Report On The Eskwela Instructional Model Component

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model
As with the pilot implementation, the customized Instructional Model serves as the heart of the eSkwela 1.0 it is the one that binds all the other components together and provides the unique service character for the centers. This chapter will discuss the details of the model including challenges, lessons learned, and good practices. The atmosphere maintained by the project team was generally of collaboration, review/reflection, and continuous enhancement. A cycle of 1) design (based on reflections on the experiences and recommendations from the pilot implementation), 2) research and study alternatives, 3) practice, monitoring, discussion and feedback, and 4) eventual enhancement of the instructional model was employed. This was done to ensure that the model/framework being used in the Centers indeed make the teaching-learning experience fun, relevant, interactive, and engaging. A big part of the following discussion was presented during the Vietnam Forum on Lifelong Learning in December 2010. 15
eSkwela Instructional Model Effective ICT in Education calls for a pedagogical framework that is fit for the digital age such as the new learning theory by George Siemens called Connectivism16 which is described as Constructivism in a connected environment. It recognizes that learning and knowledge is developed in a non-sequential, iterative process of connecting with a diverse mix of opinions and making decisions by articulating, reflecting on, and evaluating the connections and options one sees in his environment. Focusing on the development and application of life skills, the A&E Program is aligned to this framework through the iterative 4As cycle: 4 As Activity Analysis Abstraction Application definition experience and acquire new knowledge and skills new knowledge and skills are linked to what they already know and can do; reflectively think about how new knowledge and skills can be used forming own meaning / understanding; verbalizing it a way of trying out, or applying what the learners have learned to an actual situation
Table 5 4 As Principle for ALS implementations

15
16
Tan, MD and Domingo, YL. eSkwela: Breaking Old Habits. Presented in the Vietnam Forum on Lifelong Learning . A copy of the slide presentation used for the Forum may be found at URL: http://www.dpu.dk/fileadmin/www.dpu.dk/asemeducationandresearchhubforlifelonglearning/conferences/vietnaml llforum2010/seminara/resources_3868.pdf Accessed: March 2011. Paper published in the Post-Conference/Forum proceedings by UNESCO-Hanoi, the Vietnam Ministry of Education and Training, and the ASEM Education and Research Hub for Lifelong Learning (ASEM-LLL) Hub, pp. 160-179. URL: http://www.dpu.dk/fileadmin/www.dpu.dk/ASEM/publications/VIETNAM_FORUM__LIFELONG_LEARNING_-_BUILDING_A_LEARNING_SOCIETY.pdf Accessed: June 2011 Siemens, G. Connectivism: A Learing Theory for the Digital Age. elearnspace website, December 2004. URL: www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism.htm Accessed: May 2007.
At the heart of eSkwela is its instructional model that sought to combine the good things about the A&E Program and the possibilities that ICT offers to enrich a blended learning experience. It was meant to challenge the educational system to break hold of its traditional paradigm and to explore ways by which ICT can enhance the teaching-learning process. The A&E Program, advocating an alternative learning approach, provided that opportunity primarily because of its flexible nature, individualized learning, and focus on life skills. Essentially, the eSkwela Instructional Model was designed as a concrete application of ICT integration in education, customized for the Alternative Learning System of the Department of Education. Through the use of the localized and interactive e-learning module packages (i.e. module guides and corresponding e-modules), the learners, who come from diverse social and economic backgrounds, could gain the core competencies needed to be functionally literate, as required by the A&E Program. In support of a blended learning environment, the teachers are motivated to wean away from traditional chalk-and-talk/lecture-based methodologies and more confidently take on the more crucial role of a facilitator of the learning process by providing topic clarifications, thinking questions, relevant analogies, authentic real-life applications, and problem-based projects in addition to lesson guidance and direction, based on the learners individual learning plans. The various software applications, the Internet, and the customized Learning Management System are then used by the teachers to assign learners a wide range of ICTbased supplementary materials and activities to work on, such as online tests, blogs, discussion forums, digital simulations, videoconferencing, emails, spreadsheets and graphs, multimedia presentations, digital graphics, etc. As such, instead of having limited and passive sources of information (such as the print modules, radio, TV, and old library references) and resources (such as costly pen-and-paper materials, clear books, notebooks, paint, etc.), learners are expected to use the computers extensively to create and maintain their respective electronic/digital learner portfolios. They are likewise empowered to further their own education as well as explore a much bigger reality than they are accustomed to. Learners do not have to be ICT-literate when they apply for a slot at any eSkwela Center self-discipline and commitment to learning are deemed more crucial. To ensure basic computer skills, the learning facilitators or other community volunteers provide short training courses on the use of the mouse, keyboard, and basic browsing techniques just to get the learners comfortable with the technology. They then get to explore and gain other computer skills such as file management and productivity tools as they go through the different eSkwela modules. Learners have the option to take the A&E Test which, if they pass, would provide them with a Certificate equivalent to an Elementary or High School Diploma.
27
Version 1: Pilot Implementation The original eSkwela instructional model presented during its pilot run in 2006-2007 (shown as Figure 7 below) enhanced the print module delivery mode of the A&E Program by incorporating the use of ICTs in the various points of the learners engagement. Ideally, ICT was used as early as the Learner Entry phase using databases, automated tests, and forms for the learner application; conduct and grading of the Functional Literacy Test (FLT); and production and recording of the Individual Learning Agreement (ILA). The model primarily used the Learning Management System (ATutor at that time) to facilitate the learning processes and interactions among the center coordinator, the online learning facilitator, the learner, and the expert/mentor (optional). The LMS was designed to be the main point of contact for all the users to access the module guides, e-learning modules, communication and collaboration tools, automated tests, and learner profiles, portfolios, and academic records. An online A&E test automated self-generating randomized multi-item exam system was likewise planned as a future development.
Facilitation of Learning
Homeroom Moderator (coordinator) and a Network of Mobile Teachers / Instructional Managers / Tutors
Learner Entry: Application Diagnostic Test & Interview Personal Objectives Placement + Learning Plan/ Agreement
Learning Management System Module Guides o Learning Objectives o E-Learning modules o Activities Enrichment Tools for Communication, Interaction, Collaboration
Authentic Learning shown via Learner Work / Portfolio = demonstration / application of life skills; UserGenerated Content (ICT or non-ICT based)
Learner
Learner
Regular Assessment / Evaluation self, peer, IM/Tutor, Mentor/Expert qualitative means
Network of Online or Community Mentors and Experts (for authentic learning) A LEARNING COMMUNITY VIA INTERNET & INTRANET
Optional Readin ess/Mo ck Test A&E
Optional
Livelih ood Track
Exam
Figure 7 eSkwela Instructional Model v. 1
It was characterized by a blended type of learner-centered instruction consisting of three elements: computer-aided learning via interactive e-learning modules (note: no module guides yet), teacher-facilitated instruction & learning as aligned with the pace and need of the learner, and collaborative group activities and projects. The learning environment to be maintained was meant to promote literacies for the Digital Age (i.e. 21st Century Skills), lifelong learning, and appropriate and relevant use of ICT that enhance learning.
28
Through this model, learning facilitators would find that ICT affords them and learners alike more freedom and flexibility to adopt such an approach while aligning to the individualized learning plans of learners something that field ALS implementers have found it difficult to implement with the conventional print-based modules and session set-up. 1.1 Problem Scenario Keeping this in mind, the eSkwela Project Team designed and conducted the Teahcer Training Course on the eSkwela Instructional Model that emphasized these ideals. However, through follow-up monitoring activities, it was observed that in the early years of pilot implementation, the trained learning facilitators found it difficult to apply the eSkwela Instructional Model. It was found that the eSkwela Instructional Model was not being efficiently and effectively implemented within the four pilot sites that is, there was a strong tendency to go back to the conventional teaching/learning methods used, the ICT tools were not optimized, application of problem/project-based learning approach was not prioritized. As such, the team analyzed the situation back in late 2007/early 2008, specifically looking into the following concerns: How can the team improve the use of the eSkwela ICT-enhanced Instructional Model i.e. seamless blend of the e-learning modules, teacher facilitation, and LMS, in the context of a project/problem-based approach? What are the specific activities that need to be done to further enhance teacher competencies in the use of the eSkwela Instructional Model? What performance indicators should be used to measure these competencies? What performance indicators (outputs and outcomes) should be used to monitor and evaluate the use of the eSkwela Instructional Model?
1.2
Lessons Learned: Problem Analysis vis--vis Capability Building among Learning Facilitators Focusing on these questions, the team set out to analyze the root of the problem and figure out possible solutions to make the model work. When this mini-study was conducted, the project was still in its pilot stage the centers had been operating for barely eight (8) months. As such, since the learning facilitators were so used to the conventional/ traditional ways of teaching (i.e. teachercentered, same-paced sequential learning, traditional assessment methods), they were still adjusting to the new instructional model which called for a paradigm shift in the way they did things. It required a shift from the traditional learning model to a lifelong learning model in order to accommodate a Connectivist approach to learning. One major mistake that the team made was to assume that a short 5-day training course would equip the new recruits with the knowledge, skills, and attitude to implement the instructional model on their own and without additional guidance. Thus, a major realization that had to be factored in was that such a shift does not happen overnight. It definitely requires time, conscious effort, commitment, and persistence on the part of the learning facilitators to break old habits and in the process, welcome exploration and experimentation for the eSkwela Instructional
29
Model to flourish. There was a clear need to consider the maturity model17, as shown in Table 6 that looks at ones ICT competencies and corresponding comfort levels as contributing factors to the extent of ICT application in his work. As with new recruits, regular monitoring, handholding, follow-through assistance, and scaffolding in the form of guidelines and models are necessary to help them in breaking old habits to form new ones, so to speak.
Table 6 Maturity Model on ICT use in the Classroom 17
Through the fishbone analysis shown on Figure 8, the team was able to pinpoint several factors that contributed to the problem, namely: 1. a lukewarm level of acceptance of the instructional model because despite being novel, the model was overwhelming and presented a burdensome shift from the way things were being done an extreme case of resistance was having the learning facilitator require all the learners to navigate and view each screen of an elearning module synchronously, as if they were going through each page of a print module, without acknowledging the learners respective needs and pace low teacher competency levels on the ICT-based instructional model upon review, it was determined that the design of the original training workshop was a mix-and-match of discussions and hands-on activities on ICT in education, office productivity tools, and ATutor committing the common mistakes of focusing too heavily on the software applications rather than on pedagogical strategies as well as neglecting the ICT competency-and-use maturity model explained below minimal implementation of resource-cum-project-based approach the team realized the need to re-orient the learning facilitators on resource-based and project-based learning to capitalize on the A&E Programs focus on life skills as well as the potentials of using ICT to link learners to community activities and projects
2.
3.
17
Adapted from Padongchart, S. A Curriculum Framework for Integrating ICT and Pedagogy in Teacher Education. National Training Programme for Teacher Educators on ICT-Pedagogy Integration Training Manual, June 2006. UNESCO-Bangkok. 30
Lukewarm Level of Acceptance of Instl Model Burdensome, overlaps with other assignments Inadequate Incentive Package
Low Teacher Comptency Levels on ICTbased Instructional Model Inadequate Teacher Training National ICT Competency Standard for Teachers awaiting adoption Lack of Teacher Training Phases/Stages Lack of Systematic Followthrough Performance Monitoring Mechanism
ICT tools provided still lacking/problematic Pilot implementation (proof of concept)
PROBLEM: eSkwela Instructional Model is not being efficiently and effectively implemented i.e. there is a tendency to go back to the conventional teaching/learning methods used, the ICT tools are not maximized, application of problem/project-based learning approach is not prioritized
Lack of Inventory of Possible/ Sample Community-based Problems/ Projects Lack of Centralized Think Tank & Repository Lack of Teacher Training & Personal Experience on PBL Lack of Effective Monitoring Mechanism Minimal Implementation of Resourcecum-Project -based Approach
Lack of Documentation on Site Operations, Weak Monitoring Mismatch of Existing Session Guides Pilot Implementation
Lack of Existing Models
Figure 8 Fishbone Analysis on the Implementation Problem of the eSkwela Instructional Model v. 1
31
4.
lack of existing models to pattern after although the potential benefits of ICT in education had been widely discussed, the model was still fairly new to the learning facilitators who need concrete experiences to observe and outputs to scaffold on, thus adhering to the 4As approach of ALS
Below was the SWOT Analysis done on the pilot run of the project, from which possible solutions were derived: Strengths Weaknesses Government Support on the e- Project was still in its infancy many Learning Project (funding) birth pains experienced, no hard rules, lack of best practices documented 4 operational sites Stable Accreditaion and Equivalency Site implementers were still learning the ropes, resistant to change, Program of DepEd-BALS inadequate experience/weak Dedicated project team background on ICT integration in education Lack of internal e-learning expertise A&E e-learning modules for the project were still few Existing learning management system (ATutor LMS) lacked features Opportunities Threats Wide array of potential community Possible changes in ALS curricular directive, loss of champion partners and volunteers o Presence of manpower and Loss of funding source, withdrawal of teaching expertise from various sponsors sectors (e.g. SUCs, NGOs, etc.) Changes in technology who can provide guidance in the Political vs. Program loyalties and field of education affiliations o Geographic location of potential partners in the target localities of implementation; with existing ICT facilities and/or training programs Availability of online materials to support existing ALS materials Potential national and LGU champions
Table 7 eSkwela SWOT Analysis circa September 2007
1.3
Recommended Solutions Based on the fishbone diagram and the SWOT Analysis, an array of possible solutions was posed, including but not limited to the following: 1. Establish a group of learning facilitators to focus on the review and enhancement of the eSkwela Instructional Model by sharing implementation experiences and exploring possible scaffolding resources and mechanisms
32
2.
3.
4.
5.
Design, develop, and conduct a ladderized/phased Continuing Teacher Training & Enhancement Program (CTTEP) using a blended learning approach (face-to-face and online), including but not limited to: o Stage 1: ICT Literacy (Introduction to ICT in Education and eSkwela, Productivity Tools) o Stage 2: Workshop on ICT-enhanced Resource-cum-Project-based Learning, Performance/Portfolio-based Assessment o Stage 3: Optimizing the Use of the Internet and the Learning Management System towards a Self-paced, Blended Learning Approach o Stage 4: A Look into Distance Education for ALS o Stage 5: Training Workshop on Conducting Effective eSkwela Sessions Provide additional incentives to pilot implementation teachers to get out of their comfort zones (e.g. laptops, awards, additional trainings and short courses including knowledge exchange conferences, field visits, etc.) Develop and conduct a systematic Performance Monitoring Mechanism for the Continuing Teacher Training & Enhancement Program o Tap experts to monitor, guide, observe, and mentor site teachers in the implementation of the eSkwela Instructional Model Establish a centralized think tank to work on the following: o Convert the existing A&E Program Session Guides from conventional delivery to an ICT-enhanced delivery mode o Gather, review, and provide resources to serve as training materials (focusing on implementation modeling) o Lead in the development of the next set of e-learning materials and the seamless integration with the LMS for the learners
Version 2: eSkwela Instructional Model v.2 In order to enhance the effectiveness and utilization of the customized eSkwela Instructional Model, the following actions were taken: 1. It was determined that there was a clear need to further improve the instructional model being utilized. This was done by providing a richer array of appropriate ICT tools/resources as well as more guidance, modeling, and handholding through an enhanced teacher training and monitoring program. Guided by an ICT in Education expert consultant, Prof. Patricia Arinto of the UP Open University, the eSkwela Instructional Model was reviewed and enhanced. The diagram below was the product of a series of discussions from 2008 to 2009 on the core features of eSkwela. The model continues to promote a blended ICT-enhanced instructional model that uses a contextualized resource-cumproject-based learning approach. Further, this revised model clearly puts the learner in the center of the learning process. The learner, armed with an Individual Learning Agreement
33
(ILA), uses the Moodle-based Learning Management System (LMS) to access elearning module packages. An e-Learning module package is composed of an e-
Figure 9 eSkwela Instructional Model v. 2
Learning module (eModule) and its corresponding module guide. Both are necessary supports for learners to achieve their learning goals while ensuring that the learning process continues to be flexible and self-paced. 1.1. The eModules serve as the main resource material used by the learners. It contains the necessary concepts and information about the modules, as well as activities i.e. exercises and games that help learners understand and comprehend the concepts and information being taken up. In order to assist the learners go through the eModules, module guides that are rooted on sound pedagogies and support ICT-supported project-based learning were developed and peer reviewed. More on the eModules in the next chapter.
Figure 10 Screenshots of sample eSkwela e-learning modules
34
1.2.
In order to assist the learners go through the e-learning modules through the use of the eSkwela Learning Management System, module guides that are rooted on sound pedagogies that support ICT-supported project-based learning were developed. These module guides ideally provide structure to the learning process while also allowing for flexibility and self-paced learning. The nodule guide is the way by which the eSkwela instructional model is concretely applied. Module guides provide the learner instructions that guide him in interacting with his learning facilitator; accessing/using the customized, localized, and simplified interactive and multimedia e-learning modules; communicating and collaborating with other learners; tapping online mentors/experts, the community-at-large, and other resources; and working on his module project. It is made up of components where activities and learning go along. Looking at the sample module guide shown on the next page, there are parts where learners study the e-learning modules and other electronic resources, where they answer tests and other assessment tools in the module, where they interact with their learning facilitators, online tutors/experts and fellow learners, and also a part where they work on projects as a way to apply what they have learned in the module.
A learners typical eSkwela session could go this way: 1. He logs on to his account on the eSkwela Learning Management System (LMS) and accesses an assigned module to him, based on the results of his Functional Literacy Test (FLT), interview, and agreed upon Individual Learning Agreement (ILA). For this session, he is to take the Participate in Elections module. He views three or four infomercials of the 2010 Presidentiables through YouTube links provided by the learning facilitator. He is asked to write his thoughts on the infomercials through a pre-module blog. He is then directed to load the e-learning module entitled My Vote My Right to take a pre-test and then proceeds to learn about the importance of elections, his rights and responsibilities as a voter, and the Philippine electoral process. He goes to the Internet to learn more about the candidates and the automated elections that will be implemented in 2010. Through the LMS or the e-module itself, he takes the automated quiz or game to assess his level of understanding of the module. He proceeds to post his thoughts and questions on the different threads in the modules discussion forum. Topics could range from the platforms of the local candidates / presidentiables to his views on the automated elections. Since it is online, his forum entries could be responded to by another learner from his home center or from another part of the country. For his module project, he uses his cellphone to record interviews and actual footages on the communitys local efforts to motivate people to register and safeguard the elections in 2010. Feeling excited, he also to use a word processor to write a song on his right to vote and then use his cellphone to record it. He shows his outputs to the learning facilitator as well as the public via YouTube or Facebook. He ends his module with a post-module journal entry about the module via his LMS blog.
2. 3. 4.
5. 6. 7.
8.
9.
35
Figure 11 Sample Module Guide
36
The LMS allows the learner to use appropriate tools like internet sites, forums, blogs, wikis, mobile phones, digital cameras, various software applications, and other materials to share his thoughts and produce relevant outputs or projects for his learner portfolio. Developed by a think tank of thirty-one (31) highly recommended A&E field implementers (i.e. trainers, district ALS Coordinators, mobile teachers) trained on eSkwela and designated by DepEd-BALS, these module guides provide structure to the learning process while also allowing for flexibility and self-paced learning. Learning facilitators will have a choice of using these model module guides for their learners or opt to customize these or create their own, adhering to the guidelines and standards set by the model module guides. The module guide developers and reviewers went through a series of training workshops and intermediate internalization periods to educate them on the principles behind the instructional model. They underwent rigid discussions and workshops on the development of these module guides. These likewise equipped them with the skills in designing module guides using the different features in the Moodle system, guided by a combination of the Resource-Based Learning (RBL) and Project-Based Learning (PBL) approaches. The developers went through four (4) Module Guide Development and Review (MGDR) workshops, as follows: # of module guides developed MGDR 1 February 2009 35 MGDR 2 April 2009 57 MGDR 3 July 19-22, 2010 86 MGDR 4 Feb 1-4, 2011 79 Balance (take-home) 25 Total 282* * 2 print modules were collapsed into one e-module
Table 8 MGDR Schedule of Workshops and Outputs
Title
When
During the first MGDR, the participants were taught how to make a module guide, use the learning management system, and manipulate software applications that can be used in making a project. The succeeding workshops began with a review of concepts and principles to guide them internalize the
37
customized instructional model further as they wrote the guides for the rest of the eModules. Their module guides were likewise subjected to assessment/critiquing by their MGDR peers and editing by three expert educators. The eModule packages have been uploaded in the eSkwela Moodle-based Learning and Content Management System (LCMS) that serves as the virtual classroom in an eSkwela center. The Moodle-based LCMS was deemed to be more organized, more appropriate, and simpler to use compared to ATutor. The available tools for resources and activities were found to be easier to manipulate. Further, the LMS navigation was found to be easy to learn, both for the learning facilitators and the learners. The initial target was to make the entire system available online so that the LFs and learners from the different centers can communicate and collaborate online. However, due to bandwidth issues (costs, slow/ no connection) in the centers, the system is housed in the centers main server and can be accessed through the centers Local Area Network. Use of the Internet, although highly encouraged, is currently minimized to not-so-often online chat sessions, ALSeSkwela ning and eSkwela FB page forum threads and posts. Media elements (e.g. youtube videos, podcasts) have been recently embedded into the module guides to do away with irritatingly slow download times that frustrate learners. A copy of the entire system, saved in the eSkwela server and backed up in the external hard drive, is submitted along with this report. 2. The overall eSkwela training design for learning facilitators was likewise overhauled. 2.1. A customized Training Needs Analysis (TNA) instrument had been designed and is being administered to potential learning facilitators. The TNA looks at four competency domains technological, social and ethical, pedagogical, and professional as indicated in the National ICT Competency Standards for Teachers developed by CICT. A special group, composed of eSkwela seasoned learning facilitators and ICT/education teachers from partner SUCs, was formed to conceptualize, design, and pilot the eSkwela TNA instrument back in in September 22-24, 2008 (TNA workshop); December 3-5, 2008 (pilot-test in Cebu and Roces). It
2.2.
38
was decided that the instrument should be a self-assessment tool and designed for a 5-to-10 minute administration since it would be more cost-effective, more manageable, and less arduous on both the respondents and the data collators. The first version of the TNA (shown as Attachment E-1) was an attempt for the respondent to indicate his level of competency in each item. However, when it was subjected to the pilot run for a quick-and-dirty reliability and validity test, it was found that the respondents tended to lie about their levels of ICT competency and utilization, mostly either because they did not really read the items or they wanted to look good to others. Since face-to-face validation of the TNA self-assessment results was deemed too tedious and costly, it was decided that the TNA instrument should be redesigned. The group decided to focus on the technical know-how of the participants vis--vis the teaching strategies they commonly used since the training workshop would focus on technical skills anyway and how these may be used to enrich the learners eSkwela experience. Shown as Attachment E-2, the TNA showed a checklist of appropriate (ICT) tools will help educators in designing a technology-infused curriculum. Analysis on ones level of competency was based on the combination of tools the LF knew and/or used. Further, this was validated through observation and their performance in the actual workshop and during the eSkwela sessions. 2.3. It was a conscious decision to form and train a core of national trainers among the module guide developers to handle the eSkwela trainings. This was a major difference with the pilot implementation when the CICT team served as the trainers. For eSkwela 1.0, the CICT team still accompanied the training teams but only played support to this core of national trainers. It was meant to ensure that DepEd-BALS would have the necessary pool of confident, knowledgeable, and competent trainers once it takes over eSkwela operations. Fourteen (14) members, most of whom had already experienced handling eSkwela sessions, were handpicked from the MGDR group to serve as the eSkwela National Trainers for Learning Facilitators (LFs). The project team made sure that there is a set of at least three (3) trainers for each of the three island groups. To ensure design ownership, this set of trainers underwent the Training of Trainers (ToT) Workshop in June 2009 to collaboratively discuss, finalize, review, and design the enhanced version of the eSkwela Training Workshop for Learning Facilitators and the new course Enhancement Training Workshop for Learning Facilitators together with the eSkwela IM unit and expert ICT4E consultant.
39
The main outputs during the ToT were the Trainers Guide and Trainees Manual that provided an introduction to the training workshop, instructions per workshop module, presentation files/materials, activities, evaluation/feedback forms, a checklist of training management requirements. The trainers, on the other hand, appreciated this practice of involving them in the design of the training workshops. Armed with these manuals, the trainers were tapped to conduct the rollout of the eSkwela Training Program nationwide. The LF Trainers focused on training new eSkwela learning facilitators the proper use of the e-module packages & the LMS in the teaching-learning process. It was found that training participants preferred this strategy since the trainings are more rooted on actual/ concrete field experiences and practices. The participants were more receptive to the trainers who shared insights and reflections on their own ALS experiences. More on this in the section on LF training. It is worthy to note that another set of trainers, designated by the Regional ALS units, trained the eSkwela network administrators on technical set-up and maintenance of eSkwela infrastructure and systems in the centers. This is discussed in Chapter 6 under Technical Support. No field trainers were trained for Center Management since the topic was not deemed to be within the expertise of the field ALS implementers. The trainers for this particular training was outsourced to the telecenter.org Philippine Community eCenter Academy (tPCA18) and the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) which had an existing course for Community eCenter Managers. The eSkwela run of the Center Management Training was a short introductory workshop on this course. More on this in Chapter 5. It would have been logical to tap the trainers, especially those assigned in the regions, to assist in the monitoring and evaluation (M&E) activities to ensure the proper implementation of the project, specifically in the utilization of the eSkwela instructional model and the sustainability of the centers. This, however, was not done due to budgetary and scheduling constraints.
18
More information on tPCA on this link: http://www.philcecnet.ph/content/view/162/71/ Accessed: March 2011
40
2.4.
In view of the competency maturity model on the use of ICT in Education, the trainings for eSkwela Learning Facilitators had been cut up into several phases, namely:
Figure 12 Training Phases for eSkwela Learning Facilitators
Phase 1: ICT Literacy and Responsible Use of ICT This is done through the local partner community. There are also training designs e-learning modules developed by eSkwela 1.0 for seven (7) Computer and Internet Literacy e-learning modules that may be used as reference materials for would-be learning facilitators who are new ICT users.
Phase 2: eSkwela Instructional Model This workshop trains the participants on the appropriate use of pedagogical strategies and practices to optimize the ICT tools and resources offered by eSkwela (eModule packages, LMS) and the World Wide Web. Participants should be regular ICT users (i.e. uses the Internet and productivity tools regularly) and A&E Program implementers trained under the DepEd-BALS training program. The participants should satisfy the following selection criteria:
41
1. 2. 3.
should be regular computer users (not just know about computers) should have basic ALS training should have already handled a learning session
The participants are likewise trained on how to manipulate the LMS to enhance existing module guides or develop their own module guides in order to further customize these to specific learning needs and contexts. The training design is shown as Table 9. It is highly encouraged to subject the participants to a site visit or immersion during the training workshop. This will allow them to put into context and simulate whatever they learned during the workshop. They can likewise interact with the implementers and learners to get feedback and insights on eSkwela operations and community support. This is not a regular part of the training design since not all the workshop venues have nearby eSkwela Centers. As such, to give the new learning facilitators ideas on what to expect in eSkwela., the project team came up with a number of video-recorded learning sessions, along with focus group discussions and testimonials of learning facilitators, learners, and other community stakeholders that have been made available online through the alseskwela ning site.
42
In addition, the participants are given training manuals that they can bring home and review in the future. Further, a number of instructional videos were developed by the project team in order to assist the trainees in reviewing how to use the LMS and module guides when they go back to their respective centers. These videos form part of the CDs distributed to the individual centers after the training workshop. As a final activity, the training participants are required to register on the alseskwela ning site, and to the LF group in particular. They are encouraged to visit the site regularly to read, post a blog or to a forum thread, upload relevant pictures, and others. It is hoped that through this official social networking site, the learning facilitators will form a community of practice and learn from one another. There are currently 136 members in the LF group, with less than 5% of them actively participating. Obviously, the habit of online social networking for official purposes is not yet ingrained among the learning facilitators. More on this in the section on Challenges. Phase 3: Enhancement Training This workshop aims to reinforce key concepts, principles, and skills for the effective implementation of the eSkwela Instructional Model in particular those related to designing project-based and resource-based learning, authentic assessment, and facilitating communication and collaboration. As such, participants should be eSkwela implementers who have previously undergone and actually practiced Training Phase 2. The training focuses on how the ICT-supported project-based learning approach can be implemented in an alternative learning system/environment. It builds on the existing knowledge and skills of implementers learned during the eSkwela Instructional Model Training for LFs (Phase 2) and from actual field implementation of the instructional model. In this training, LFs are introduced to software applications and common tools that can be used in creating ICT-supported projects. The LFs are also taught how to design and assess learner projects focusing mainly on the life skills and learning benefits of ICTsupported Project-Based Learning (PBL) rather than on expertise on
43
the software application. They are also challenged to come up with a project that integrates a number of modules for example, a project on Recycling can combine language use/communication skills, problem solving/analytical thinking, and global awareness. Available software applications are going to be used for the following: Following the principles of PBL, the participants apply the concepts and principles they learned in each session to mini projects that require the use of particular software applications (limited to making slide presentations, desktop publishing, audio production, and video production). The learning facilitators can gauge how long it takes for and the requirements needed by a learner or a group of learners to work on a project. But more importantly, the training workshop shows the learning facilitators that learners can work on ICT-supported projects to make learning more fun, grounded, and relevant. In addition, it shows them that creativity, when encouraged and nurtured, opens up new ideas and possibilities for learner outputs. It is further emphasized during this training that the learners do not have to invest on hightech gadgets but can actually use common ICT gadgets (mobile phones, digital cameras, PC headphones with microphones) and open source applications for their projects. Sample outputs by the learning facilitators may be viewed through the Projects tab of the eSkwela ICT Camp ning site (http://eskwelaictcamp.ning.co m/page/lf-projects). Similar to the training on the eSkwela Instructional Model, the core group of trainers was involved in finalizing the design and strategies in facilitating each session. Phase 4: Distance Education for ALS The implementation of this training phase has been postponed to the succeeding phases of eSkwela. It might be good to note that the project team had previously recommended to DepEd-BALS to subject a select group of ready eSkwela implementers to the eLearning
44
Development and Implementation (eLDI) course of InWEnt and the UP Open University.19 Note that there are a few eSkwela learning facilitators who have explored and experimented on this mode Angelyn Malabanan of Quezon City and Georly Dabalos of Davao City thus linking them with learners from other cities or even abroad (OFWs) who are determined to undergo ALS via distance learning through emails and text-based/webcam chat sessions. The two LFs are using print modules instead of the e-learning modules since there is no policy yet on distributing e-learning modules outside the center premises. The period in between the face-to-face training intervention phases is meant for implementers to practice what they learned in their respective centers and for mentors and trainers to conduct handholding activities through either online or offline modes. It is in this light that trainers and trained learning facilitators are required to become members of the eSkwela social networking sites on ning (http://alseskwela.ning.com) and Facebook (group: the eSkwela Project). The project team, trainers/mentors, and implementers are likewise encouraged to exchange mobile phone numbers to allow a healthy exchange of SMS regarding eSkwela matters major or mundane, as the case may be. It is through these means that online/offline communities of learning, practice, and sharing is encouraged. eSkwela 1.0 advocates a strong support system that includes actual felt availability of people to talk to about concerns, common challenges, and good practices.
19
eLDI-Asia, an approx. 250-hour blended course, is now being offered through the German International Cooperation Program, in cooperation with the UP Open University (UPOU) and the Asian eLearning Network (AselNet). More on the program on this link: http://www.upou.edu.ph/downloads/2011/eldi2011JG1courseannouncement.pdf Accessed: June 2011.
45
Day 1
Time 8:00 8:30 AM 8:30 9:00 AM 9:00 10:00 AM
10:00 10:20 AM 10:20 12:00 NN
12.00 1.00 PM 1:00 2:00 PM
2:00 3:20 PM
3:20 3:40 PM 3:40 4:20 PM
4:20 5:00 PM
8:30 9:20 AM 9:20 10:20 AM 10:20 10:40 AM 10:40 12:00 NN
Topic Greetings and Updates Discussion of Workshop Rationale, Objectives, and Activities Session 1: Review of eSkwela Instructional Model Concepts and Principles ICTs in 21st Century Education eSkwela vis-a-vis ALS A&E eSkwela Instructional Model o Model components: the eLearning modules, ICT resources and tools o Learning principles: resource-based, project-based, and blended learning o Roles of learning facilitators o Roles of support team: Center Manager, Network Administrator, Stakeholders Break Workshop 1: Planning for Session 1 with learning facilitators What aspects of Session 1 will be difficult to do with learning facilitators? Why? How can these potential difficulties and challenges be addressed? What resources are needed? What training strategies can be implemented? Lunch Break Session 2: Introducing the eLearning Modules How do the e-learning modules (e-modules) differ from the print modules? How should learners and learning facilitators use the e-modules? Workshop 2: Planning for Session 2 with learning facilitators (Issues and Challenges, Strategies and Resources) Break Session 3: Introducing the Online Classroom (LMS) and the Module Guide What is an online classroom? How different is it from the traditional classroom? What is a module guide? What are its components? Workshop 3: Planning for Session 3 with learning facilitators (Issues and Challenges, Strategies and Resources) Continuation of Workshop 3 Session 4: Facilitating/Moderating Online Discussions Break Workshop 4: Planning for Session 4 with learning facilitators (Issues and Challenges, Strategies and Resources)
46
Day
Time 12:00 1:00 PM 1:00 2:30 PM
Topic Lunch Session 5: Implementing Project-Based Learning Helping learners do the module project Assessing learners projects using the scoring guide Workshop 5: Planning for Session 5 with learning facilitators (Issues and Challenges, Strategies and Resources) Break Session 6: Comprehensive Review of Moodle Features Continuation of Session 6: Focus on learner enrolment and tracking learners progress Workshop 6: Planning for Session 6 with learning facilitators (Issues and Challenges, Strategies and Resources) Break Continuation of Workshop 6 Lunch Break Site Visit to an eSkwela Center Workshop 7: Refinement of Training Plan for Learning Facilitators Break Workshop 8: Planning and Monitoring the Pilot Implementation of e-Learning Modules and Module Guides Lunch Break Continuation of Workshop 8 Admin Matters, Closing and Evaluation (NOTE: if an operational eSkwela site is accessible to the venue, a site visit is highly encouraged) Snacks and Farewells
2:30 3:30 PM
3:30 3:50 pm 3:50 5:00 PM 8:30 9:30 AM 9:30 10:30 AM
10:30 10:50 AM 10:50 12:00 NN 12:00 NN 1:00 PM 1:00 5:00 PM 8:30 10:10 AM 10:10 10:30 AM 10:40 AM 12:00 NN
12:00 1:00 PM 1:00 3:00 PM 3:00 4:00
4:00 PM
Table 9 LF Training Workshop Design (Phase 2)
47
Day Day 1
Time 8:00-8:30 AM 8:30-9:00 AM 9:00-9:30 AM 9:30-10:15 AM 10:15-10:35 AM 10:35-12:00 AM 12:00 NN - 1:00 PM 1:00-1:30 PM 1:30-3:30 PM 3:30-3:50 PM 3:50-4:50 PM 4:50-5:50 8:00-10:00 AM 10:00-10:20 AM 10:20-11:20 NN 11:20-12:20 PM 12:20-1:20 PM 1:20-3:40 PM 3:40-4:00 PM 4:00-4:40 PM 4:40-5:40 PM 8:00-10:00 AM 10:00-10:20 AM 10:20 AM - 11:20 AM 11:20-12:20 PM 12:20-1:20 PM 1:20-3:20 PM
Day 2
Day 3
3:20-3:40 PM 3:20-5:00 PM Day 4 8:00-10:00 AM 10:00-10:20 AM 10:20 AM - 12:20 PM 12:20-1:20 PM 1:20-3:00 PM 3:00-3:30 PM 3:30-4:00 PM
Session/Topic Getting to Know You Expectations Sharing Workshop Overview Session 1. Revisiting the eSkwela Instructional Model Break Session 2. Creativity Workshop Lunch Session 3. ICT-Supported Project-Based Learning Software Training A1: Slide Presentation Software Training B1: Desktop Publishing Break Software Training A1 and B1 continued Assessment of Software Training A1 and B1 Outputs Software Training A2 and B2 Break Software Training A2 and B2 continued Assessment of Software Training A2 and B2 Outputs Lunch Software Training C1: Video Production Software Training D1: Audio Production Break Software Training C1 and D1 continued Assessment of Software Training C1 and D1 Outputs Software Training C2 and D2 Break Software Training C2 and D2 continued Assessment of Software Training C2 and D2 Outputs Lunch Session 4. Designing Integrative Projects (Part 1) Setting learning objectives Specifying the task and media for project outputs Break Session 5. Designing Integrative Projects (Part 2) Selecting resources (information literacy) Session 5 continued Break Session 6. Authentic Assessment (Using Checklists and Rubrics) Lunch Session 7. Online Communication and Collaboration: Tools and Principles Wrap-up Closing
Table 10 LF Enhancement Training Workshop Design (Phase 3)
48
3.
The eSkwela ICT Camp was revived. The eSkwela ICT Camp intends to promote the effective use of ICTs in teaching and learning through projectbased learning and the development of User-Generated Content (UGC). It is similar to the Enhancement Training Workshop for Learning Facilitators except that the Camp prioritizes on the teamwork among the learner participants and their learning facilitators to produce ICT-supported projects. Patterned after the Intel Learn and Computer Clubhouse, the ICT Camp aims to provide teach learning facilitators and learners with vital skills in project creation, design and management as well as lessons in collaborative work. During the Camp, the participants are trained on how to work with common ICT tools and open source software in designing and producing learner portfolio projects. The camp is filled with interesting discussions with experts from the field of education and ICT and group workshops that stimulate creativity, build leadership skills, and promote teamwork. The camp focuses on teaching the participants various software applications that they may use to create User-Generated Content (UGC) in line with their assigned module projects, keeping in mind the following project objectives:
To inspire eSkwela outof-school youth and adults in learning life skills and developing technological literacy through project-based learning To enable eSkwela learners and instructional managers (IMs) to share experiences, knowledge, and resources with other learners and IMs from other eSkwela sites To build leadership skills, communication skills, teamwork and camaraderie among eSkwela learners and implementers To enable the participants to design and produce sample ICT-based learner portfolio outputs that other learners can model after
The very first ICT Camp in 2008 for the pilot sites was sponsored by additional funding from the APEC Education Foundation. The succeeding round of the ICT
49
Camp (2 runs) in 2010 was funded by the eGovernment Fund. It remains to be one of the most anticipated eSkwela activities since it is the only activity that brings together field implementers and learners from different centers into one venue. For a big number of the learner participants, it was their first time to travel outside their localities and meet people from different communities. Project outputs by the participants from the 3 camps conducted from 2008 to 2010 are available in the camp website: http://eskwelaictcamp.ning.com. These projects serve as models for learning facilitators and learners on what ICT-supported projects may be developed vis--vis the eSkwela module guides. Date Day 0 Time Activity Arrival of Participants/Check-in/Registration Welcome Dinner ICT Camp Program, House Rules, Groupings Team Building Activities Breakfast Invocation Welcome Remarks by partner-SUC Opening Remarks and Presentation of the ICT Camp Framework by CICT Creativity Workshop Lunch Introduction to ICT-Project Based Learning and User-Generated Content Break Introduction to Online Communication and Collaboration Tools Blog Writing Dinner Breakfast Recap, Icebreaker Software Training Lunch Software Training Blog Writing Dinner Breakfast Recap, Icebreaker Software Training Introduction of the Challenge Group Study of the Modules Brainstorming on the Group Project Idea Break Project Workshop (Gathering of Materials) Blog Writing Dinner Socials
Day 1
6:30am 7:30am 8:00am 8:15am 8:15am 8:30am 8:30am 9:00am 9:00am 12:00nn 12:00nn 1:00pm 1:00pm 3:00pm 3:00pm 3:30pm 3:30pm 5:30pm 5:30pm 7:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm 6:30am 7:30am 7:30am 8:00am 8:00am 12:00nn 12:00nn 1:00pm 1:00pm 5:30pm 5:30pm 7:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm 6:30am 7:30am 7:30am 8:00am 8:00 12:00 nn 12:00nn 1:00pm 1:00pm 1:30 pm 1:30am 3:10pm 3:10pm 3:30pm 3:30pm 5:30pm 5:30pm 7:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm 8:00pm 11:00pm
Day 2
Day 3
50
Date Day 4
Day 5
Time 6:30am 7:30am 7:30am 8:00am 8:00am 12:00nn 12:00nn 1:00pm 1:00pm 5:30pm 5:30pm 7:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm 6:30am 7:30am 7:30am 8:00am 8:00am 10:00am 10:00am 10:30am 10:30am 12:00nn 12:00nn 1:00pm 1:00pm 2:00pm 2:00pm 3:00pm 3:00pm 3:30pm 3:30pm 5:30pm 5:30pm 6:00pm 7:00pm 8:00pm
Activity Breakfast Recap, Icebreaker Project Workshop Lunch Project Workshop Blog Writing Dinner Breakfast Recap, Icebreaker Project Presentations Break Presentations Lunch Reflecting on the Project: PBL Principles Action Planning Break Presentation of Action Plans Commitment Setting Closing Remarks Dinner Departure
Day 6
Table 11 ICT Camp Design
4.
Monitoring and evaluation (M&E) tools and mechanisms were likewise enhanced to document and assess the eSkwela implementations in the field. Site visits allow the team to observe and interact with learning facilitators and learners to discuss experiences, successes, challenges, lessons learned, and recommendations. Various instruments were designed and developed including forms for Training Needs Analysis (TNA), LF On-site Observation Form, LF Self-Assessment Tool, LF Performance Evaluation by Learners (Attachments F-1, F-2, f-3), eModule Package Evaluation Forms for Learners and LFs (Attachments G-1 & G-2), and Training Workshop Evaluation Forms for Resource Persons and Training Management (Attachments H-1 & H-2). Guide questions were likewise drafted for the trainer debriefing sessions, on-site LF and learner interviews (Attachments I-1 & I-2), and Focus Group Discussions, discussed elsewhere in this report. The IM unit conducted site visits along with the Sites unit at least once a year for more fortunate sites, twice or thrice a year. For some sites, site visits were unannounced this gave the IM unit a better picture of actual session experiences. For other sites, bureaucratic protocols and safety concerns required that the IM unit announce their site visits. All site visits came with site visit reports that were submitted as post-travel requirements a sample is shown as Attachment J. Online chat meetings were planned but did not push through scheduling problems and unreliable internet connections made these difficult to pursue. Text messages, phone calls, posts (forum, comment, photos, videos) and one-on-one chat sessions
51
through the LF group in the eSkwela ning site and Facebook pages (of the eSkwela project itself as well as those of respective eSkwela Centers) were used as alternatives instead. Based on the posts and FGD results during the close-out activities, it was gathered that the LFs who participated in such activities greatly appreciated the presence and sense of availability afforded by these ICT alternatives.
General Findings The change process that the eSkwela instructional model has gone through involved a lot of people. The experiences of and insights from expert consultants and ALS field implementers gave the model a more solid pedagogical foundation. Expectations became clearer and more grounded. This section presents the different challenges encountered, lessons learned, actions taken, and good practices established in the design, development, implementation, and monitoring of the eSkwela Instructional Model.
52
Module Guides The pilot implementation of the eModule packages was held in July to September 2009 right after conducting the improved version of Phase 2 of the eSkwela LF training series (see section on Trainings). It was intended to assess the effectiveness and usability of the module guides among eSkwela learners and facilitators. In order to validate whether the module guide serves its purpose as a tool in a blended approach to teaching and learning, 30 completed module guides were given to 22 eSkwela sites that underwent LF training last June2009 for pilot testing. The pilot sites were given the prerogative to choose which among the available packages they wanted to pilot. Learning Strand 1 Effective Communication 2 Critical Thinking and Analysis 3 Sustainable Use of Resources and Productivity 4 Development of Self and Sense of Community 5 Expanding Ones World Vision # of packages 0 19 9 1 1
Table 12 eModule Package Pilot Implementation breakdown by Learning Strand
The eModule Package Pilot Implementation min-study (report shown as Attachment K) provided the team with valid observations and recommendations that are being incorporated in the current module guide development and training workshops. The survey results were as follows (rating of 1 to 5 with 5 as the highest): Average Rating Learners LFs 4.02 3.94 3.92 3.30 3.97 4.00 4.00 4.50 3.50 3.66
About the module guide The learning objectives were clearly defined. Nakasaad nang malinaw ang mga layunin. The module guide helped me meet the learning objectives. Nakatulong ang modyul guide para matutunan ko ang mga dapat kong matutunan. There were clear instructions on how to study the module. Merong malinaw na panuto kung paano pag-aaralan ang modyul. The online resource/s is/was accessible to me. Accessible sa akin ang mga online resources. The online resource/s contributed to my understanding of the module. Ang mga online resource ay nakatulong para maintindihan ko ang modyul. The discussion forum/s helped me learn the module better. Ang mga discussion forum ay nakatulong upang higit kong matutunan ang modyul. The project was relevant to the module objectives. May kaugnayan ang proyekto sa layunin ng modyul. There were clear instructions on how to do the project. Malinaw ang mga panuto sa paggawa ng proyekto. The projects level of difficulty was just right. Tama lang ang kahirapan ng modyul.
3.63 3.78 4.00 3.53
3.52 3.63 3.98 4.00
53
About the module guide I had the necessary knowledge and skills to do the project. Taglay ko ang mga kinakailangan na kaalaman at kasanayan para magawa ang proyekto I had enough resources to do the project. Meron akong sapat na resources para magawa ang proyekto. I spent enough time studying the module. Naglaan ako ng sapat na oras sa pag-aaral ng modyul. I did all of the learning activities suggested in the module guide, including the discussion forum and the project. Ginawa ko lahat ngpagsasanay sa modyul guide pati ang discussion forum at proyekto. OVERALL RATINGS Overall I would rate the effectiveness of this module guide as Overall I would rate the effectiveness of the LMS as Overall I would rate the learners performance in the modules as Overall I would rate my effectiveness as a learning facilitator as
Average Rating Learners LFs 3.25 3.69 4.29 3.50 3.63 4.26
3.66
3.88
NA NA NA NA
4.45 4.36 4.29 4.39
Table 13 eModule Package Pilot Implementation Survey Results from Learners & LFs
Based on the survey results, the module guides were a bit getting used to but were surprisingly not unwelcome. Observations were articulated as follows: the module guides and its components (instructions, online resources, forum, project) were found to be useful and effective in general according to the learning facilitators interviewed, the learners got overwhelmed with the contents of the guide due to their lengthy and multiple instructions, forum questions, and links to other resources too some time to get used to the learners welcomed the forum activities but there was a tendency to veer away from the thread topic; though some of them still needed the assistance of the learning facilitators in understanding the forum questions, majority were able to express their thoughts and views on the topic being discussed English and Filipino are the common languages used while some used their local dialect. Learners viewed the discussion forum as an avenue to gain more knowledge and also to share their own familiarity about the subject. Some even expressed enjoyment while posting replies on the forum. Learning facilitators observed that the discussion forum teach the learners to think critically and understand the topic more than memorizing the concept. web/online resources meant to serve as supplementary materials to help learners deepen or widen their understanding on the module, although found to be useful, were generally not accessed due to slow internet connection in the centers projects were viewed positively by the learning facilitators since these provided innovative alternatives to the traditional pen-and-paper projects; learners were not able to work on projects because they lacked the necessary software application skills and gadgets to produce their own content some learners were able to come up with simple projects and assist others in doing their projects
54
although majority had given a sign of approval to this new system of teaching and learning, there are still some learners who found the module guide as an additional lesson that they need to learn and not as a scaffold to the learning process learning facilitators saw the need to orient and guide the learners on how to go about using the module guides for independent learning majority of the learning facilitators and learners requested for module guides in Filipino
Based on the results, the participants discussed the implications on module guide development, training for learning facilitators, and learner support. They also suggested enhancements on the module guide and its components: On module guide components: 1. The discussion forum: Only one discussion forum per module; or a minimum of one and maximum of two forums Use relevant or practical forum questions Allow the use of Filipino in the forum Treat the forum as a blog where only one learner is using the forum. 2. Online resources: Maximum of two additional resources per module Use the resource for a learning activity (e.g. discussion forum, project) 3. Module projects: Consider the availability of resources LFs can simplify or modify the projects Give at least two options for the module project On the module guide as a whole: 1. Indicate the title of both the print and e-module. 2. Provide general directions for the whole module, including reading the entire module guide first before going through the lessons. On learner support: 1. Include e-learning readiness in the learners needs assessment (leading to the ILA). TNA for learners 2. Provide an orientation to e-learning (use of e-modules and module guides). 3. Conduct a one-week basic computer literacy training (Word, Excel, PowerPoint), including training in basic troubleshooting. (CILC modules are already being developed) 4. Provide training in specific applications needed for module projects (e.g. newsletter making). (being done in ICT camp, but need to develop manual) 5. Provide opportunities for peer support (e.g. grouping learners according level; assigning peer tutors)
On LF training and support: 1. Training program for LFs (continuing professional development or CPD): a. ALS training b. ICT training (including basic troubleshooting) c. eSkwela training I how to use the modules and module guides d. eSkwela training II - enhancement training or refresher course: further training in ICT-enhanced PBL e. Training on instructional design (e.g.
55
designing e-learning activities) 2. Training resources (e.g., training manual) for computer training for learners 3. Community of practice (e.g. conferences, workshops, e-group/online forum, helpdesk)
Table 14 eModule Package Pilot Implementation Recommended Enhancements
Results of the pilot implementation led to the restructuring of the module guides. The module guide development team agreed that for a module guide to be less overwhelming would have the minimum items: a general instruction for the whole module (avoid having one set of instructions per lesson) the number of forum questions should be limited to one the number of resources (news articles, online module, video, podcast, animation, etc.) should be at least two an online quiz as supplementary activity to eModules that are not too interactive (e.g. static pre-test or post-test) a project that came in a variety of forms: one to three options which the learner/s may choose from, based on his competencies, , interest, availability of equipment/ software by individual (e.g. letter, interview, comic strip) or by group (e.g. video dramatization)
Further, the module guides were designed while keeping in mind that the learning facilitator plays a big role in guiding and assessing the progress of the learner as he goes through the different items in the module guides. In addition, despite the fact that eSkwela site implementers have already undergone refresher courses/trainings, it was recommended that they undergo ICT-enhancement trainings to ensure conformity with the eSkwela Instructional Model and the implementation of the project as a whole. As such, the project team designed the Enhancement Training Workshop for Learning Facilitators that focused on project-based learning, discussed above. Instructional videos were also developed to provide standardized orientation materials for learning facilitators and learners on the development and use of the module guides. Current implementation In an effort to build the competencies and confidence of learners in using computers prior to attending eSkwela sessions, the centers have conducted computer literacy classes, either through the LF or by tying up with community groups like student volunteers, civic organizations, or LGU groups. At a minimum, the learners are taught how to handle the
56
mouse, turn on/off the computer, and use the browser, LMS, and eModules. Some groups move on to training learners on the Internet and various office productivity tools although it is emphasized that these can come in later once the learners have an actual need to learn such tools for module guide activities and projects. Learning facilitators have also observed that learners who are more adept at using computers help those who are just starting to use it. Most of the learners appreciate these computer classes since it is an additional skill that they can use to get jobs. The LMS and module guides are continuously being used in the centers. Interview with learners revealed that navigating through the LMS was easy because they were given an orientation on how to use it. Instructional videos produced by the team are incorporated into the CD packages given to the sites at the end of the training for future viewing. A video showcasing an actual orientation session by a learning facilitator on the use of the LMS has also been uploaded to youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLFbBaQd KyA) to serve as a guide for other LFs in doing the same for their respective learners. The learners also find the module guides easy to understand, although some prefer these to be written in Filipino. Some learning facilitators have experimented on translating some of the module guides into the local language/ dialect of the community. Some have even started developing their own module guides to further customize these to the community and learners unique context and circumstances. Learning facilitators who have gone through the Enhancement Training realized that in doing a project, their learners can apply what has been learned from the eModule. They observed that the learners are excited to do the project because the learners are able to express their creativity and gain additional learning. The learning facilitators in these centers allotted time during the learning session so their learners can
Figure 13 Sample Learner Projects
57
work on their individual projects. In some instances, the projects are done in small groups or teams so that learners can share resources as well as learn from and help one another. One center even showcased the outputs of learners as a way of recognizing their work and encouraging them to be creative. Further, the planning phase in project-based learning (PBL) was seen as a means to develop life skills such as leadership skills, giving constructive comments, and cooperation. Lack of resources shouldn't be a hindrance because learners can use available resources like mobile phones. By using what is available, the knowledge learned can be applied as soon as possible. Training Workshops for Learning Facilitators and Trainers In general, the learning facilitators who have undergone the eSkwela training workshops appreciate the phased training approach. Most of the training workshops got an overall rating ranging from 4.2 to 4.4 (Very Good). The participants enjoyed the hands-on training and found the activities very engaging where they are given time to work on their individual or group outputs. The participants, however, found the workshop duration too short they wanted more time to work on their individual or group outputs. The project team cannot extend these workshops beyond the 4-to-5 day duration due to budgetary constraints and in consideration of the fact that the participants are pulled out from their respective learning centers or offices for several days. In response to this, the project team ensures post-workshop handholding and support through online presence (website, email, chat), site visits, on-site observations, interviews/FGDs, and short refresher sessions. Results of these discussions and observations were taken up by the LF trainers during post-workshop debriefing sessions with Prof. Arinto and the eSkwela IM unit to share observations, good points, challenges met, and recommendations. The trainers went through the following debriefing questions: 1. 2. 3. Which of the sessions or which aspects of the training worked well? Why do you say so? Which of the sessions or which aspects of the training did not work so well? What did you find particularly difficult or challenging? Why? What improvements would you recommend on the training design and its implementation, focusing on five (5) focus areas: training objectives requirements for participation in the training topics (or sessions) covered and the sequence of the topics training strategy training materials and other resources
The inputs served as the basis for revisions in the training strategies and content for the next round of trainings to be conducted. Ideas for the succeeding intervention activities were likewise discussed. The trainers generally observed that the training designs could be further enhanced by making the topics less intimidating and more engaging with shorter lectures and longer time
58
for hands-on application (Moodle workshop). It was recommended to incorporate the 4As approach into the LF workshop design to practice what they preach, so to speak. They also saw the need to be further equipped in facilitation as well as in commenting on participants outputs constructively. In terms of workshop topics, they suggested that the following be included: 1) a review on the ALS framework (key concepts and principles, and teaching and learning strategies), 2) rating module projects using Moodle, and 3) simple troubleshooting. High-Performing LFs Through the years, there have been high-performing learning facilitators who have shown exemplary levels of competence, practice, and innovation in the implementation of the instructional model. These LFs have been generally comfortable in Stage 3 (Infusing) and Stage 4 (Transforming) in terms of using ICT in their eSkwela sessions and can serve as models/mentors for other LFs to emulate. They are usually young LFs who are regular ICT users with an ICT college background. They are open to explore, innovate, and share their experiences with others. Training Management As mentioned earlier, the project team saw the benefits in tapping field implementers that the participants can easily relate to as trainers and informal mentors to eSkwela implementers. Further, the IM unit observed that the team-teach approach (at least 3 facilitators for each training run) worked for this set of trainers since they can cut up the modules into those that they are confident to lead in. It emphasizes teamwork and promotes a sense of community among the trainers. The trainers greatly appreciated regular practice of the IM unit to hold a pre-training orientation on Day 0, nightly meetings during the workshop days, and post-training debriefing workshops. These provided them enough time to prepare and discuss assignments and roles, discuss observations/challenges for the day, set adjustments to approach and schedule, and action points for the next round of workshops. Other salient features they brought up were: availability of the trainers and trainees manuals, detailed documentation of proceedings, facilitation tools (mood barometer, training guide, metacards, etc.), team-teach approach, and maintaining a manageable class size (biggest was 45). Keeping the class size small assures that ample attention is given to each participant and somehow builds a mentor-mentee type of relationship that goes beyond the training days. Leveling the ICT know-how and competencies among the participants had always been a problem. The trainers emphasized the need to stick to the selection criteria set for participants. The need for laboratory assistants (LAs) was also highlighted during training workshops who can provide technical assistance or even a 1:1 workshop guidance during the sessions note: eSkwela maintains a 1:5 LA:participants ratio in a maximum class size of 30. It was recommended that the participants be divided into groups with at least one participant who is well-versed in using computers. As for the training venue, there should be reliable
59
electricity, working equipment and software, and Internet connection as such, a highly competent Technical Lead has to be assigned to oversee these. As has been the practice in previous eSkwela activities, CICT outsourced the projects Event/Training Management requirements to a small pool of trusted and reliable partner State Universities and Colleges. These were covered by Event/Training Management Cooperation Agreements (E/TMCA) using the 100% Transfer of Funds scheme, based on a line-item budget projection. The 100% Transfer of Funds scheme has been an effective option for CICTs project-based activities that do not require meticulous progress checks, such as trainings, conferences, exhibits, and site inaugurations. The contracted SUC took care of the administrative and financial details of the specific events so that the project team can focus on more important project-related requirements. The post-training debriefing workshops discuss the performance of the contracted SUC vis--vis service contract responsibilities. Basic Training Management Course In response to some of the articulated needs of the trainers, a Basic Training Management Course (BTMC) was held in April 2011 as the last activity for the LF Trainers conducted by the IM unit. It served as the enhancement training for the trainers as well as an orientation workshop for additional LF trainers from the MGDR and/or eSkwela field implementers. The resource persons sought to build or enhance the facilitation and training management skills of LF trainers in order to implement the 2010-2011 LF basic and enhancement training workshops to be overseen by DepEd-BALS more effectively. During this workshop, the observations and challenges for each module in the LF training were highlighted. After which, the following sessions were conducted to provide the trainers with additional knowledge and skills: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. review of Adult Learning Principles tied up with the Experiential Learning Cycle from the training perspective review on setting learning objectives and identifying appropriate learning methodologies communication principles for listening, paraphrasing conversations and discussion, and crafting main messages administrative preparations before, during, and after conducting a training return demo: delivery of 15-minute learning session per participant PLUS feedbacking from participants and resource persons
Refer to the consolidated Post-LF Training (Round 1) Trainers Debriefing and BTMC reports shown as Attachments L and M. Site-focused Monitoring and Evaluation Activities The monitoring and evaluation activities conducted by the project team provided insights into how the LFs understand and actually implement the eSkwela Instructional Model. Despite the revisions and enhancements done on the instructional model, some of the problems encountered when the mini-study on the use of the eModule Packages was conducted are still the same challenges being encountered at present.
60
There is obviously a wide range of understanding and practice in the field. Individualized instruction is yet to be fully implemented in all centers. Even if the ILA20 is one of the prerequisites in the A&E program, not all learning facilitators prepare one with their learners. As such, in some of the eSkwela centers, learners go through the same modules at the same time as directed by the learning facilitator. Seeing it as a continuum, in one extreme, there are LFs who limit their ICT use to the eModules being projected in front of a class as a multimedia visual aid, with only the LF navigating through the interactive buttons and activities while learners watch. On the other end of the spectrum, the LFs leave the learners on their own to navigate through respective interest-for-the-day eModule packages and interject only when called upon for instructions or clarifications. The difficulty of the project team is that even if it wants to promote the principles that would enable the eSkwela instructional model to be fully implemented, it cannot impose these because of the very flexible nature of ALS implementation. Even the print-based implementation suffers from the same breadth of implementation that makes it difficult to implement a genuine ILA-based self-paced learning that is focused on gaining life skills rather than on solely passing the A&E Test. More on this in Chapter 7 that presents the FGD results compiled during the eSkwela Close-out Activities from January to March 2011.
Recommendations The project team has accumulated the recommendations below from various conferences, focus group discussions (FGDs), and site visits. It is hoped that the eSkwela Instructional Model will continue to evolve and transform into a more dynamic and sound framework that will guide DepEd-BALS, the trainers, the learning facilitators, and the learners in effectively optimizing ICTs for the A&E Program. eSkwela Instructional Model in General Clarifications on the following areas of concern should be arrived at: a concrete definition of learner-centered learning vis--vis FLT and RPL results and other factors (number of years since his last school year, motivation to study, goal/level of completion desired if it is really a diploma he wants or just a number
The Individualized Learning Agreement is based on the results from the Functional Literacy Test, the Recognition of Prior Learning interview, and the agreement between the LF and the learner. It is reviewed regularly to check on learner progress and interest level.
20
61
of skills) and corresponding learner categories to determine minimum requirements or required intervention that can be taken from a menu of activities, similar to the practice in Special Education (SPED) classes prescription balance between learners needs vs. interests taken against the reality of the A&E Test, this causes major confusion in the formulation of the ILA of individual learners and in the eventual intervention provided by the learning facilitators; and a corresponding checklist of competencies to track learner progress, similar to the ALS approach used by Angelicum College accepted formula and models for blended learning vs. traditional teacher-centered lectures that still occur in ALS field implementations
The evaluation of eModule packages among learners and LFs, similar to the pilot implementation run, should likewise be continued and guided by clear procedures for regular / programmed administration and analysis to guide continuance of practice and enhancements. Despite the positive feedback gained from the initial assessment, there is an obvious need to conduct an official systematic third-party impact study of the eSkwela instructional model on ALS implementation and stakeholders. The study should look into the effectiveness of the eModule packages or the differences in learning experiences of the learners when they use the eModule packages vis-a-vis the traditional printed modules. Funds have been allocated in eSkwela 1.1 for this study. Hopefully, the study would be able to establish more appropriate intervention measures and effectiveness indicators to better guide the future implementation of eSkwela learning sessions and perhaps ALS in general. People Involved Sustaining eSkwelas efforts would mean sustaining the implementation, monitoring, and further enhancement of the eSkwela instructional model. As such, it is highly recommended that a team of full-time dedicated people in BALS who are well-versed in ICT in Education principles and practices be assigned to the IM unit. The designated eSkwela trainers, on the other hand, have to be continuously guided and at the same time, empowered in the conduct of various eSkwela capability building workshops. They need to continue practicing the tools that they teach and explore beyond those stated in the training manuals. The good practices discussed above on training management should form part of the standard operating procedures for training workshops. In addition, in the same way that LFs undergo assessment, performance evaluation of trainers must become a regular practice to ensure growth in expertise. It should be noted that trainers need to undergo refresher and cliniquing workshops as well. Currently, there is a clear need for the learning facilitators to further understand and appreciate a learning process that is blended, self-paced, and project-based. They also need to learn and practice effective facilitation by encouraging self-prompted exploration and lifelong learning among learners that is, break away from teacher-centric practices to those that are learner-centric. In addition, they need to strike a good balance between content and execution through ICT when assessing learner projects ICT has to be seen just as a tool in delivering the content that the learner wishes to put across. Admittedly, these will take time and reflective personal experience to grow into.
62
It is recommended that the importance of capability building among eSkwela implementers continue to be emphasized. More importantly, it should be stressed that capability building does not end with their participation in face-to-face training workshops. Self-learning cannot be assumed to be practiced by everyone it has to become a habit of exploration and experimentation. In line with this, the mechanisms that eSkwela has put in place for regular monitoring and documentation to provide handholding, scaffolding, and models should be likewise sustained and strengthened further. Support groups that encourage sharing of practices, resources, and models are also seen as helpful in further improving the competencies and increasing the confidence levels among learning facilitators to utilize the instructional model that merges the potentials of ICT with the strengths of the Accreditation and Equivalency Program. High-performing LFs and trainers should be encouraged to maximize their potentials by allowing them to explore beyond the minimum requirements as well as to share experiences, outputs, and new knowledge. Good practices and models should be welcomed for their mentoring potentials. In addition, awards and incentives should be put in place to motivate more implementers to innovate and move up the ICT competency stages as well, towards enriching the implementation of the eSkwela instructional model. As for the learners themselves, they should be encouraged to work on and showcase their projects, activities, and portfolios. Communication, interactivity, and perhaps, even collaboration should be encouraged among centers to build a community of learners and supporters, at the city-wide, provincial, and/or regional levels. Capability-Building The decision to recognize maturity models not only for ICT competency-and-use but also for pedagogical practices and community-building made the eSkwela capability building program more reasonable and achievable for everyone involved. Changes do take time and require commitment and persistence slowly but surely breaking old habits and forming new ones. In line with this, the phased training approach needs to be honored. Site observation and the FGD results during the eSkwela Close-out Activities have confirmed that ALS foundations/implementation weak (ILA continuum) among learning facilitators. As such, there is a clear need to improve on ALS foundation competencies and understanding as well as a need to re-assess learner and facilitator readiness in terms of proper ILA use. Towards this end, certain topics have to be incorporated, as stated earlier in the chapter. In addition, the foundation ALS training that serves as the pre-requisite training for eSkwela LFs, has to be reviewed and improved to emphasize the proper use of the ILA over adsocmob. In connection with this, the different roles and tasks of mobile teachers have to be reviewed as well since there is a clear need to prioritize skills related to instruction and learning over other responsibilities. An additional training workshop for eSkwela LFs that still has to be designed should be Enhancement Training 2 that will focus on gaining knowledge and skills on actual
63
performance-based assessment skills note that Enhancement Training 1 focused on designing the assessment tools. Training Management As for the training management aspect, it is highly recommended that the regular practice of the IM unit to hold a pre-training orientation on Day 0, nightly meetings during the workshop days, and post-training debriefing workshops be continued. These provide them enough time to prepare and discuss assignments and roles, discuss observations/challenges for the day, set adjustments to approach and schedule, and action points for the next round of workshops. Other salient features included: availability of the trainers and trainees manuals, detailed documentation of proceedings, facilitation tools (mood barometer, training guide, metacards, etc.), team-teach approach, and maintaining a manageable class size (biggest was 45). Keeping the class size small assures that ample attention is given to each participant and somehow builds a mentor-mentee type of relationship that goes beyond the training days. Leveling the ICT know-how and competencies among the participants had always been a problem. The trainers emphasized the need to stick to the selection criteria set for participants. The need for laboratory assistants (LAs) was also highlighted during training workshops who can provide technical assistance or even a 1:1 workshop guidance during the sessions note: eSkwela maintains a 1:5 LA:participants ratio in a maximum class size of 30 (exceptions: absolute maximum of 45). It was recommended that the participants be divided into groups with at least one participant who is well-versed in using computers. As for the training venue, there should be reliable electricity, working equipment and software, and Internet connection as such, a highly competent Technical Lead has to be assigned to oversee these. For DepEd-BALS, there is a need to address pre-training and post-training issues such as sending trainees who are actual ALS facilitators (not office personnel) and actual computer users, trainees being transferred to another office, etc. A suggested option is possibly having the trainees enter into a contract with the Division. As has been the practice in previous eSkwela activities, CICT outsourced the projects Event/Training Management requirements to a small pool of trusted and reliable partner State Universities and Colleges. These were covered by Event/Training Management Cooperation Agreements (E/TMCA) using the 100% Transfer of Funds scheme, based on a line-item budget projection. The 100% Transfer of Funds scheme has been an effective option for CICTs project-based activities that do not require meticulous progress checks, such as trainings, conferences, exhibits, and site inaugurations.
64
The contracted SUC took care of the administrative and financial details of the specific events so that the project team can focus on more important project-related requirements. The post-training debriefing workshops discuss the performance of the contracted SUC vis--vis service contract responsibilities. It is highly encouraged that these assessments be documented through the form shown as Attachment N. This will then serve as the basis for future service contracts. Monitoring and Evaluation eSkwela has always prided itself in encouraging multi-stakeholder engagement by taking on an inclusive, consultative, collaborative approach toward continuous project enhancement and growth, As such, monitoring and evaluation activities had been promoted positively as venues for discussion, sharing, and recommendations. This atmosphere of openness, flexibility, and positive thinking has allowed the project to start forming communities of learning and practice to encourage further exploration, experimentation, sharing of ideas, and mentoring. This should be continued. It is evident that LF capability building interventions should go way beyond the regular face-to-face training workshops that pull them out of their field implementations. It is therefore highly recommended that the succeeding eSkwela core team strengthen not only the staff development aspect but also the tracking, monitoring, and handholding mechanisms to ensure a follow-through and support system for the learning facilitators while they are in their actual field settings. Since LFs are scattered across the country, a reliable ICT-based communication mechanism should be put in place perhaps through the LF group in the ning site or the eSkwela FB page along with policy guidelines and rules for engagement. The habit of regular online presence has to be likewise established to complement the ICT approach of eSkwela itself. M&E instruments such as the LF Performance Assessment Forms (i.e. third party observation form, self-assessment, by learner, interview) be reviewed and further enhanced. Standards and guidelines for analysis should likewise be established to assist the assessor and the assessed figure out concrete targets and viable action points. Other evaluation and support mechanisms should be looked into for triangulation for example, a) videotaping ones actual session so that the assessor/mentor can review it with the LF mentee for strengths, areas of improvement, and other discussion points, b) conducting LF immersion exchanges to allow observation of good practices in other sites, and c) maintaining online communities of learning and practice among centers within a region to allow healthy exchanges of ideas and experiences.
65
Conferences (regional or national), knowledge exchanges, mini symposia, FGD sessions, ICT Camps, and various forms of teambuilding activities should be institutionalized not only to foster camaraderie among the LFs and learners but also to get feedback, insights, consults, recommendations, and offers of support or assistance among them. These are obviously more costly and time-consuming but are more authentic and systematic forms of assessment.
Conclusion It has taken five years and a lot of discussions and experimentations for the eSkwela Instructional Model to stabilize to its current form. It continues to meet challenges especially in field implementation, but it also achieves little successes that add credence to its soundness and viability. Although admittedly, it is a work in progress, the eSkwela instructional model has evolved into a concrete application of ICT integration in basic education that others can learn from. Among the contributory factors to this steady evolution were the flexible approach of the A&E Program, proper documentation, and regular monitoring and handholding activities. But the biggest factor in its steady progression was the pool of dedicated project team members, expert consultants, trainers, and field implementers who have chosen to break old habits in order to form new ones that celebrate exploration, experimentation, analysis, sharing, and openness, ultimately for the benefit of the A&E learners.
66
Workers, Wages, and Benefits Forum Question: Not all workers enjoy the minimum daily wage. Why do you think does this still happen despite the existence of rules requiring employers to pay workers the minimum daily wage?
Figure 14 Sample Forum Thread with Learner Posts and Comments

67
68

Report On The Eskwela Instructional Model Component

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Report On The Eskwela Instructional Model Component

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Table 5 4 As Principle for ALS implementations

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Regular Assessment / Evaluation self, peer, IM/Tutor, Mentor/Expert qualitative means

Optional Readin ess/Mo ck Test A&E

Livelih ood Track

Figure 7 eSkwela Instructional Model v. 1

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Table 6 Maturity Model on ICT use in the Classroom 17

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

ICT tools provided still lacking/problematic Pilot implementation (proof of concept)

Lack of Existing Models

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Figure 9 eSkwela Instructional Model v. 2

Figure 10 Screenshots of sample eSkwela e-learning modules

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Figure 11 Sample Module Guide

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

More information on tPCA on this link: http://www.philcecnet.ph/content/view/162/71/ Accessed: March 2011

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Figure 12 Training Phases for eSkwela Learning Facilitators

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Time 8:00 8:30 AM 8:30 9:00 AM 9:00 10:00 AM

10:00 10:20 AM 10:20 12:00 NN

12.00 1.00 PM 1:00 2:00 PM

3:20 3:40 PM 3:40 4:20 PM

8:30 9:20 AM 9:20 10:20 AM 10:20 10:40 AM 10:40 12:00 NN

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Time 12:00 1:00 PM 1:00 2:30 PM

3:30 3:50 pm 3:50 5:00 PM 8:30 9:30 AM 9:30 10:30 AM

12:00 1:00 PM 1:00 3:00 PM 3:00 4:00

Table 9 LF Training Workshop Design (Phase 2)

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Table 10 LF Enhancement Training Workshop Design (Phase 3)

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Table 12 eModule Package Pilot Implementation breakdown by Learning Strand

3.63 3.78 4.00 3.53

3.52 3.63 3.98 4.00

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

4.45 4.36 4.29 4.39

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Figure 13 Sample Learner Projects

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model

Chapter 3: Project Implementation Instructional Model