traditional universities, will be replaced by MOOCs. Almost all university students will have the skills to complete a MOOC (self-regulation, endurance etc). More than half of planned learning activities will follow automated guidance (e.g. using intelligent tutoring systems, recommendation softwarer etc) rather than human tutoring.

*

Please rate the following policy measures in each of two dimensions: 1. feasability - can technical, organisational or cultural challenges be mastered or not? 2. desirability - is the policy measure goint to have an overall desirable effect or not? Definitely Possibly Possibly Definitely Don't Very Very Don't unfeasible unfeasible feasible feasible know undesirable Undesirable Neutral Desirable desirable know

Up to half of the costs for MOOCs is funded by European grants. Students get the same credit for a course taught by their university or a similar MOOC, so long as they pass a recognised formal assessment. MOOCs
www.survey.innovatenow.net/index.php 1/2

14.03.13

MOOCs generate huge amounts of data based on learners' activities. Use of these data are more closely regulated.

TEL-Map :: MOOCs

Please add further developments characterising the topic, policy measures or comments - your additions will inform the follow-up Delphi Round.

Exit and clear survey

Resume later

<< Previous

Next >>

www.survey.innovatenow.net/index.php

2/2

14.03.13

TEL-Map :: Flipped classroom

TEL-Map
0% 100%

Flipped classroom

Flipped classrooms: a term used when lectures are listened to at home and exercises and other more interactive learning forms are undertaken at school or university. This way, online videos and podcasts substitute the lectures and are now homework. Controversial issues evolve around monitoring out-of-class activities and the need for new types of in-class activities.

*

Please rate the following developments in each of two dimensions: 1. time horizon - how long will it before until the statement is true? 2. potential impact - if the statement does become true, will it have positive or negative consequences? Less More than In 5-10 than 10 5 years years years Never

Don't know

Very Very Don't negative Negative Neutral Positive positive know

More than half of university students will prefer to use online lecture materials rather than attending classroom lectures. Students, not teachers, will decide how in-class time is used. Almost all students will have Broadband Internet and Computers to access online videos at home

*

Please rate the following policy measures in each of two dimensions: 1. feasability - can technical, organisational or cultural challenges be mastered or not? 2. desirability - is the policy measure goint to have an overall desirable effect or not? Definitely Possibly Possibly Definitely Don't Very Very Don't unfeasible unfeasible feasible feasible know undesirable Undesirable Neutral Desirable desirable know

Teachers receive professional recognition for innovation, even when it involves taking risks . Online lectures are produced by media professionals, not teachers themselves.

Please add further developments characterising the topic, policy measures or comments - your additions will inform the follow-up Delphi Round.

www.survey.innovatenow.net/index.php

1/2

14.03.13

TEL-Map :: Seamless Learning

TEL-Map
0% 100%

Seamless Learning

Seamless or Ubiquitous Learning: obliterates borders between different technologies or between formal and informal learning activities. The aim is a continuous, fluid learning experiences. Controversial issues evolve around the ownership of tools and data, or the potential threat to a balanced life style.

*

Please rate the following developments in each of two dimensions: 1. time horizon - how long will it before until the statement is true? 2. potential impact - if the statement does become true, will it have positive or negative consequences? Less More than In 5-10 than 10 5 years years years Never

Don't know

Very Very Don't negative Negative Neutral Positive positive know

Everyday objects (Tshirts, cups) will become part of our learning environment. Learners will reduce their online activities. Pervasive technologies will track learners’ every move, accumulating massive amounts of personal data.

*

Please rate the following policy measures in each of two dimensions: 1. feasability - can technical, organisational or cultural challenges be mastered or not? 2. desirability - is the policy measure goint to have an overall desirable effect or not? Definitely Possibly Possibly Definitely Don't Very Very Don't unfeasible unfeasible feasible feasible know undesirable Undesirable Neutral Desirable desirable know

Data collected by ubiquitous learning tools are fully owned by the learners, who can delete their data at will. Learners who show excessive usage patterns of networks are put on a ‘digital diet’ (eg restrict their access)

Please add further developments characterising the topic, policy measures or comments - your additions will inform the follow-up Delphi Round.

www.survey.innovatenow.net/index.php

1/2

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.