Interview to Professor José Reis Lagarto
Question 1 - Which pedagogical model you follow, as online professor, and why?
Actually I don't have a personal pedagogical model. I have rather a style of communication with my students and I try to adapt my message to the contexts.
Thus, I use a development strategy of learning based on constructivism and collaborative activities, by the proposition of building content generated by students, as well as, for the same students, the use of behaviorist tutorials strictly for learning how to organize spaces such as wordpress or mindomo.
The reason for this approach is connected with my personal perception that everyone learns differently, but we learnt better certain conducts collaborating with others, while in other situations, a more functional learning is more effective and makes us reach our goals faster, without loss of quality.
The pedagogical model is thus determined by the characteristics of training projects that I design, promote, or in which I am involved.
Question 2 - The elearning, by definition, is associated with the use of ITC’s. How would you define the role of each of these aspects - Technology, Information and Communication – in the process of teaching and learning? Is there any of them more prevalent than others?
This is a trilogy that I do not share, unless you consider the information as content, and the communication the whole pedagogical approach associated with it.
In fact I adopt a trilogy in which the content (information), the tutorial model and the technology form a block of interdependencies. I quote a short text from a book of mine
Lagarto, J. (2009). Ensino a distância em elearning. Lisboa: UCP Editora (para a licenciatura em Lingua Gestual Portuguesa)
“"Designing an elearning project may not be an easy task. We can say that the solution to find, in a certain context, a better training model, involves the global analysis of three components that are crucial in these schemes:
Associated with these components at the time of training project design, we must also adjust the frequency of classroom sessions. This frequency, as well as the type of objectives of these sessions, must be established since the beginning of the planning.
We can imagine, in the technical design, that learning is achieved by the contribution and the sum of these components.
We can imagine, in the technical design, that learning is achieved by the contribution and the sum of these components.
If we represent learning as a circle, we can see the weight of each component.
We believe that learning through well-balanced combination of these three components.
In many contexts this balance may not exist because one of the components may be preponderant over others.
Imagine a situation where, by various reasons, there is neither possibility of creating interactive content nor too appealing.Thus, strategically, we can assign the task of transmitting information to the tutor as well as the collective work of students in collaborative activities.This increases the weight of tutoring relatively to the other two components.
In graphic terms, and considering that the total area remain (we have to achieve the same level of learning), the area of mentoring increases, reducing the area of content. The tutor's role is of great importance, which of course will mean more time on tasks to support trainees. In practical terms the cost of mentoring increase in project budgets.
We believe that learning through well-balanced combination of these three components.
In many contexts this balance may not exist because one of the components may be preponderant over others.
Imagine a situation where, by various reasons, there is neither possibility of creating interactive content nor too appealing.Thus, strategically, we can assign the task of transmitting information to the tutor as well as the collective work of students in collaborative activities.This increases the weight of tutoring relatively to the other two components.
In graphic terms, and considering that the total area remain (we have to achieve the same level of learning), the area of mentoring increases, reducing the area of content. The tutor's role is of great importance, which of course will mean more time on tasks to support trainees. In practical terms the cost of mentoring increase in project budgets.
Instead, investing heavily in design, content, making them more interactive, multimedia, complete and predictors of students' questions, will transform residual tutor intervention, possibly making it virtually disappears.
The content will look quite self-supported, allowing that the course may be highly autonomous regarding resources of tutoring.
The content will look quite self-supported, allowing that the course may be highly autonomous regarding resources of tutoring.
The possibility of freedom of dissemination is thus stronger given absence of need for tutorial support .
In any case, this lower (or almost zero) the need for mentoring does not imply that the course itself has a guarantee of success when used in different contexts from the original.
We assume here that the technology remains with the same weight in both previous situations, which is actually what happens in most situations.
A suitable combination of components, coupled with judicious choice of attendance times can lead to situations of actual success of scheme elearning courses.
In any case, this lower (or almost zero) the need for mentoring does not imply that the course itself has a guarantee of success when used in different contexts from the original.
We assume here that the technology remains with the same weight in both previous situations, which is actually what happens in most situations.
A suitable combination of components, coupled with judicious choice of attendance times can lead to situations of actual success of scheme elearning courses.
Question 3 - Since the emergence of the concept of Web 2.0 have been several discussions on the subject and the concept has undergone changes. Speak up now in Web 3.0 or Semantic Web. How Web 2.0 has affected the change of pedagogical models for elearning? Or are they merely a different way to continue existing practices, without any influence to change the paradigms?
When using multiple web 2.0 tools an elearning project can decentralize the learning process from the teacher to the learner. But for that to happen it is necessary that the pedagogical model advocated in each context, choose the model of learning that best suits you. If the learning model is a constructivist one and collaborative, there are in the Web 2.0 tools that can assist the learning process. However, if we adopt a behaviorist model, there are also Web 2.0 tools to facilitate learning. So who has to create conditions for the existence of communication between the learner and the teaching organization will be the "instructional designer" with strong skills in psychology of learning, multimedia communication and elearning projects design.
Indeed ICT tools are neutral in relation to learning theories. Can and should it be placed at the service of different models that exist, and that in each case, may serve a particular context.
When using multiple web 2.0 tools an elearning project can decentralize the learning process from the teacher to the learner. But for that to happen it is necessary that the pedagogical model advocated in each context, choose the model of learning that best suits you. If the learning model is a constructivist one and collaborative, there are in the Web 2.0 tools that can assist the learning process. However, if we adopt a behaviorist model, there are also Web 2.0 tools to facilitate learning. So who has to create conditions for the existence of communication between the learner and the teaching organization will be the "instructional designer" with strong skills in psychology of learning, multimedia communication and elearning projects design.
Indeed ICT tools are neutral in relation to learning theories. Can and should it be placed at the service of different models that exist, and that in each case, may serve a particular context.
Question 4 - You said recently (in a webinar sponsored by CRIE / DGIDC) instrucionistas that strategies are also needed. This is not in any way contrary to the development of communities of practice and learning, you also stand for? May you explain better this reasoning?
It is perfectly possible and appropriate for training in each context to identify the best learning strategies for the training process to succeed. Each formative context has to rely on multiple variables, which we can mention a few: profile of trainees, study habits, access to equipment for reading content, type of education system to postulate - individual or group, type of training content ; expected duration of training, students' age, type of training to develop (beginners, advanced, recycling, etc.), available budget, among others.
Thus, only after weighing these variables the manager / designer of the elearning project can postulate a model of learning that will favor the development of training and the concept of "training device". And then the most suitable for both individual may be something constructive, something very behaviorist, or rather, something that the prospect of learning activities to support strongly collaborative in nature. And then the most suitable for both can be something constructivist, individualized, or something very behaviorist, or rather, something in which learning is strongly supported in collaborative activities. There is effectively no e-learning model but as many as the contexts we face. It is known that for a given audience and taking into account their characteristics, what will be the best training design to be developed.
However, when the context is favorable, it seems appropriate that the learning is to support collaborative practices, promoting the sharing and creation of knowledge.
It is perfectly possible and appropriate for training in each context to identify the best learning strategies for the training process to succeed. Each formative context has to rely on multiple variables, which we can mention a few: profile of trainees, study habits, access to equipment for reading content, type of education system to postulate - individual or group, type of training content ; expected duration of training, students' age, type of training to develop (beginners, advanced, recycling, etc.), available budget, among others.
Thus, only after weighing these variables the manager / designer of the elearning project can postulate a model of learning that will favor the development of training and the concept of "training device". And then the most suitable for both individual may be something constructive, something very behaviorist, or rather, something that the prospect of learning activities to support strongly collaborative in nature. And then the most suitable for both can be something constructivist, individualized, or something very behaviorist, or rather, something in which learning is strongly supported in collaborative activities. There is effectively no e-learning model but as many as the contexts we face. It is known that for a given audience and taking into account their characteristics, what will be the best training design to be developed.
However, when the context is favorable, it seems appropriate that the learning is to support collaborative practices, promoting the sharing and creation of knowledge.
Question 5 - Many institutions of higher education are gradually developing elarning courses, along with traditional classroom courses. In your perspective, it's just a marketing strategy in order to follow current trends or, in fact, the universities have realized that the future of education necessarily involves increasing the elearning side? Universities are effectively prepared for a change?
In fact I suspect that just yet small fringes of the Universities are awake to the necessity of using elearning. Bologna was not understood in most of our institutions. Should not be only to lose weight but to implement curricula learning systems (including tutorial devices) strongly ICT supported and elearning. If this is not done the actual implementation of the Bologna process is impossible.
And as far as I realize, very few universities make a bet on global elearning. This bet must be strong, educationally oriented and strategically designed so that it can bear fruit and do not create anti-bodies. Changing paradigms of being in the teaching-learning process is not easy even if it is done without a great effort of all actors involved. And tell these actors with their own students, many little used to working autonomously and self-regulate their learning.
But by and large organizations have the perception that the future is the use of technology in learning spaces. Often there is also some confusion between elearning and distance learning, which creates some discomfort at the level of decision makers entities.
In fact, our students today are digital natives and we cannot continue to teach with technology of 19th century. The internationalization of universities itself requires the constant exchange of information, easing the availability of content, hours of care, assessment processes.
Can technology at any given historical moment, be used as a marketing weapon, but soon the organizations will have to be thought of as technologically enriched learning environments, thus casting all the actors involved.
In fact I suspect that just yet small fringes of the Universities are awake to the necessity of using elearning. Bologna was not understood in most of our institutions. Should not be only to lose weight but to implement curricula learning systems (including tutorial devices) strongly ICT supported and elearning. If this is not done the actual implementation of the Bologna process is impossible.
And as far as I realize, very few universities make a bet on global elearning. This bet must be strong, educationally oriented and strategically designed so that it can bear fruit and do not create anti-bodies. Changing paradigms of being in the teaching-learning process is not easy even if it is done without a great effort of all actors involved. And tell these actors with their own students, many little used to working autonomously and self-regulate their learning.
But by and large organizations have the perception that the future is the use of technology in learning spaces. Often there is also some confusion between elearning and distance learning, which creates some discomfort at the level of decision makers entities.
In fact, our students today are digital natives and we cannot continue to teach with technology of 19th century. The internationalization of universities itself requires the constant exchange of information, easing the availability of content, hours of care, assessment processes.
Can technology at any given historical moment, be used as a marketing weapon, but soon the organizations will have to be thought of as technologically enriched learning environments, thus casting all the actors involved.
Question 6 - The elearning has gained increasing importance in formal and informal learning. Be fully online, blended regime is being touted as fundamental to lifelong learning. How do you see the future of elearning, taking into account technological development and social transformation and economic consequence of the evolution of society?
The future of elearning is something that I think is very predictable. Gradually the teaching strategies are changing their paradigms and we have already today a good range of options. Clearly it is for the teacher to manage this wealth of opportunities and create strong learning environments for their students. Case studies, project work, webquests, research-oriented, user-generated content (UGC) are just examples of ways to foster learning in a controlled, technologically enhanced and managed by the teacher. Is here that elearning makes sense, and indeed indispensable as I before suggested.
But there will be many forms of elearning and many options for learning. And in view of Rosenberg in his book "Beyond eLearning", the elearning models will range from more formal education and training up to the extreme limits of self-learning for the pleasure of each citizen. It is the versatility of e-learning systems, which will be the paradigm of learning for the future ... even if you do not call it elearning.
The future of elearning is something that I think is very predictable. Gradually the teaching strategies are changing their paradigms and we have already today a good range of options. Clearly it is for the teacher to manage this wealth of opportunities and create strong learning environments for their students. Case studies, project work, webquests, research-oriented, user-generated content (UGC) are just examples of ways to foster learning in a controlled, technologically enhanced and managed by the teacher. Is here that elearning makes sense, and indeed indispensable as I before suggested.
But there will be many forms of elearning and many options for learning. And in view of Rosenberg in his book "Beyond eLearning", the elearning models will range from more formal education and training up to the extreme limits of self-learning for the pleasure of each citizen. It is the versatility of e-learning systems, which will be the paradigm of learning for the future ... even if you do not call it elearning.