One size does not fit all Instructional Design in Context

One size does not fit all Instructional Design in Context Juliana Raffaghelli Università Ca' Foscari di Venezia Centro Interateneo per la Ricerca Didattica e la Formazione Avanzata [email protected] E-Learning systems could be considered a key piece within the mechanisms of internationalisation. In the last two decades, intensive debate on eLearning models have led to support collaborative learning in international learning communities, with strong emphasis in “conversational models” (Laurillard, 2003), instead of activities of “learning resources delivery”. Nevertheless, the different social contexts dialoguing through international virtual learning environments, will require analysis of specific methodologies of instructional design that can be aligned to human development needs, cultural and economic realities of reference. Too frequently e-learning, stimulates implementation through “borrowing/lending best practices" , in a logic that many times resembles the hegemonic view of “center-periphery” transfer of knowledge. These facts create the space for reflection on “tailored” instructional design, that introduces technologies adhering to communicational and cultural profiles, in order to generate unique learning cultures. In this paper, a model of analysis of instructional design is introduced, in order to support the above mentioned position; a further supposition to introduce this model of analysis is that tailored instructional design will support inclusive learning cultures, with higher impact on educational and social needs. Key Words: E-Learning, Instructional Design, Social Inclusion Introduction In the context of eLearning as a product and a producer of globalization, the aim of this paper is to discuss the problem of design as important factor of inclusive education. The paper hence analyses the varied nature of educational access, inequality and exclusion through a case study taken from eLearning projects implemented by the UNIVIRTUAL Lab, the unit of the Interuniversity Center in Educational Research and Advanced Training (Ca’ Foscari University of Venice) for eLearning research and design. To this regard, the paper introduces the instructional design model applied by UNIVIRTUAL Lab for implementing eLearning courses, and analyzes the kind of pitfalls the group faced when applied the model to cultural contexts diverse from the one of creation of the model. In fact, the same had emerged from research in Italian and European/Western contexts of eLearning, where some theoretical and methodological assumptions (i.e., interaction and participation) tended to collide with cultural context and identities of international students. This specific problem took the group to reflect on how globalization could reshape many key concepts for higher education, like those of quality and inclusion, that should be taken together in a sustainable model of quality, that in the author’s view, is only reachable through culturally sensitive instructional design as a base for inclusive learning cultures. With the concept of learning cultures, I intend micro-cultural universe coming out from a learning community, that is represented by meaning making processes, symbols, relationships, power, and creative/productive results, as part of an activity system Building on the tradition of storico-cultural theory (Vygotskij,1987) and particularly, in the Activity Theory of third generation (Engestrom, 1987, 2009). The paper hence discusses the challenges and opportunities offered by globalised eLearning in Higher Education, criticizing the linear assumption of full access and open education against the lack of cultural sensibility. Instead, design, based on intercultural dialogue and the creation of enlarged cultural contexts of learning should be the key for inclusion, and hence, quality of eLearning in higher education. eLearning: a paradigm shifting for Higher Education Nowadays many affirm that the Era of Access is no more an utopia, but a rather real phenomenon emerged from the fast development of ICT's. The Internet seems to be the fundamental piece of a global “platform” that promotes access to all sorts of resources, including formal and informal educational materials. The new social activities through this same platform seem to make place to a new culture of sharing, one in which content is freely contributed and distributed with few restrictions or costs, through daylife activities and basing on very personalized motivations of development. This phenomenon has been denominated Learning 2.0. (Downes, 2005; Seely Brown & Adler, 2008), mixing “Web 2.0” with learning, a good metaphor of the relationship among technologies and psychosocial/pedagogical change. This integrated technological and social shifting, is questioning deeply traditional pedagogical practices. Complex forces impact on teaching and learning conditions, as much as institution relationships, completely reshaping the basis of conventional teacher status and function. Indeed, the Web has become one of the most important places in which learning occurs, and informal learning across social networks is becoming increasingly important no matter what teachers actually do (Carneiro, 2007). According to Seely Brown& Adler (2008), Cartesian view of knowledge and learning sharply contrast with this new vision of learning as Social activity. Needless to say, the Cartesian perspective, based on the premise “Cogito, ergo sum”, leads to the strong assumption that knowledge is a kind of substance that passes from one individual to another, through more or less (rather less) sophisticated instructional strategies. Diversely, the social view of learning says, “We participate, therefore we are.” Seely Brown & Adler, 2008:3 So learning tecnologies, are the base of participatory processes, being shaped by this new social interest of being a voice to be heard and words to be read, within a new dialogic space (Wegeriff 2007): In fact, as stated by UOC-UNESCO CHAIR in eLearning, three new metaphors of learning are defining a new educational landscape. They are: Learning is an individual cognitive process, where the several social experiences (and every input from the outside) on the inner cognitive and emotional spheres promotes the development of ta reflective self Learning is a socio-cultural process, where values of the own culture shape understanding and emotional/embodied cognition, a full experience of being participant in a context. Learning is a socio-cultural process with an intention to produce artifacts, where not only culture enters the life of the individual, but where there's also the opportunity to create culture. This new approach to learning processes seems to be the only approach to afford the complexities of knowledge society, where change is the only constant, where uncertainty is a clear part of every social and economical activity, and where a new citizenship, able of being engaged in a complex global democracy is required. By way of this new learning paradigm, higher education should be now more accessible than ever. In fact, there’s a growing demand for access to higher education where the supply of transnational (or cross-border) education and the export of educational services are clearly supported by eLearning. Laurillard (2002) pointed out that eLearning in Higher Education play a crucial role since technologies, supporting interactions, could be also the way to create new learning environments with the potential of: access to digital versions of materials unavailable locally access to search, and transactional services generate interactive diagnostic or adaptive tutorials use interactive educational games personalize information and guidance for learning support facilitate the understanding of scientific systems through simulations or models facilitate communications tools for collaboration with other students and teachers provide students and teachers with tools for creativity and design provide virtual reality environments for development and manipulation facilitate data analysis, modelling or organisation tools and applications provide electronic devices to assist disabled learners However, there are ramifications for unprepared, technology focused institutions, when trying to implement distance learning courses. O’Hearn (2000), contends that university structures are rigid and unproven, regarding the incorporation of technological advancements. Holley (2000) states that eLearning is difficult to implement without the full cooperation and support of lecturers, as the degree of interaction between lecturers and students is still predominant in eLearning environments (Volery 2000). We could further explore some barriers in the process of implementing the advanced technologies in higher education settings, that explain part of the misconceptions and failures of many e-learning ventures. Here are some important paradoxes and barriers that relate to (Rosenblitt, 2006) : the differential infrastructure and readiness of different types of higher education institutions to utilize the technologies’ potential ; the extent to which the ‘old’ distance education technologies and the new technologies replace teaching/learning practices in classrooms ; the role of real problems, barriers and obstacles in applying new technologies ; the impact of the new technologies on different student clienteles ; information acquisition vs knowledge construction in higher education ; cost considerations ; the human capacity to adapt to new learning styles in face of the rapid development of the technologies ; and the organizational cultures of academic and corporate worlds. Nowadays many universities make statements on the importance of inclusion of the disadvantaged, and those who lack access to education, through the use of eLearning. This is owe to the fact that higher education, mediated by technologies, could offer wider access to the existing higher education models. As it has been emphasized by Lea and Blake (2004a; 2004b) and Perraton (2000) both industrialised and developing countries invested in eLearning for ideological, economic, technological and political reasons. The idea of a more equal society, based on empowering and participation, linked to instruction, is the main assumption supporting vast access to higher education. This idea is widely accepted around the world, as it has been pointed out in the works of Baumeister (1999) for Western Europe, King (1999) for Australia, Mmari (1999) for Africa, Chacòn (1999) for Latin America . As Vianney (2008) stressed regarding the growing scenario of implementation of Distance Education in Brasil, Distance Learning has satisfied demand for (higher) education, demonstrating to be a qualifying opportunity. Nevertheless, in some cases the use of Online and Distance Education resulted in allocation of inadequate resources and little concern for effectiveness and equal opportunities –gender, social condition, disabled people, etc (e.g. countries in Latinamerica which tried to address demand without a commensurate increase in the budget, as postulated by Lupiòn Torres & Rama, 2009). We could affirm that understanding barriers is essential for creating true access to higher education delivered through eLearning; not only should policy-makers at institutional and national levels of higher education systems plan a comprehensive strategy for access; but also transnational educational projects of eLearning should negotiate and understand the particularities of learning cultures, to promote access and inclusiveness as one of the main issues regarding quality of education in the globalized society (Margiotta, 2010) Otherwise, the above Learning 2.0 paradigm with its implicancies of access and open education could be not more than a contemporary utopia. A sustainable quality of international education is based on socio-cultural inclusion My assumption of the need of tailored education as part of sustainable quality, takes me necessarily to revise some terms that integrate the former concept. Economic, geographical and socio-cultural conditions under a process of change could have an impact on educational access, determining inequities and social exclusion. The above depicted scenario of learning through collaboration and participation through technologies, expected to remove barriers of any kind and preventing exclusion, could be simply contested by the fact that most of transnational eLearning projects are based on a cultural matrix that is Western, English speaking and post-industrial, beyond the problems of physical use of technological devices and Internet connections supporting eLearning collaborative models. It is assumed that all people in every region of the globe are aware of institutional cultures supporting post-industrial capitalism, based on extremely fluid relations and communications. Even when there’s a growing nation of facebookers, a view like this cannot be supported at a time when global digital divide is highlighting high disparities in access to the Internet: despite the explosive growth of the Internet access and use in developing countries, a disproportionate number of users are still concentrated in developed countries, especially the United States (Chen & Wellman, 2004, p. 40). The G8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the UK and the US) are home to almost 50% of the world’s total Internet users even though they had just 15% of the world’s population (WSIS, 2005). The better penetration of Internet on everyday life imply changing cultures in using services and social activities, like e-communities and social-networking, e-commerce, use of mobile connections to explore libraries and cities, interactive cultural expositions, further civic engagement through e-government, etc. This situation makes a culture of learning by collaboration and participation more affordable, not only in terms of digital connections, but mainly through the clear representation of what “life on the screen”, using Sherry Turkle’s metaphor, means. We discover hence that this "global village", as McLuhan called it, is not homogenous, and higher education could be just reproducing inequalities, by offering learning environments that, starting from models that do not take into account physical difficulties in access to the Internet, continue with learning models that are completely far from local realities of learners. Spronk, B. (2002:4) has in fact explained which are the required learners' characteristics for effective eLearning participation: "These learners must be already well-educated. In order to take these 'excellent' courses from leading universities, one typically needs prerequisite credentials, usually of a fairly high order. They must be proficient in reading and writing English, at a high academic level. They must have ready access to powerful computing hardware and software, and a high speed and reliable Internet connection. They must be computer literate. The more the ease they are with a wide variety of sophisticated computer applications, the more benefit they will derive from Web-based courses. Last but certainly not least, they must have money, and not just any money, but hard currency. Investors and providers have billions of dollars to recoup, and it is the end users who will have to pay the freight." We learn from this list of barriers to access, that the problem resides not only on the widespread provision of Internet services, but on several difficulties that prevent people to easily use that services. So we come now to a new definition of access, that is tightly linked to that of “social inclusion”, as the mean and opportunity to enter in a socio-cultural system, by taking part of it and using completely and fruitfully what it offers, in achieving own personal goals. My point here is that not only physical and technological barriers prevent people of having access to higher education, but also cultural, linguistic and symbolic barriers are obstacles that impede full participation and empowerment, producing lack of access, and hence, socio-cultural exclusion. On the contraire, social inclusion could be defined as multidimensional process of progressive social engagement, with the creation of new individual, group and institutional relations that allow a person full participation in the normal, normatively prescribed activities of the society in which she lives. An educational environment which is inclusive should be centered on users and their needs, shaping opportunities that give voice and empower participant to express their unique human socio-cultural condition. It is useless to consider that the quantity of services will automatically produce access, participation, and hence inclusion. As it has been widely studied with regard to the dynamics of social inclusion and exclusion, formal education (and within it higher education) has played a complex and sometimes contradictory role. On one hand, public schooling often serves as an effective vehicle for overcoming marginalisation and enhancing inclusion into citizenship, work and other spheres of social participation (Pereira dos Santos & Moreira Paulino, 2006). On the other education systems are often seen to contribute to the perpetuation of socio-economic disparities, as well as to forms of discrimination based on such factors as gender, age, health, residence and minority status (OCSE, 2009) Here is where we must revisit the concept of quality, following the proposal of the research group headed by Margiotta (Margiotta et al., 2010), in the sense that this concept cannot be seen anymore as a tecnocratic-economic perspective, focussed on one vision of linear, Western development; a vision of education where the peripheral countries are consumers and central, dominant countries are deliverers of qualified knowledge . Instead of that, the concept of quality in the context of planetary interdependencies pushed by globalization, put educational systems in front of the need of cooperating to generate networks of collective intelligence that aim to inclusive and sustainable educational systems . In that sense, higher education changes from a fordist and post-fordist vision towards a new post-colonial scenery, that claims for an approach based on new models of interaction between teaching, learning, innovation, and mainly, of networking strategies among institutions from several points of glocal territories (Margiotta, 2010). Quality, in few words, is a system that allows expression of participants’ (both institutional and individual) socio-cultural identities through the process of production/creation. My point, among other contributions within the above mentioned group, is to reinforce design as the instrument to build on the many voices participating in an educational project, to make these voices to shape knowledge taught, teaching methods, and learning environments. I will build on the conception of semiotics for clarify the importance of design as tool I am purposely using the term tool, basing in a tradition of storico-cultural theory (Vygotskij,1987) and particularly, in the Activity Theory of third generation (Engestrom, 1987, 2009) that mediates processes of negotiation and inclusive meaning making into internationalisation of higher education’s projects. In Gunther Kress words (2010) In a model of communication for full and equitable participation in the new communicational world, the rhetor’s The orator, the person engaged in a communication process. The author emphasis is aimed to underline that he is talking about a common person in the contemporary complex communicational environments. interests need to be fully acknowledged. The rhetor in turn is aware of the resources needed to give material shape to these interests in the world; she/he undstands the audience and its characteristics; and understands what the matter to be communicated demands. This is the basis for designs to shape these representations ready for their production and dissemination (…) There is a need for careful considerations of designs for meaning and knowledge making: the shaping of routes and environments of meaning making and production of knowledge and, in this the shaping of “inner” semiotic resources. The sites, the processes, the designs all shape “concepts” and in that they shape what dispositions become habituated as subjectivities and as identity.” Kress, 2009:27. Author’s original emphasis The case of Univirtual The case of study we are about to introduce emerged from an action research activity undertaken by a eLearning technologies working unit (Univirtual Lab www.univirtual.it ) within a higher education institution of research (Interuniversity Center for Educational Research and Advanced Training, Ca’ Foscari University of Venice). Univirtual Lab was founded on 1999 with the aim of developing online teachers education courses, implemented by SSIS of VENETO (School of Especialization for Secondary Teaching); while initially the lab supported only local training for a vast number of local students, In the following years, it expanded its scope, participating in several international and national projects where it has experimented virtual learning environments, net based learning tools, and training of trainers to the use of educational technologies. The lab hence provides learning&instructional design, with an approach to innovation in educational technologies strongly supported by research evidence, in collaboration with CIRDFA (Interuniversity Center for Educational Research and Advanced Training). Therefore, the lab envisions the implementation of educational projects not as standardized applications for massive participation, but as fields of experimentation and meaning making for educational research purposes. In fact, to the group’s view, “learning on the cyberspace is creating new phenomena, which in time become a continuing challenge both for research and practice. The Lab intends to analyze well defined research problems in this field, without leaving ethical and deontological concerns” The aim hence is to put into practice significant activities, with the highest educational and social impact among participants and trainers. In the following picture, I introduce the scheme illustrating the Lab’s working processes and research action strategies. Figure – UNIVIRTUAL Lab working&action research processes In spite of these claims, the group faced critical events when passing from national projects to educational internationalization, when trying to adapt the functioning learning models and their learning cultures . Internationalisation of training and emerging discrepancies On the basis of previous research, undertaken all along the process of courses delivery for Italian learners, and taking into account the international literature (mostly Western, anglosaxon literature) Univirtual Lab developed a conception of “good” design. It was based on the conception of “linear” transition from basic “distance” education, towards social, collaborative models (Midoro&Banzato 2005). In fact, the group used a “taxonomy of elearning models” (emerged from the own research activity), based on the type of interactions (amongst resources, teacher/tutor and learners); it added, successively, the evaluation dimension and the concept of “learning environment”. The three levels identified by the taxonomy were hence: Self-Learning Approach (online) The learning process is conceived as individual, where the single retrieves the material of his/her interest from the net Certification/recognition of learning occurs through highly structured tests and assignments. Approach (blended) The learning process is conceived as individual, where the single interacts with a tutor online and eventually with other users Certification/recognition of learning occurs through tests and assignments proposed by the tutor and interacting with colleagues Collaborative Learning (eel – enriched environment learning) The learning process is conceived as social, where learning environments offer several inputs to motivate participants to interact among them Certification/recognition of learning occurs through self-recognition and triangulation of several instruments of evaluation (mixed qual-quan). Univirtual Lab tended to see and emphasize strongly the third perspective of as the “best” or more “developed” conception, adopting it in an important number of international projects as applied to the Italian students. Social interaction was at the center of the learning culture intended to be cultivated (a learning community), with high value of online asynchronous communication, in groups to be seen as “democratic” and non hierarchical. Individual participation was considered to be in tension with social interaction, in the sense that the single person build her own “learning opportunity” through interaction (Midoro&Banzato, 2005). There were a number of other contingencies studied by Raffaghelli (2010), as part of the model: main focus on texts (as preferred format to deliver contents) and textual/written interactions. The other important side of the model emerging from research, was that cases studied to develop the model were based on learning cultures whose students (Italian) were formally engaged in higher education (post-degree) as part of their initial training to become teachers. Training activities where mostly directed to achieve “knowledge” on specific theoretical subjects, with lesser activities of discussions aimed to “do” something (normally, an academic assignment like a text or presentation with reflections on a specific issue). When the model started to be applied to international courses (Master degree) and advanced training with global learning communities (mainly for activities in the context of educational cooperation with European and Third countries), the group started to see deficiencies in performance of courses, and hence to understand the need for adjustments. As emphasized by Zapperini (2010), the collaborative model was not adapted to respond to crucial learning needs in contexts other than European and specifically Italian, in the sense that learners and facilities where not prepared (or not willing) to use their learning time to interact with others to “build” knowledge. In her research, Zapperini compared a Brazilian case against the activities within Univirtual Lab (Italian case), disclosing the many conflictual issues that the implementation of the “collaborative” model implied for the Brazilian group. Furthermore, as reported by Raffaghelli (2008, 2010), intercultural needs where not considered in a model mainly focused on verbal interactions (i.e., in English as lingua franca, with non-native speakers), where multimedia/image resources played an important role in representing the meaning making process within a learning culture. As a result, a collaborative model was not inclusive¸ since facts as facilities, language, learning environments features, cultural perceptions on relationships among teachers and students, as well as learning goals, where not aligned with the kernel of design, free-open social interaction. Coming back to the considerations made in the first paragraphs, we could question the potential of inclusiveness and hence of quality of applying an unique, supposedly “superior” learning model to every context. The critical issues raised while working with groups coming from other European and third countries, in an analysis regarding 5 international projects MIFORCAL, PACE, PERMIT, RAPVITE, PINOKIO. For detailed information on these projects, please consult http://www.univirtual.it/drupal/it/node/40 and http://www.univirtual.it/drupal/it/node/88 and 12 global learning communities (through 348 after-training questionnaires and information raised in 8 partners-meetings), where: Teachers and their types of expertise: are the teachers more concerned with content/knowledge, with pedagogical interactions, or with technologies and the communication processes? Learning objects: Are learning objects simply text/textual information? Are texts integrated with pedagogical information/instructions for self-learning? Are learning objects integrated multimedia resources? Learning activities: from course introduction to evaluation, supporting a learning culture for the development of conceptual knowledge or practical/transferrable knowledge? The proposal This critical issues led the group to think to instruments to raise complexities of cultural background that would become, later on a sustainable learning culture, characterized for its inclusiveness and quality. The following table introduce one of these instruments: a questionnaire, aimed to raise ideas and representations on the organization of eLearning activities, in order to create a common and shared approach to training among partners. Several educational dimensions have been considered, to be explored jointly with partners, before starting learning design for an international educational project which courses are to be delivered for global learning communities in diverse cultural contexts This questionnaire has been developed by Zapperini and Raffaghelli in the context of Univirtual Lab Learning design activities. . Figure Questionnaire for Participatory Planning of Training Activities Dimension 1: The e-Learning platform: structure With regard to learning activities to be held within the eLearning platform, (please indicate the level of agreement with the following options)  Completely Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Completely Agree It must be designed with so many “learning spaces” as many countries are engaged in learning activities, in order to keep together national groups It should offer an single learning space where all participants (from every engaged country) participate to training in mixed groups Dimension 2: The classes (training groups) The online classes should be composed as follows: (please indicate the level of agreement with the following options)  Completely Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Completely Agree International: participants of every country should be engaged in mixed groups, ensuring balanced distribution in terms of number of participants. National: Every country organize the own classes, that are not mixed Dimension 3: The Training Contents Training Modules (please indicate the level of agreement with the following options)  Completely Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Completely Agree They must be general, very similar across partners, so as they can be considered appropriated for an European level. They must be specific and contextualized, so as they can match local training needs They must be general, so as they can ensure further learning phases to be implemented as Residential Workshops at the National/local level. Dimension 4: The Training Staff Trainers must be selected considering the following criteria: (please indicate the level of agreement with the following options)  Completely Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Completely Agree National: every participating country engage the own trainers, taking into consideration the topics selected by the Scientific Committee for key competences that are to be developed within the context of SUSCULT intervention. Internationa: the teaching staff must be chosen to cover topics to all countries, after the selection of an Academic Board that guides training strategies and implementation of European activities. Dimension 5: The online tutoring staff The online tutors: (please indicate the level of agreement with the following options) Must be experts in the contents they have to tackle with, when giving support to learners in online activities Must be experts of methodologies of eLearning Can be content's experts, being further trained to the eLearning methodologies that are to be implemented specifically for SUSCULT project. Must be fluent in English Shoud interact with learners in the own local languages Dimension 6: The translation of training materials/resources Online training materials: (please indicate the level of agreement with the following options) Should be written and introduced in English Should be all available in the specific partners' languages Dimension 7: Learning Processes and students' workload Interactions between learners and their online tutor: (please indicate the level of agreement with the following options)  Completely Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Completely Agree Should be arranged at individual level, and on demand Should be possible within the context of national groups and lead to socialization among local peers Should be possible within the context of international groups and lead to socialization among European peers Must have at least a weekly frequency Students' Interactions (please indicate the level of agreement with the following options)  Completely Disagree  Disagree  Agree  Completely Agree They are not necessary/requested, considering that only individual access to training resources is preferred. They are crucial to support learning processes, that lead to new knowledge building They are important to promote discussion and consense, regarding knowledge and professional practices. As it is possible to see, the questionnaire emphasizes the dimension of diverse conceptions regarding the learning process. In fact, critical analysis of the emerging representation about learning and training within the specific context of a project that a group of partners are about to implement, are gathered and used as support (meaning making resources) for Univirtual Lab to design e-learning environments that cover the educational processes in its human density. Design is hence the first step of a process of deconstruction of specific learning cultures to create a new, glocal learning culture, which practices and ideas could be considered to take place into an enlarged cultural context of learning (Raffaghelli, 2010f; Raffaghelli & Richieri, 2011). Some of these steps are: The design as research about a situated process within the international network of partners; having this research an holistic profile that intends to integrate the whole material generated in a process, aiming to build a comprehensive interpretative model of the several educational phenomena inside the “glocal” perspective. This approach lies on an unprejudiced position by all network participants The design approach based upon predominantly qualitative research since the exploratory nature of the project (an international community building, a bottom-up approach) needs a broad vision of educational activities and it impact at local/individual level; with quantitative aspects as complementary and indirect with regard to every theoretical hypothesis and/or experimental activity. To generate a parallel “ad-hoc” methodological strategy to track communicational processes and critical incidents that could indicate power imbalances and lack of representation of the educational model emerged from design. In order to do this, it is necessary to select a wide repertory of studied research techniques that cover a process of building and understanding of object-data-phenomena with its multiple modal and semiotic complexities (Alvarez et al., 2010); and respecting the several contextual interdependencies to study the “glocal” problem in the internationalization process (Margiotta & Raffaghelli, 2010a). Conclusions Access, inclusion and quality are topics of major importance in developing and developed countries' efforts to use eLearning as a means to respond to the forces of globalization. Nevertheless, my attempt in this article has been to show how these concepts are often polisemic and charged of meanings that are in profound contradiction with the values that are attempted to promote. For example access is given great priority on the basis of a conception of technological and logistic facilities but in lesser extent the cultural perspective is taken into account. The influence of globalization on socio-cultural, economic, political and technological factors had been reflected on universities' mission statements and also influenced what happened in practice. Response to these issues might be context-specific eLearning projects on the basis of design that is expression pedagogical practices that are sensible to local learning cultures. My claim is that this kind of approach could lead to a concept of quality that genuinely look after global interdependences in tailor-made modes of eLearning, towards specific learning cultures.  As pointed out early by John Dewey, Any education given by a group tends to socialize its members, but the quality and the value of the socialization depends upon the habits and aims of the group. Hence, once more, the need of a measure for the worth of any given mode of social life (Dewey, 1916:96) If eLearning is to have potentially major effects on the way higher education is designed, implemented and delivered (Laurillard, op.cit), there is real need to pay attention to quality as concept that encompass inclusiveness, building on diversity, but considering it as difference, which is to say, constitutive of equal institutional assets. Of course it is not about just practical concerns and the bricoleur’s approach: I acknowledge that participatory activities of learning design within a technologically-based environment necessitates the establishment of a theoretical framework as part of the implementation and action research process, (Manning, Cohen & DeMichiell, 2003). So learning design in the global, enlarged cultural context of learning, implies reflection on practice, for the generation of systematic approaches that account for success and pitfalls of processes of internationalization that should encompass a sustainable idea of quality. References Alvarez, G. Cadavid, G. Constantino, G., Raffaghelli, J. (2010) Concepciones, modelos y propuestas alternativas para la investigación del aprendizaje en red. Una aproximación desde la experiencia del proyecto in Constantino, G.D. Cibercultura : formación e investigación en la web. - 1a ed. - Buenos Aires : Editorial Universitaria Rioplatense     ISBN 978-987-24955-6-5    Banzato M., Midoro, V. (2005), Modelli di e-learning, Rivista TD TECNOLOGIE DIDATTICHE, volume 36, pp. 60-71. (ISSN 1970-061X) Baumeister, H-P. (1999). Western Europe. In Harry, K. (Ed.), Higher education through open and distance learning (pp. 244-255). London: Routledge. Carneiro, R, (2007) The Big Picture: understanding learning and meta-learning challenges, European Journal of Education, Volume 42, Number 2, June 2007 , pp. 151-172(22) Chacòn, F. (1999). “Distance education in Latin America: Growth and maturity”. In Harry, K. (Ed.), Higher education through open and distance learning (pp. 137-149). London: Routledge. Conole, G.; Alevizou, P. (2010). A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. A report commissioned by the Higher Education Academy. August 2010, The Open University (UK). Dewey, J. (1916) Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education, Ney York, MacMillan. Ding, X. (1999).” Distance education in China”. In Harry, K. (Ed.), Higher education through open and distance learning (pp. 176-189). London: Routledge. Downes, S. (2005) “Elearning 2.0”. eLearn Magazine www.elearning.org/subpage.cfm?article=29-1&section=articles, las access 23 March 2010 Engeström (2009) The future of Activity Theory: A rough Draft, in Sannino, A. Daniels, H. & Gutiérrez,K. Learning and Expanding with Activity Theory. New York: Cambridge University Press Engeström, Y. (1987), Learning by expanding. An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research, Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki. European Commission. (2010). Learning, Innovation and ICT. Lessons learned by the ICT cluster. Report of ICT Cluster, Education & Training 2010 Programme. URL: http://www.kslll.net , last access February 2011. Guri-Rosenblit, S. (2006) “Eight paradoxes in the implementation process of e-learning in higher education” , Distances et savoirs 2/2006 (Vol. 4), p. 155-179. URL : www.cairn.info/revue-distances-et-savoirs-2006-2-page-155.htm, last access July 2011. Holley, D. (2002). "Which room is the virtual seminar in please?". Education and Training, 44(3), pp.112-121. Kress, G.R. (2009). Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London: Routledge. King, Br. (1999). Distance education in Australia. In Harry, K. (Ed.), Higher education through open and distance learning (pp. 264-276). London: Routledge. Laurillard, D. (2002), Rethinking University Teaching: A Conversational Framework for the Effective Use of Learning Technologies (2nd edition) (London: Routledge Falmer). Lea, M. and Blake, N. (2004a). Understanding distributed and flexible learning, Block 1. From 'distance' and 'open' to 'flexible' learning. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Lea, M. and Blake, N. (2004b). Understanding distributed and flexible learning, Block 3, Globalisation, knowledge, learning and identity. Milton Keynes: The Open University. Lupiòn Torres, P. & Rama, C. La educaciòn superior a distancia en América Latina y el Caribe. Realidades y Tendencias. Florianòpolis: editora Unisul. Manning R. D., Cohen M.S., DeMichiell, R.L. (2003) Distance Learning: Step by Step. JITE, 2003: 115-130 Margiotta, U., Raffaghelli, J., Constantino, D., Cipriani Pandini, C., Aguilera de Zarza, Y., Testa Braz da Silva, A., (2010), “La sperimentazione MIFORCAL : Un modello formativo per il contesto culturale allargato” Journal SSIS-Veneto “Formazione & Insegnamento”, 2010/2, pp. 255-296 Margiotta, U., Raffaghelli, J. –Editors- (2010a) Processi di Internazionalizzazione, Curricular Justice e formazione dell’identità Professionale. MIFORCAL: Una Storia di convergenze. Journal SSIS-Veneto “Formazione & Insegnamento” , 2010/2 , pp. 354 - ISSN 1973-4778 Mmari, G. (1999). The Open) University of Tanzania. In Harry, K. (Ed.), Higher education through open and distance learning (pp. 110-122). London: Routledge. O’Donoghue, J., Singh, G., and Dorward, L. (2001). Virtual Education in Universities: A Technological Imperative. British Journal of Educational Technology, 32(5), pp 517-530. O’Hearn, J. (2000). Challenges for service leaders: setting the agenda for the virtual learning organization. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 12(2), pp. 97-106. OCDE (2009). Education at a Glance, OCDE, Paris. Olimpo, G. (2010). Società della conoscenza, educazione, tecnologia In TD-Tecnologie Didattiche, 50 (pp. 4-16) Pereira dos Santos, M. & Moreira Paulino, M. (2006), Inclusião em Educação, São Paulo: Cortez. Perraton, H. (2000). Open and distance learning in the developing world. London: Routledge. Raffagheli, J. Tosato, P. (2010a). Teachers' Training in the Era of Access – Content, Metadata, and Recognition of Self-learning Activities to Shape an Open Training of Trainers Model, EDEN Research Workshop, Budapest 2010. Raffaghelli, J. (2008a) “The TEACHERS’ Space” - Building a place without frontiers on the Net” - Poster Presentation - European Distance E-Learning Network – Research Workshops – Promoting Access and Social Inclusion through E-learning, UNESCO, Paris, 20-22 Ottobre 2008 Raffaghelli, J. (2010d) The big picture: meeting educational challenges in an increasing multicultural world – Journal SSIS-Veneto “Formazione & Insegnamento” 2010/3., 17-50 - ISSN 1973-4778 Raffaghelli, J., Ricchieri, C. (2011) A class-room with a view. Net based strategies to promote intercultural education, in Prof. Lone Dirckinck-Holmfeld, Prof. Vivien Hodgson, Prof. David McConnell (Eds) Exploring the Theory, Pedagogy and Practice of Networked Learning, London: Springer Seely Brown, J.; AdlerR, R. (2008). Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0, EDUCAUSE Review, vol. 43, no. 1 (January/February 2008): (pp.16–32). Spronk, B. (2002) Globalisation, ODL and Gender: Not Everyone's World is Getting Smaller, working draft,  International Extension College, Cambridge, August, pp. 4. Vianney J. (2008) O Cenário Brasileiro da EaD, Seminário Internacional de educação a distância, Câmara dos Deputado –Brasília. Volery, T. (2000). Critical success factors in online education. The International Journal of Educational Management, 14(5), pp. 216-223. Vygotskij, L. (1987), The collected works of L.S. Vygotskij. Volume I. Problems of general psychology. New York: Plenum Press Wegerif. R. (2007) Dialogic, Educational and Technology: Resourcing the Space of Learning. New York: Springer-Verlag. World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). (2005). What's the state of ICT access around the world? http://www.itu.int/wsis/tunis/newsroom/stats/index.html , last access August 2011 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). (2008). ICTs in Africa: Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity. from http://www.itu.int/newsroom/features/ict_africa.html, last access August 2011 Zapperini, A. (2010), Modelli eLearning contestualizzati. Analisi comparata di due casi fra Italia e Brasile, in Margiotta, U., Raffaghelli, J. –Editors- (2010a) Processi di Internazionalizzazione, Curricular Justice e formazione dell’identità Professionale. MIFORCAL: Una Storia di convergenze. Journal SSIS-Veneto “Formazione & Insegnamento” , 2010/2 , pp. 354 - ISSN 1973-4778 Zondiros, D. (2008) Online, distance education and globalisation: Its impact on educational access, inequality and exclusion, in European Journal on Online and Distance Learning EURODL (I)2008 http://www.eurodl.org/?p=archives&year=2008&halfyear=1&article=302#R25, last access August  2011. PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 1