1. Virtual mobility – challenges
for institutions and
practitioners
Airina Volungevičienė
Vytautas Magnus University
2013, Vytautas Magnus University, Kaunas

2. Learning outcome – Day 2
• Ability to describe virtual mobility designing process
Result:
- Joint title curriculum planned for VM implementation

3. Physical Erasmus mobility
What is it?
(audience brain storm)
http://www.text2mindmap.com/NDsJ2Z
What if mobility were virtual? What should we think
about before it happens?
http://text2mindmap.com/DoWeCU

4. The concept of VM
(Group work)
What can we find about virtual mobility concept?

5. Concept of VM (Group work findings)
Author Characteristics Year, references
Helena Bijnens, et al.+1 Physical mobility without the need to travel
ICT
European cooperation in Education
through virtual mobility – best
practice manual, 2006
HE, compliments PHM (Erasmus)
ICT
Wikipedia
Wende Internationalisation abroad 1998
Tholin Physical transportation F2F v.s.
Traveling in virtual spaces
2005
Effective networking Humanities project
Van Debunt-Kokhuis Collaborative communication
T&L mediated by a computer
T&L takes place across national boarders
1996
Dauksiene E. Alternative or compliment to PHM 2010
TeaCamp At least two institutions, clear LOs 2011
Vriens et al. Alternative or additional to PHM
Set ot ICT supported activities
2009
Dondi C. Joint international curricula- programs
Open access to cultural study experience
Valorized bilingual competences
VMCOLAB
Kellorman PHM, VM and areal mobility
Autonomy, (higher in VM)
availability, tools (devices), personal,
co-presence, time, space,
non-verbal behaviour
Journal of transport geography
2011

6. Virtual mobility: involved actors
• Higher education institutions (2+)
• Teachers in student VM (2+, organizing VM
academic exchange)
• Students in VM (student groups in 2+ countries)
• Teachers in VM (professional development in 2+
institutions (research, academic teaching, socio-
cultural exchange))

7. Scenario 1. Physical mobility

8. Scenario 2.
Virtual mobility (not to replace, but to enrich
and enhance physical student mobility)

9. VM impact for HE institutions
• Development and exploitation of intercultural studies
• Joint study programs, quality enhancement and expertise
sharing, transparency of professionalism and academic
processes
• Modernisation and internationalisation of curriculum
(transferrable quality standards, modular curriculum based
on learning outcomes, updating pedagogical models)
• Multi-institutional instead of bilateral collaboration
• Improvement of education attractiveness and HE
competitiveness
• Expanded areas of learning for students
• Additional transferrable skills and knowledge areas
• Teacher professional development
• Additional skills and experience for students
All benefits listed directly support HE institution modernisation!

10. VM impact for teachers
• Personal professional development:
– Interpersonal communication, online communication,
linguistic skills, ICT competences
– teaching quality improvement, new teaching methods
applied and experimented
– new knowledge, skills and experience in multiple EU HE
institutions
• Professional networking, exchange of good
practices
• International, intercultural professional activities
• Transparency and recognition of teaching and
professionalism
• Career opportunities
• Research enhancement – especially in teacher VM

11. VM benefits for students
• Upgraded transferrable skills:
– Linguistic, interpersonal communication
– ICT competences
– Additional learning skills (networking, critical thinking,
intercultural knowledge and skills, quality schemes)
• Curriculum and study quality enhancement
• New learning methods suggested by various HE institutions
• Transparency of learning, individual portfolio development
• Enhanced employability
• Intercultural, international experience and expertise
• Enlarged academic areas of studies
• Support for home students and LLL groups, international
study accessibility for physically and socio-economically
disadvantaged

12. • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukAtoJ7GXOU –
„Reflections on virtual mobility at Vytautas Magnus
University (Master studies in Social work)“ No. 1
(Student Jovita)
•
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jppcjsvJYBk -
„Reflections on virtual mobility at Vytautas Magnus
University (Master studies in Social work)“ No. 2
(Student Vitalija)
•
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcC-BffM5DQ –
„Testimony on studying at 6 HEI via virtual mobility
in TeaCamp project (Vytautas Magnus University
bachelor studies in Education). Student Lina
Nikitinaitė

13. The purpose of virtual mobility
Why do we need that?
Brain storm

14. Virtual mobility handbook

15. VM components/ characteristics
by MOVINTER

16. VM components (by MOVINTER)
1. International student groups - students from different countries who mainly study in their
local (chosen) university with their fellow students and without going abroad to study for long
periods of time; for those students, VM is a way to internationalise.
2. Interactivity & Communication between students and teachers of different countries
through ICT – interaction an communication among groups of students/teachers based in
different countries to discuss diversity depending on national/local/contextual elements.
3. International teaching groups - cooperation in designing, implementing, course
programme evaluation.
4. Multicultural exchange (as a key objective to produce added value) - the multicultural
[intercultural, see further on] component constitutes an integral part of the concept of Virtual
Mobility and justifies the contribution from different countries.
5. Use of appropriate technological solutions - choices that support the different types of
Virtual Mobility.
6. Joint choice of the subject to be studied through VM - in practically any subject in which
comparisons from different national contexts may enhance the value of curricula and prepare
students for an international social, economic and professional environment.
7. Joint curricula design - which adds value in terms of reciprocity and mutual benefits
between the HEIs in the different countries.
8. Joint production of learning resources - or any activity easing communication, learning
and the intercultural exchange (reflective tools, non-interactive tools, collaborative
tools, communication tools, social networking tools).
9. Joint titles - wherever possible, based on a long term confidence relationship.
10. Mutual confidence relationship - the originating vision stresses that the choice of subjects
and the design of the learning experience should reflect the advantages of a multi/inter-
cultural approach.

17. VM - PHASES
1. Decision making
2. Curriculum designing
3. VM organization and communication
4. Assessment and Feedback
5. Certification and Recognition
GROUPS
• Top managers
• Teachers
• Stakeholders (employers)
• Students

18. Questions
• We need to ……… ?
• How will we………?
• Any tools, any ideas….

19. VM Quality Handbook

20. 1. Decision making
2. Curriculum designing
3. VM organization and communication
4. Assessment and Feedback
5. Certification and Recognition

21. Quality criteria+

22. TeaCamp
− international virtual mobility module for virtual
learning called “Virtual learning in Higher
Education” (VLHE)
− the module is developed and studies organized by
13 teachers from:
1. Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania, coordinating
institution)
2. Innovation Centre of University of Oviedo (Spain)
3. Jyvaskyla University (Finland)
4. Jagellonian University (Poland)
5. University of Aveiro (Portugal)
6. Baltic Education Technology Institute (Lithuania,
enterprise)

23. 1. Consistency in learning outcomes
All partners – 6 institutions - reached the agreement on the following
learning outcomes:
1. apply the knowledge of culture models to solve problems caused
by cultural difference in Virtual Mobility
2. explain the skills needed to facilitate and manage collaborative
online learning.
3. describe different technological resources for collaborative online
learning.
4. analyze and evaluate information;
5. synthesize and create information;
6. define the technologies and standards used in distance
education;
7. apply learning management systems based on these standards;
8. compare learning styles and learning strategies
9. identify and apply online resources in order to implement
learning strategies virtually
10. design assessment strategies for virtual learning
11. use tools to support scenarios of virtual learning

24. TeaCamp Curriculum content and teaching/ learning
scenario development (sub-modules)
Sub-module Culture
models (1/2)
(JYU, FI)
Collaborative
online
learning
(CC1N, ES)
Information
literacy
(JU, PL)
Learning
technologies
(BETI, LT)
Learning
strategies
(VDU, LT)
Assessment
strategies
(UA, PT)
Culture
models (2/2)
(JYU, FI)
Assignment 1 2 2 2 2 2 1
Portfolio Moodle portfolio as a required part for international, intercultural experience record – as a learning
outcome for culture model sub-module
Weight 8,33 16,66 16,66 16,66 16,66 16,66 8,33
TeaCamp assessment strategy

25. • Moodle

26. Assessment challenges: 2. Assignment measurement
for international student groups
• Each assignment assessment is described in terms of
formative evaluation
• Assignments are designed on the basis of skills and
competences, as well as learning outcomes and specific
learning objectives described in each sub – module
• Formative feedback tools, students portfolio, surveys and
quizzes, group work and tasks are used for international
student groups
• Students demonstrate learning outcome achievement by
implementation of practical tasks

27. Assessment challenges: 3. Final LO achievement
measurement in the context of different grading
system and different practice in application of ECTS
• Moodle networking service is implemented to
access TeaCamp international Moodle
• Each assignment weights 8,33 % in the final
assessment grade
• After each student submits the assignments, the
final performance is monitored using Portfolio
tool
• Students use portfolio tool to import their
assignments and to export them to their
institutional Moodle servers

28. Assessment challenges: 4. Grade calculation for each HEI so that it
is compatible with the national institutional regulation
Comparative Erasmus assessment tables are used for this
purpose:

29. Learning outcome definition in groups

30. GROUP WORK RESULTS

31. Activity designing

32. Re-thinking the types of learning/ teaching
D.Leclercq, M.Poumay, University of Liege, Belgium

33. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Imitation
“Life imitates art imitates life“
www.photochart.com

34. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Receiving - transferring
• Instruction!
• Video
• Television
• Internet television
• Radio
• ??
– Recordings/ live

35. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Practicing

36. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Creation

37. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Exploration

38. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Experimentation

39. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Discussing, debating

40. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Metareflecting

41. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Let’s think about examples!
Learning/ teaching event Example
Imitation – modeling
Reception - transmitting
Practicing - guidance
Experimenting –
“Creating conditions”
Creating - encouraging
Discussing - moderating
Exploration -
documentation
Metareflection – co-
reflection

42. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Specific
objective(s)
To be able to:
• Select...
• Describe...
• Draw...
Steps to achieve
specific objectives
1) Go and find...
2) Open... and write about...
3) Use.... and present...
4) …
Expected output/
indicators
A blog entry …
A drawing...
A math task solved...
Evaluation criteria …………………
..............
.............

43. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Specific learning
objectives
At the end of this activity, learners will be able to:
Steps to achieve
specific objectives
1) …
Expected output/
indicators
Evaluation criteria

44. Assessment designing

45. Evaluation Objects (Leclercq, 2005)
1. Assessment whose object is the PROCESS vs PRODUCT
2. Assessment relating to RESULTS or APPROACHES
3. SINGLE- or MULTI-dimensional assessments
4. Scope of assessment: INDIVIDUAL vs INSTITUTIONAL
5. PERSONAL vs GROUP assessment
6. PRIVATE vs PUBLIC assessment
7. Assessment focus : ALLO vs - AUTO-CENTRIC
8. Assessment performance : AUTONOMOUS vs ASSISTED
9. Assessment by PEER or EXPERTS
10. Assessment periodicity: CONTINUOUS vs INTERMITTENT
11. Assessment occasion(s): SINGLE vs REPEATED
12. DEFINITIVE vs IMPROVABLE performance

46. Evaluation (Leclercq, 2005)

47. NORMATIVE vs CRITERION-
BASED (Leclercq, 2005)
• Normative : results of person X in terms of position in the
results of a group, the latter being used as a standard or
benchmark
• criterion-based : takes absolute, fixed references into account
as target values. For example, the minimum score will be fixed
here, regardless of the percentage of those who achieve it

48. Facet Dimension
W
H
Y
?
Reference Criteria based Normative
Result Summative Diagnostic
Purpose Grade determining Formative
W
H
A
T
Focused on Process Outcomes
Dimension Uni Multi
W
H
O
?
Target Individual Group
Adressees Private
Public
Operator Allo (peer/expert)
Auto
H
O
W
?
Periodicity Intermitent Continual/Repeat
Openess of marks to review Final Improvable
Source Objective Subjective
Procedure Standardized Adaptive
Involvement Internal External
Contract Imposed Negociated
Reference points / scale Mobile Fixed
Visibility of criteria Disclosed Hidden
Professional realism Contextualised Non contxt

49. Learning contract (?)
• learning contract – indicating the main parameters of
learning process and progress, including learning outcomes
(learning results are compared with the learning outcomes,
and evaluation conclusions are based on the comparison of the
two), learning strategy (flexible or restricted, upon the
agreement of learning process participants and contract
parties), conditional restraints (organizational restraints,
such as time, place and other regulations), interventions of
learning process participants (roles and responsibilities,
degrees of freedom and independence, type of interaction and
request for interactions);

50. LLP-LdV-TOI-2008-LT-0022
Portfolio
• Public and presentation files (to present best work in order to
provide evidence of learner competences; to increase learner’s
self-evaluation abilities; to contribute with responsibility –
managing tools for the learner, to raise self-awareness, etc.
• Intermediate and construction files (to highlight learning
process and progress, to enable diagnosis of problematic
issues, to enable learners to measure self-cognition, to
establish links with curriculum, and to illustrate progress and
achievements).

51. BLOOM’s taxonomy
of cognitive
objectives (1956)
Synthesis
Analysis
Application
Comprehension
Knowledge
Evaluation
Benjamin Bloom
University of Chicago

52. B.Bloom’s taxonomy revised

53. Designing Curriculum in Moodle
Selecting ICT tools

72. Let’s think about the tools!