Course Curricular Design and Development of the M.Sc. Programme in the Field of Ict in Education for Sustainable Development

• Authors: Vassilios Makrakis , Nelly Kostoulas-Makrakis
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

This paper presents the design and development of a virtual learning enviroment (VLE) for a M.Sc. programme on information and communication technologies (ICTs) in education for sustainable development (ESD) driven by a learning paradigm that merges three theories of learning, namely: experiential learning, constructivist learning and transformative learning (ExCon- Tra) funded by the European Commission. Learning activities were designed to offer the chance for students to interact asynchronously and synchronously, negotiate meaning and reflect on their learning and viewpoints through collaborative problem solving. The ExConTra learning process is also based on an interdisciplinary approach addressing the four pillars (environment, society, culture and economy) of sustainable development and makes use of an online course design methodology that uses four phases: needs analysis, curriculum design, development and formative evaluation. The VLE that encompasses both the curriculum programme and the online platform with its tools and online technologies merges ICTs with ESD in three ways: a) providing opportunities to target groups for reflective practice; b) using open source ICT tools and ESD-related learning objects available in the Web and c) using ICTs to develop interactive, interdisciplinary and cross-disciplinary ESD learning activities

Keywords

EN

curriculum; information and communication technologies; online learning; education for sustainable development; Masters programme

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability
• Year: 2012
• Volume: 14
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 5-40

Dates

published

2012-12-01

online

2013-03-27

Contributors

author

Vassilios Makrakis

• University of Crete, Greece

author

Nelly Kostoulas-Makrakis

• University of Crete, Greece

References

• Abdullah, M., Parasuraman, B., Muniapan, B., Koren, S., & Jones, M. L. (2008). Motivating factors associated with adult participation in distance learning program. InternationalEducation Studies, 1(4), 104-109.
• Allen, I. E., & Seaman, J. (2005). Growing by degrees: Online education in the United States,2005. Retrieved August 5, 2012, from http://www.sloan-c.org/resources/growing_by_degrees.pdf
• Aristotle. (2004). The Nicomachean ethics. (J. A. K. Thomson, trans.). London: Penguin.
• Austin, A. E. (2002). Creating a bridge to the future: Preparing the new faculty to face changing expectations in a shifting context. The Review of Higher Education, 26(2), 119-144.
• Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (2009). Developing the theory of formative assessment. EducationalAssessment, Evaluation & Accountability, 21(1), 5-31. DOI: 10.1007/s11092-008-9068-5.[Crossref]
• Bush, M. D., & Mott, J. D. (2009). The transformation of learning with technology: Learnercentricity, content and tool malleability, and network effects. Educational Technology, 49(3), 3-20.
• Campbell, K., Schwier, R. A., & Kenny, R. F. (2005). Agency of the instructional designer: Moral coherence and transformative social practice. Australasian Journal of EducationalTechnology, 21(2), 242-262. Retrieved January 30, 2012, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/campbell.html
• Cey, T. (2001). Moving towards constructivist classroom. Retrieved December 19, 2009, from http://www.usask.ca/education/coursework/802papers/ceyt/ceyt.htm
• Cranton, P. (1994). Understanding and promoting transformative learning: A guide for educatorsof adults. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
• Daley, D. M. (1991). Great expectations or a tale of two systems: Employee attitudes toward graphic rating scales & MBO-based performance appraisal. Public AdministrationQuarterly, 15(2), 188-209.
• Darder, A., Baltodano, M., & Torres, R. D. (2003). The critical pedagogy reader. London: Routledge Falmer.
• Dick, W., Carey, L., & Carey, J. O. (2005). The systematic design of instruction (6th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.
• De Haan, G. (2006). ‘The BLK ‘21’ programme in Germany: A ‘Gestaltungskompetenz’ - based model for education for sustainable development’. Environmental EducationResearch, 12(1), 19-32.
• Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivist and the technology of instruction: Aconversation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Elliott, J. (2010). Insights to transformative learning through education for sustainable development. Learning and Teaching in Higher Education, 5, 96-113.
• Engstrom, M., Santo, S., & Yost, R. (2008). Knowledge building in an online cohort. TheQuarterly Review of Distance Education, 9(2), 151-167.
• European University Association. (2006). Guidelines for quality enhancement in Europeanjoint master programmes. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from http://www.eua.be/eua/jsp/en/upload/EMNEM_report.1147364824803.pdf
• Fien, J., & Tilbury, D. (1996). Learning for a sustainable environment: An agenda for teachereducation in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: UNESCO.
• Freire, P. (1993). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum.
• Frey, B., & Alman, S. (2003). Applying adult learning theory to the online classroom. NewHorizons in Adult Education, 17(1), 4-12. Retrieved July 10, 2011, from http://education.fiu.edu/newhorizons/journals/volume17n1.pdf
• Galloway, D. (2005). Evaluating distance learning and e-learning: Is Kirkpatrick’s model relevant?. Performance Improvement, 44(4), 21-27. DOI: 10.1002/pfi.4140440407.[Crossref]
• Garvin, D. A. (2000). Learning in action: A guide to putting the learning organization to work. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
• Gikandi, J. (2011). Achieving meaningful online learning through effective formative assessment. In G. Williams, P. Statham, N. Brown & B. Cleland (Eds.), Changing demands,changing directions (pp. 452-454). Retrieved March 15, 2012, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/hobart11/procs.Gikandi-poster.pdf
• Giroux, H. (n.d.). Teachers as transformatory intellectuals. Symposium on understandingquality education. Conference on re-envisioning quality education. Retrieved March, 15, 2012, from http://www.afed.itacec.org/document/henry_giroux_2_ok.pdfGiroux, H. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals. Boston, MA: Bergin & Garvey.
• Glasser, H. (2007). Minding the gap: The role of social learning in linking our stated desire for a more sustainable world to our everyday actions and policies. In A. E. J. Wals, (Ed.), Social learning towards a sustainable world. Principles, perspectives, and praxis (pp. 35-62). Wageningen, The Netherlands: Wageningen Publishers.
• Grundy, S. (1987). Curriculum: Product or praxis. New York: The Falmer Press.
• Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. London: Heinemann.
• Hannafin, M., Land, S., & Oliver, K. (1999). Open learning environments: Foundations, methods and models. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design theories and models,Volume II: A new paradigm of instructional theory (pp. 115-140). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Hasselbring, T. S., & Moore, P. R. (1996). Developing mathematical literacy through the use of contextualized learning environments. Journal of Computing in Childhood Education,7(3/4), 199-222.
• Huckle, J. (1996). Realising sustainability in changing times. In J. Huckle & S. Sterling (Eds.), Education for sustainability (pp. 3-17). London, UK: Earthscan Publications.
• Huckle, J. (2008). An analysis of new labour’s policy on education for sustainable development (ESD) with particular reference to socially critical approaches. Environmental EducationResearch, 14(1), 65-75.
• Huckle, J. (2012). Teacher education for sustainability in network society: Combining digital and sustainability literacies. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability, 14(2), 130-146.
• Hudak, C. (2007). Linking instructional theories and instructional design to leaning objects: A proposed conceptual framework. In A. Koohang & K. Hamman (Eds.), Learning objectsand instructional designs (pp. 1-38). Santa Rosa, California: Informing Science Press.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1991). Objectivist vs. constructivist: Do we need a new philosophical paradigm? Educational Technology: Research and Development, 39(3), 5-14.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1994). Thinking technology. Educational Technology, 34(4), 34-37.
• Jonassen, D. H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environment. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models (Vol. 2, pp. 215-239). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.
• Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications andtechnology (pp. 693-719). New York: Macmillan.
• Jonassen, D. H., Peck, K. L., & Wilson, B. G. (1999). Learning with technology: A constructivistperspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Publishing.
• IAU (International Association of Universities). (2006). Selected bibliography on educationand sustainable development. Retrieved October 14, 2011, from http://www.UNESCO.org/iau/sd/sd_bibliography.html
• Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (Eds.). (1996). Constructionism in practice: Designing, thinking andlearning in a digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
• Kanuka, H., & Anderson, T. (1999). Using constructivism in technology-mediated learning: Constructing order out of the chaos in the literature. Radical Pedagogy, 2(1). Retrieved July 5, 2008, from http://www.icaap.org/RadicalPedagogy/content/vol1.1999/issue2/02kanuka1_2.html
• Kenny, R. F., Zhang, Z., Schwier, R. A., & Campbell, K. (2005). A review of what instructional designers do: Questions answered and questions not asked. Canadian Journal of Learningand Technology, 31(1), 9-26.
• Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
• Kolb, A. Y., & Kolb, D. A. (2005). Learning styles and learning spaces: Enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 4(2), 193-212.
• Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Lim, G. (2007). Instructional design and pedagogical consideration for the ins-and-outs of learning objects. In A. Koohang & K. Hamman (Eds.), Learning objects and instructionaldesigns (pp. 89-137). Santa Rosa, California: Informing Science Press.
• Makrakis, V. (2006). Preparing United Arab Emirates teachers for building a sustainable society. Heraklion: University of Crete.
• Makrakis, V. (2008). An instructional design module of ICT that empowers teachers to integrate education for sustainable development across the curriculum. In C. Angeli & N. Valanides (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th Panhellenic Conference with InternationalParticipation on Information and Communication Technologies in Education (pp. 391-398). Cyprus: University of Cyprus.
• Makrakis, V. (2010a). The challenge of WikiQuESD as an environment for constructing knowledge in teaching and learning for sustainable development. Discourse andCommunication for Sustainable Education, 1(1), 50-57.
• Makrakis, V. (2010b). Strategies to reinforce the role of ICT in teaching and learning for sustainability. In M. Witthaus, K. Candless & R. Lambert (Eds.), Tomorrow today (pp. 169-171). Leicester: Tudor Rose on behalf of UNESCO.
• Makrakis, V. (2010c). ICT-enabled reorienting teacher education to address sustainable development: A case study. In T. Jimogiannis (Ed.), Proceedings of the 7th PanhellenicConference ICT in Education (pp. 1- 8). Korinthos: University of Peloponnese.
• Makrakis, V. (2011a). Strategies for change towards sustainability in tertiary education supported by ICT. In ICT in teacher education: Policy, open educational resources andpartnership (pp. 152-166). Moscow: UNESCO Institute for Information Technologies in Education.
• Makrakis, V. (2011b). ICT-enabled education for sustainable development: Merging theory with praxis. In M. Youssef & S. Aziz Anwar (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Annual Conferenceon e-Learning Excellence in the Middle East 2011 - in Search of New Paradigms for re-Engineering Education (pp. 410-419). Dubai, UAE: Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University.
• Makrakis, V. (2012). Critical issues for the course curricular design and development of postgraduate programmes. Proceedings of International Forum “Modern Information Society Formation: Problems, Perspectives, Innovation Approaches” (pp. 85-107). Saint-Petersburg: Saint Petersburg State University of Aerospace Instrumentation.
• Makrakis, V., & Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. (2005). Techno-sciences and mathematics: Vehicles for a sustainable future and global understanding. Proceedings of the 2nd InternationalConference on Hands on Science. HSci 2005 (pp. 103-108). Heraklion: University of Crete.
• Makrakis, V., & Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. (2012a). The challenges of ICTs to online climate change education for sustainable development: The ExConTra learning paradigm. In S.A. Anwar (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference on eLearning Excellence in the MiddleEast - Sustainable Innovation in Education (pp. 594-605). Dubai, UAE: Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University.
• Makrakis, V., & Kostoulas-Makrakis, N. (2012b). Online course design for a joint M.Sc. programme on ICT in education for sustainable development. In S. A. Anwar (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference on eLearning Excellence in the Middle East - SustainableInnovation in Education (pp. 627-636). Dubai, UAE: Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University.
• Makrakis, V., Kostoulas-Makrakis, N., & Kanbar, N. (2012). Developing and validating an ESD student competence framework: A Tempus-RUCAS initiative. In S. A. Anwar (Ed.), Proceedings of the 5th Conference on eLearning Excellence in the Middle East - SustainableInnovation in Education (pp. 585-594). Dubai, UAE: Hamdan Bin Mohammed e-University.
• Marsick, V., & Mezirow, J. (2002). New work on transformative learning. Teachers collegerecord. Retrieved September 20, 2008, from http://www.tcrecord.org/content.asp?contentid=10876
• Mayer, R. H. (1999). Designing instruction for constructivist learning. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories and models: New paradigm of instructional theory (Vol. 2, pp. 141-159). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• McLaren, P. (1994). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations ofeducation. New York: Longman.
• Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning to think like an adult: Core concepts of transformation theory. In J. Mezirow (Ed.), Learning as transformation: Critical perspectives on a theory in progress (pp. 3-34). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Mezirow, J. (2003). Transformative learning as a discourse. Journal of TransformativeEducation, 1(1), 58-63.
• Meyers, S. (2008). Using transformative pedagogy when teaching online. College Teaching,56(4), 219-224. DOI: 10.3200/CTCH.56.4.219-224.[Crossref]
• Nam, C. S., & Smith-Jackson, T. L. (2007). Web-based learning environment: A theory-based design process for developopment and evaluation. Journal of Information TechnologyEducation, 6, 23-43.
• Novak, J. (1998). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as tools to understandand facilitate the process in schools and corporations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
• O’Neill, G. (2010). Initiating curriculum revision: Exploring the practices of educational developers. International Journal for Academic Development, 15(1), 61-71. DOI: 10.1080/13601440903529927.[Crossref]
• Oppermann, R., & Specht, M. (2006). Situated learning in the process of work. In D. Hung & M. S. Khine (Eds.), Engaged learning with emerging technologies (pp. 69-89). Berlin: Springer Verlag.
• O’Sullivan, E. (2003). Bringing a perspective of transformative learning to globalized consumption. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 27(4), 326-330. DOI: 10.1046/j.1470-6431.2003.00327.x.[Crossref]
• Paas, L. (2008). How information and communications technologies can support education forsustainable development. Current uses and trends. Manitoba Canada: IISD.
• Pliner, S. M., & Johnson, J. R. (2004). Historical, theoretical, and foundational principles of universal instructional design in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education,37(2), 105-113. DOI: 10.1080/10665680490453913.[Crossref]
• Roblyer, M. D. (2003). Integrating educational technology into teaching (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc./Merrill Prentice Hall.
• Rychen, S., & Salganick, L. (2003). A holistic model of competence. In S. Rychen & L. Salagnick (Eds.), Key competencies for a successful life and a well-functioning society (pp. 41-62). Gottingen: Hogrefe & Huber.
• Savery, J. R., & Duffy, T. M. (1996). Problem-based learning: An instructional model and its constructivist framework. In B. G. Wilson (Ed.), Constructivist learning environments:Case studies in instructional design (pp. 135-148). New Jersey: Educational Technology Publications.
• Schmidt, A. (2005). Bridging the gap between knowledge management and e-learning with context-aware corporate learning solutions In K. Althoff, A. Dengel, R. Bergmann, M. Nick & T. R. Berghofer (Eds.), Professional knowledge management. Third biennial conference (pp. 203-213). WM 2005, Kaiserlautern, Germany: Springer.
• Schmidt, A. (2008). Enabling learning on demand in semantic work environments: The learning in process approach In J. Rech, B. Decker & E. Ras (Eds.), Emerging technologiesfor semantic work environments: Techniques, methods and applications (pp. 1-21). Hershey, PA: IGI Publishing.
• Schmidt, A., & Braun, S. (2006). Context-aware workplace learning support: Concept, experiences, and remaining challenges. In W. Nejdl & K. Tochtermann (Eds.), Innovativeapproaches for learning and knowledge sharing. First European Conference on Technology-Enhanced Learning (EC-TEL 2006) (pp. 518-524). Crete, Greece: Springer.
• Scott, S. S., McGuire, J. M., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Universal design for instruction: A new paradigm for adult instruction in postsecondary education. Remedial and SpecialEducation, 24(6), 369-379.
• Seitz, K., & Schreiber, J. R. (2005). Towards sustainable development - learning for a worldqualified for the future. A discussion paper of the Association of German development nongovernmental organisations (VENRO) on the UN Decade of Education for Sustainable Development 2005-2014. VENRO-working paper No. 15.
• Shurville, S., Browne, T., & Whitaker, M. (2008). Employing educational technologists: A call for evidenced change. In Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings of ASCILITE Melbourne 2008. Retrieved May 6, 2010, from http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/shurville.pdf
• Smith, M. K. (2000). Curriculum theory and practice. The encyclopaedia of informal education. Retrieved June 4, 2010, from www.infed.org/biblio/b-curric.htm
• Sorensen, E. K., & Takle, E. S. (2005). Investigating knowledge building dialogues in networked communities of practice. A collaborative learning endeavor across cultures. InteractiveEducational Multimedia, 10, 50-60.
• Spiro, R. J., Feltovich, P. J., Jacobson, M. J., & Coulson, R. L. (1992). Cognitive flexibility, constructivism, and hypertext: Random access instruction for advanced knowledge acquisition in ill-structured domains. In T. Duffy & D. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivismand the technology of instruction (pp. 57-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
• Squires, D. (1999). Educational software for constructivist learning environments: Subversive use and volatile design. Educational Technology, 39(3), 48-54.
• Summers, M., & Kruger, C. (2003). Teaching sustainable development in primary schools: Theory into practice. The Curriculum Journal, 14(2), 157-180. DOI: 10.1080/0958517032000095763.[Crossref]
• Svanstrom, M., Lozano-Garcia, F. J., & Rowe, D. (2008). Learning outcomes for sustainable development in higher education. International Journal of Sustainability in HigherEducation, 19(3), 339-351. DOI: 10.1108/14676370810885925.[Crossref]
• Tilbury, D., Podger, D., & Reid, A. (2004). Action research for change towards sustainability:Change in curricula and graduate skills towards sustainability. Final report prepared for the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage and Macquarie University, September 2004.
• UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (1996). Learning: The treasure within, report to UNESCO of the international commission oneducation for the twentieth century. Paris: UNESCO.
• UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (2003). TheDecade of Education for Sustainable Development: Framework for a draft internationalimplementation scheme. Paris: UNESCO.
• UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (2005). Guidelines and recommendations for reorienting teacher education to address sustainability,UNESCO education for sustainable development in action. Technical Paper No. 4. Paris: UNESCO.
• UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation). (2010). Education for sustainable development lens: A policy and practice review tool. Education forsustainable development in action learning & training tools. No. 2. Paris: UNESCO.
• Vare, P., & Scott, B. (2007). Learning for a change: Exploring the relationship between educationand sustainable development. Bath: Learning South West.
• Vrasidas, C. (2001). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of EducationalTelecommunications, 6(4), 339-362.
• Wade, R. (2012). Pedagogy, places and people. Journal of Teacher Education for Sustainability,14(2), 147-167.
• Wals, A. E. J. (2007). Introduction. In A. E. J. Wals (Ed.), Social learning towards a sustainableworld: Principles, perspectives, and praxis (pp. 17-32). Wageningen: Wageningen Publishers.
• Wals, A. E. J., & Heymann, F. V. (2004). Learning on the edge: Exploring the change potential of conflict in social learning for sustainable living. In A. Wenden (Ed.), Educating for aculture of social and ecological peace (pp. 123-145). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
• Wals, A. E. J., & Blaze Corcoran, P. (2006). Sustainability as an outcome of transformative learning. In J. Holmberg & B. E. Samuelson (Eds.), Drivers and barriers for implementingsustainable development in higher education (pp. 103-108). Paris: UNESCO.
• Willis, J. (2000). The maturing of constructivist instructional design: Some basic principles that can guide practice. Educational Technology, 40(1), 5-16.
• WCED (World Commission on Environment and Development). (1987). Our common future(Brundtland report). London: Oxford University Press.
• Wenger, E., & Lave, J. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Identifiers

DOI

10.2478/v10099-012-0007-7