Advertisement

Pathways to Enhance Multilevel Learning for Scaling Up Systemic ICT-Enabled Learning Innovations: Lessons from 7 European and Asian Cases

Chapter
Part of the Education Innovation Series book series (EDIN)

Abstract

This chapter presents a meta-study of the implementation strategies of seven cases of ICT-enabled learning innovations (ICT-ELIs), with a particular focus on lessons learnt about their sustainability, scalability and systemic impact. Three of the cases come from Europe (eTwinning, 1:1 Learning and Hellerup School) and four from Asian countries (e-Learning Pilot Scheme in Hong Kong SAR, Knowledge Construction with Technology (CoREF) in Japan, Third Masterplan for ICT in Education (mp3) in Singapore and Digital Textbook project in South Korea). Almost all the analysed cases have either been developed over a period of more than 10 years or have built on system-level initiatives that started years ago. The cases were analysed in terms of the context, scale and nature of the innovation, the intended learning outcomes, the role of technology and the leadership strategies. The synthesis of the case study findings reveals that the core dimensions of an innovation for learning—nature of the innovation, phase of implementation, access level, targeted stakeholders and impact area—interact and are interdependent. The contexts of the innovations are complex, and the starting points and pathways of change and scalability observed are extremely diverse. The observed characteristics are aligned with an ecological model of change and innovation rather than classical models where scaling up would involve the propagation of well-tested prototypes or solutions. Each of the seven ICT-ELIs is a dynamic system comprising hierarchically nested levels of actors and contextual factors, which interact and are hence interdependent. Analysis of the seven cases’ learning outcomes—seen as changes that have taken place over time at individual, school, project and system levels—reveals that alignment of learning across these different levels is critical to the impact and scalability of ICT-ELIs and that this alignment requires the design and implementation of appropriate structures and mechanisms to scaffold learning through horizontal and vertical interactions within and across levels. This model has important implications for policies and strategies for the further development and progressive mainstreaming of ICT-ELIs.

Keywords

Learning Outcome Continuous Professional Development Lesson Study Educational Change Teacher Learning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the other (co-)authors of the seven case reports (appeared in Kampylis et al. 2013) in which this meta-study was based: Stefania Bocconi, Barbara Brečko, Seungyeon Han, Chee-Kit Looi and Naomi Miyake. Thanks also go to the European Commission, Directorate General Education and Culture, for the funding of the SCALE CCR project. Last but not least, we would like to thank the Information Society Unit of JRC-IPTS and the Centre for Information Technology in Education of the Faculty of Education, University of Hong Kong, for their research support.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are purely those of the authors and should not be regarded as the official position of the European Commission.

References

  1. Aceto, S., Borotis, S., Devine, J., & Fischer, T. (2014). Mapping and analysing prospective technologies for learning: Results from a consultation with European stakeholders and roadmaps for policy action. Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union. EUR 26519 EN.Google Scholar
  2. Bocconi, S., Kampylis, P., & Punie, Y. (2013). Innovating teaching and learning practices: Key elements for developing Creative Classrooms in Europe. eLearning Papers, Special edition 2013, 8–20. http://www.openeducationeuropa.eu/sites/default/files/news/SpecialEdition2013.pdf
  3. Christensen, C. M. (2003). The innovator’s dilemma: The revolutionary book that will change the way you do business. New York: Harper Business Essentials.Google Scholar
  4. Clarke, J., & Dede, C. (2009). Design for scalability: A case study of the river city curriculum. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 18(4), 353–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Collins, A., & Halverson, R. (2009). Rethinking education in the age of technology—The digital revolution and schooling in America. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Davis, N. (2008). How may teacher learning be promoted for educational renewal with IT? In J. M. Voogt & G. Knezek (Eds.), International handbook of information technology in primary and secondary education. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2008). Complexity as a theory of education. Transnational Curriculum Inquiry, 5(2), 33–44.Google Scholar
  9. Eisenhardt, K. M., & Graebner, M. E. (2007). Theory building from cases: Opportunities and challenges. Academy of Management Journal, 50(1), 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. (2012). Rethinking education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes [COM(2012) 669 final]. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/rethinking/com669_en.pdf
  11. European Commission. (2013a). Opening up education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new Technologies and Open Educational Resources [COM(2013) 654 final]. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://ec.europa.eu/education/news/doc/openingcom_en.pdf
  12. European Commission. (2013b). Survey of schools: ICT in educationBenchmarking access, use and attitudes to technology in Europe’s schools. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. doi: 10.2759/94499.
  13. Eurydice. (2011). Key data on learning and innovation through ICT at school in Europe 2011. Brussels: Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency.Google Scholar
  14. Hanleybrown, F., Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2012). Channelling change: Making collective impact work. Stanford Social Innovation Review. http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/channeling_change_making_collective_impact_work?cpgn=WP%20DL%20-%20Channeling%20Change
  15. Hargreaves, A. (2003). Teaching in the knowledge society: Education in the age of insecurity. Philadelphia: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hargreaves, A., & Fink, D. (2006). Sustainable leadership. San Francisco: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Holmes, B. (2013). School teachers’ continuous professional development in an online learning community: Lessons from a case study of an eTwinning learning event. European Journal of Education, 48(1), 97–112. doi: 10.1111/ejed.12015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kampylis, P., Bocconi, S., & Punie, Y. (2012). Towards a mapping framework of ICT-enabled innovation for learning. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. EUR 25445 EN.Google Scholar
  19. Kampylis, P., Law, N., Punie, Y., Bocconi, S., Brečko, B., Han, S., Looi, C.-K., & Miyake, N. (2013). ICT-enabled innovation for learning in Europe and Asia: Exploring conditions for sustainability, scalability and impact at system level. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. EUR 26199 EN.Google Scholar
  20. Law, N., Yuen, A., & Fox, R. (2011). Educational innovations beyond technology—Nurturing leadership and establishing learning organizations. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Law, N., Yuen, A. H. K., & Lee, Y. (2013). Sharing on the research study for the pilot scheme on eLearning in schools. Paper presented at the Learning & Teaching Expo 2013, Hong Kong.Google Scholar
  22. Levin, B. (2008). How to change 5000 schools: A practical and positive approach for leading change at every level. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  23. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Oblinger, D. G., & Hawkins, B. L. (2006). The myth about online course development. EDUCAUSE Review, 41(1), 14–15.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. (2013). PISA 2012 results: What students know and can do (Vol. I). Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264201118-en.
  26. OECD/CERI. (2010). Inspired by technology, driven by pedagogy: A systemic approach to technology-based school innovations, educational research and innovation. Paris: OECD Publishing. doi: 10.1787/9789264094437-en.
  27. Paterson, B. L., Thorne, S. E., Canam, C., & Jillings, C. (2001). Meta study of qualitative health research: A practical guide to meta analysis and synthesis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  28. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed., p. 512). New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  29. Shear, L., Gallagher, L., & Patel, D. (2011). ITL research 2011 findings: Evolving educational ecosystems. Redmond: Microsoft.Google Scholar
  30. Sherer, J. Z., & Spillane, J. P. (2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113(3), 611–657.Google Scholar
  31. Stein, M., & Coburn, C. (2008). Architectures for learning: A comparative analysis of two urban school districts. American Journal of Education, 114(4), 583–626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vuorikari, R. (2013). eTwinning School Teams—Case studies on teacher collaboration through eTwinning. Brussels: Central Support Service for eTwinning & European Schoolnet.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of EducationUniversity of Hong KongHong KongChina
  2. 2.European Commission, Joint Research CentreInstitute for Prospective Technological StudiesSevilleSpain

Personalised recommendations