T3 – Teaching to Teach with Technology KA3 Multilateral Project December 1st, 2011 M. Luisa Nigrelli - IST CNR

1. T3 – Teaching to Teach with Technology KA3 Multilateral Project December 1st, 2011 M. Luisa Nigrelli - IST CNR

2. Contents • The T3 Consortium • The T3 project • What we did • What beneficiaries said • Lesson learnt • Conclusion • What we will do in the near future • ISTC CNR and ALT research group

3. OUR PARTNERSHIP 1/2

4. OUR PARTNERSHIP 2/2

5. The T3 Project

6. What is the T3 Project NOT about • Technology advertisement / promotion • “Gadget” use • Techno-fans • Infrastructure pushers instead of contents / methodologies providers

7. What the T3 Project is about • We aimed at bridging the gap between teachers’ and students’ attitude to teaching / learning, by designing a course and courseware to introduce Teachers, Vocational Trainers, Professors to Advanced (new?) LearningTechnologies. We created a six day programme, based on F2F training, workshops and project works, which involved also the indirect beneficiaries (students at school and university, managers in company / institutions). We used our perspective, that is humanities, educational psychology, cognitive science!

8. Roles DIRECT BENEFICIARIES INDIRECT BENEFICIARIES T3 STAFF

9. What we did

10. Milestones • Select technologies within the consortium and outside, in the end we had more than 25 tools / environments / platforms at our beneficiaries’ disposals • Design of a framework which made sense for us in explain technologies and learning patterns • Design of a modular train the trainer program, based F2F meetings, workshop and project works • Design of an evaluation protocol to understand: • Beneficiaries’ profile (frequency of use) • Beneficiaries’ satisfaction • Edit a handbook and creating a video tutorial which collect all the materials used during the trials. The T3 Handbook is in press.

11. T3 Training Framework Model 1/2 wikis educational games individual social Learning through social interaction transmission scaffolding dialogic/participatory MLEs simulations modelling commercial video games drill & practice browsing Memorising Understanding Problem solving Creating Learning paradigm

12. T3 Training Framework Model 2/2 • Provides a space with learning paradigms as one axis and social involvement as the other • Technology-use can be mapped anywhere within this space • There is no right or wrong place for any one technology • It is how the technology is used that determines the area it occupies within this space • The model provides a conceptual frame and basic vocabulary from which technology-use can be discussed

13. Theoretical framework: Findings • Easily understood • Comprehensive • Widely applicable • Can be reconfigured • Basis for conceptualising, articulating and discourse-setting • Underlines an aspirational element • Draws attention to the learning dimension • Draws attention to the social dimension

14. What our beneficiaries said

15. WORKSHOP TRAINNING 6 SESSION – 8 HOURS EACH SESSION Evaluation protocol • POST EVALUATION • Technologies Satisfaction Questionnaire • Training Course Evaluation Questionnaire • Questionnaire of Specific Goals • Focus Group General Goals PRE-EVALUATION Frequencyofuseof Technologies Questionnaire

16. Pre – evaluation questionnarie

17. Technologies satisfaction in the three trials

18. General satisfaction in the three trials

19. Specific goals results in the three trials

20. Lessons Learnt

21. Some main outcomes • Identifying points of entryas strategies for innovative practice • Theoretical framework promotes more effective use of technology • Development of effective practices for use of technologies in learning • Innovative practice does not occur in isolation, need collaboration • Technology takeup is highly effective when specifically contexted in terms of curriculum and institution • Strategies for encouraging and sustaining participation in learning • Importance of teachers and institutions taking ownership

22. Whatworkedwell • People improved understanding of what can be done differently in their own field • People used / tested new tools or tools that they already had but in a different way • People understood that the difference is not in the technology they use, but in the way they use it • People felt closer to their students world/environment • Constraints • Overwhelming “shelf” • Some technologies were not for free • Time as a limited resource • Challenge • Creating a framework of the technology and of the learning paradigmawas difficult, their is a lot of overlapping among technologies and their way of use, so it took us a lot of reasoning and discussing before aggregate our framework.

23. Conclusion • IT IS NOT TECHNOLOGY WHICH MAKES A DIFFERENCE, BUT THE WAY WE USE IT. • This might not be A REAL INNOVATION, this is more AWARENESS AND WISDOM but… • …trainers and teachers will use technologies as far as they have a clear framework that they can recall every time they want to develop a specific learning pattern. • Technology is there and learning paradigma have already changed, trainers / teachers have three options: • They can pretend NOT to see it • They can go for it and be part of it • They can be skeptical / criticize it • …but this actually mean they cannot stop it, because it is already ongoing….!

24. What’s next • What we will do in the near future: • a university training program funded (also) (hopefully) by Erasmus Mundus, • A TOI in the field of NGO's, Army's -, hospitals' -, in public administration personel

25. ISTC CNR The Instituteof Cognitive Sciences and Technologies (ISTC) is the resultof a fusionofvariousinstitutionssuchas: the formerInstituteofPsychology, the formerInstituteofPhonetics and Dialectology in Padova and some groupsfromBiomedical Technologies in Rome, LADSEB in Padova and the Solid State Electronicsgroup in Rome. Our research group belongsto a Network ofExcellence, thatbringstogetherresearchersof a broad range of theoretical and technological disciplines, psychologists, philosophers, biologists, engineers, computer scientists, physicists and mathematicians. OurLabfocus istoreproducepsychobiologicalphenomena in artificialsystemsusingEvolutionaryRobotics and Artificial Life techniques. Moreover, the groupisinvolved in  extendingthisapproachto create effectivenewtechnologiesthatsupportpsychologicalprocesses (Learning, DecisionMaking, Entertainment, Soft Skills, etc.). Moreoverthereis a strong link withNAC Lab, whichis a spin off of ISTC, based in Naples, withsimilarresearchfields.

26. A. Delle Veneri Alberto Venditti Angelo Rega Massimiliano Schembri Andrea Di Ferdinando Massimiliano Caretti Onofrio Gigliotta Franco Rubinacci M. Luisa Nigrelli PEOPLE IN ALT ISTC + NAC

27. Mail to: marialuisa.nigrelli@istc.cnr.it Info.alt@istc.cnr.it Pls visit www.t3.unina.it This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This communication reflects the views only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the information contained therein.