March 2015 - Public policies in distance education

Revista FGV Online
Year 4 – Number 2
ISSN 2179-8729

Sumário
5 Digital competence: cornerstone of european policies
for open education
23 Public policies in distance education
27 Public Policies and Educational Data Processing:
Challenges faced by technology-mediated education at
municipal schools comprised by the Municipal Office of
Education of São Paulo (SME-SP)
47 Brazil is faced with a global scenario of investment,
state-of-the-art technologies and open and flexible
education. Are we in or out?
65 Inclusive education in Brazil challenges: issues, solutions
and perspectives as they relate to educommunication
79 Online Distance Education: towards 79 a research
agenda

5http://www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/revista
Digital competence: cornerstone of european policies
for open education
Jim Devine
Jim Devine plays and active role in educational policy development, implementation, innovation and evaluation at European
level and has fulfilled an institutional leadership and governance role in higher education in Ireland, as President of the
Institute of Art, Design and Technology in Dublin. Prior to joining IADT he led the development of postgraduate programmes
at the National Distance Education Centre in Dublin City University.
Abstract:
Shared approaches to quality, qualifications and mobility, the outcome of a generation of European policy development,
represent a significant milestone and potentially provide the foundation for open education. A panoply of policies and
practices has resulted in a complex multi-faceted, but ultimately provider-driven tertiary educational landscape. It is argued
that the stimulus needed for transformative innovation is more likely to arise as demand-led innovation, with digitally
competent students to the fore in opening up education.
Keywords:
Digital Competence, Open Education, Media and Information Literacy, Digital Learning, Competence Frameworks.
INTRODUCTION
Convergence of ubiquitous personal access to mobile or fixed Internet and the unprecedented access to high quality
digital content, resources and social media herald a new era of learning opportunities. An on-going research project at the
European Commission’s IPTS Research Centre, titled: Open Educational Resources and Practices In Europe1
takes a futures
perspective, imagining the learning landscape as it might be in the year 2030. Figure 1 illustrates four generic learning
patterns, any or all of which will be relevant to the individual learner as they pass through iterations of formal learning
(school, tertiary education, continuing professional or vocational development) and at the same time self-initiate learning
projects and activities of their own.
1 See: http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/OEREU.html

6 http://www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/revista
Figure 1: Learning scenarios 2030
Guided Self-guided
Learner initiated
Externally set
Guided
discovery
Guided
journey
Self-guided
journey
Self-guided
discovery
goals
Learning context
Learning
Source: IPTS
The ‘guided journey’ reflects formal education as we know it today, albeit that innovation is already evident as more and
more courses integrate learning platforms and digital resources. The shared goal of students and their teachers is the
achievement by the student of worthwhile recognised qualifications. The ‘self-guided journey’ is most readily recognisable
today as flexible/online education where the student can take greater responsibility for regulating his or her own learning,
but the goal remains the achievement of a worthwhile qualification. The other quadrants represent the less delineated
territories of lifelong learning and informal learning, where individual motivation is intrinsic and activities are curiosity
or challenge driven. We are only now beginning to look at how a portfolio of individually initiated learning activities
might be recorded and valued, for example through assessment and credit recognition. The ‘guided discovery’ is perhaps
best represented today by the popularity of MOOCs and open courses more generally, although we know from recent
evaluations (Ho, 2014; Nelson, 2014)) that the independent learning skills and persistence required to complete them tend
to be concentrated among those who are already well-qualified academically.
The challenge for policy makers is to create and sustain the conditions required to diversify learning opportunities while
at the same time extending the reach of digital competence and inclusion. The risk of course is that effort is concentrated
on what are perceived to be more tangible and immediately achievable objectives: a digital re-engineering of existing

processes for formal education, and what we achieve is sub-optimal in that it merely “delivers today’s education in new
ways for tomorrow’s world” (Devine, 2014:15).
To develop all four quadrants of the ‘scenarios 2030’ model requires expansive thinking on the part of policy makers and
educators encompassing the twin goals of:
• Developing design capability with a focus on outcomes (knowledge, skills and competences), the diverse
pathways to achieving them and the broader range of assessment instruments required to measure them under
different conditions;
• Embedding digital competence universally, thus raising participation by motivating and better matching individuals
to worthwhile opportunities.
We already know that digital platforms, resources and social media can underpin educational transformation, but are
reminded of the adage “If you are not willing to learn, no one can help you; if you are determined to learn, no one can stop
you”. New learning opportunities, engaging substantially greater numbers of participants, require a policy approach that
recognises the symbiotic relationship between open education and digital competence.

1. OPENING UP EDUCATION
Publication of the European Commission’s policy communication ‘Opening Up Education’ [European Commission, 2013]
marks a particular milestone. Building on a legacy of research and experimentation on what has been variously termed
‘ICT and Education’ or ‘Technology Enhanced Learning’, perhaps now more appropriately termed ‘Connected Learning’, it
sets an ambitious vision for educational provision that is “of higher quality and efficacy”. Before setting out an action plan,
to be underpinned by the Erasmus+ and Horizon 2020 funding programmes, Opening Up Education (and its associated
Commission Staff Working Paper2
) provides a critique of current realities, concluding that “education is failing to keep pace
with the digital society and economy”, see Figure 2.
Figure 2: Opening Up Education – a diagrammatic summary
Vision
Cure
Experimental
actions at scale
Diagnosis
Education failing to
keep pace with the
digital society and
economy
Broadband
access is still an
issue for some
To build
communities of
practice
In the context
of Institucional
Strategy
To stimulate
innovative learning
practices
About digital
competencies
for teachers
To meet student
expectations for
digital skills and
certification
Open Education
Resources
- fragmentation
We are not
doing enough
Professional
Development
for teachers at
all levels
Embedding
Digital
Competence
Volunteering
and
Communities
Transparency
Instruments -
qualifications
Foresight
OER supply
and repositories
Evidence/
Benchmarking
Hub of Digitally
Innovative
Institutions
Concerted
Effort
Opening Up
Education
“...towards more open
learning environments
to deliver education of higher
quality and efficacy”
The diagnosis concludes that we are coming up short on a number of fronts, but most particularly in relation to digital
competence, for individuals and for teachers, and in respect of fragmentation of open resources. The cure is multi-faceted
and requires concerted action that can supersede the many individual but poorly co-ordinated actions that have taken
place heretofore.
2 See: Analysis and mapping of innovative teaching and learning for all through new Technologies and Open Educational Resources in Europe
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?qid=1389115521455&uri=CELEX:52013SC0341

On the one hand, we need to embed digital competence and urgently address the professional development of teachers,
extending their capacity for digital pedagogy. On the other hand, we need to simultaneously address ‘transparency
instruments’, in other words, our qualifications frameworks and certification processes in order to identify a wider range
of learning outcomes that can be attained through ever more diversified learning pathways. And, as technologies become
more versatile and more widely accessible, we must move beyond today’s smaller scale pilots to the implementation of
large scale, system-level experimentation to build a comprehensive evidence base.
2. WHAT DO WE MEAN BY OPEN EDUCATION?
‘Open Education’ is a contested term, and policy and decision makers often remain silent as to their particular interpretation.
The origins of modern discourse can be traced to the debate between Greville Rumble and Roger Lewis, played out in the
Open Learning Journal some 25 years ago (Rumble, 1989; Nation, 1990). A summary of the discourse can be found in an
article published by Lewis (2002), where he discusses a trend towards hybridisation of conventional higher education. He
identifies four dimensions of ‘openness’ that can be interpreted for a present day context, see Figure 3. They are:
• Flexibility (time, place, pace of study)
• Access (ability to be admitted to courses of study and their cost)
• Adaptation for diverse audiences
• Accreditation, Quality and Certification
Figure 3: Dimensions of Openness
Open
Education
Flexibility
Time
Place
Pace
Access
Cost
Admissions
Policy
Accreditation
and
Certification
Quality
Assurance
Diversity of
reputable
Certification
Adaptation for
Diverse Audiences
Appropriate
Assessment
Appropriate
Learning
Outcomes
Design of
Curricula
Source: Author, based on Lewis

“Gradually a definition of ‘openness’ developed. At the heart of this was learner choice: putting
decisions about learning into the hands of the learners themselves. Choice could be over the context
in which learners studied: time, place and pace of learning; or over matters closer to the curriculum
itself, such as content, learning method or nature of assessment. This choice was bound to be relative:
students could be provided with more or less choice.” (Lewis: 2002)
Where do we stand, more than a decade later, in 2014?
The question of learner choice is at the core of policy making. Engineering greater flexibility into course delivery and
bringing an extended number of participants into tertiary or higher education, while challenging, is the ‘low hanging fruit’
of open education. Under these models of openness, the locus of choice remains with the educational provider and what
we see is process re-engineering, with decisions about curricula and assessment firmly under the control of traditional
agencies. When we think about widening participation and choice on a more significant scale, the need to understand the
requirements of a more diversified audience becomes pressing and curricula need to be radically adapted. Allied to this,
more diversified modes of assessment need to be accommodated along with a corresponding diversification of acceptable
certification. These aspects of an open education landscape are far more challenging and policy makers tend to shy away
from them, at least insofar as their intersection with the mainstream is seen as problematic. Therefore, while learner choice
may be opening up, for example through open courses and OER, access to worthwhile qualifications still remains closely
locked down.
As the means of opening up education come closer to becoming a reality for all, what has been achieved under each of the
four dimensions of openness?
Flexibility: Already abundant digital resources, combined with a growing body of professional practice in digital pedagogy
across all academic disciplines, suggests that we are in a position to mainstream digital learning.
Access: The question of equity is implicit in the definition of openness. Following a period of sustained progress, higher
education systems have developed from elite to mass provision. However, the cost and sustainability of mass systems
of conventional higher education are now under threat, while many individuals still remain marginalised. The challenge,
most immediately identified as finding ways to ‘do more with less’, must be supplemented by the challenge of finding a
transition pathway to doing something that is different. Access involves the removal of barriers to education, both social
and economic. For example, while it is clear that many MOOCs provide access that is free, data on participants to date
indicates little or no uptake among less advantaged participants.
Adaptation for Diverse Audiences: This is arguably the key dimension of openness. The question of what we study is no
less important than the question of the modes of study used. If, by opening up education, new audiences are attracted to
higher education, then diversity of curriculum and assessment must become an indicator of openness. Adapting what is

already provided in order to scale it up may be an insufficient response to the needs of a wider cohort of learners. Already,
in the case of MOOCs, we are seeing adaptation towards courses that are of shorter duration, perhaps indicative of a trend
that may also become prevalent in mainstream higher education?
Accreditation and Certification: This includes questions of quality and the acceptability of alternative certificates or
badges in society generally, as compared with traditional qualifications. If a move towards open education provides a wider
choice for individual learners, the challenge of extending the scope of accreditation and quality assurance must be regarded
as no less important than the challenge of enabling digital learning itself. Existing national and regional agencies must step
up to the plate to make this possible.
3. EXPLORING THE COMPLEXITY OF THE EUROPEAN ‘COMPETENCES’ LANDSCAPE
A tension, largely constructive it must be said, is evident in how policies have been formed by different actors at a European
level, starting from differing agendas, evolving from different starting points and proceeding at a different pace in each
case. With our vision for a digitally engaged society now more clearly in frame, the question of how to get there is
somewhat contested, and if we were to start over, we might not take the same path that has brought us to the complex
landscape we now inhabit, see Figure 4.
Pursuit of the goals of:
• economic recovery, development, sustainability and employment;
• realisation of a fully developed digital Europe; and
• modernisation of educational systems
has engaged diverse government ministries in member states and a range of Directorates at the European Commission,
e.g., DG EMPL (Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion), DG EAC (Education and Culture), DG CNECT (Communications,
Networks, Content and Technology) and JRC (Joint Research Centres), operating sometimes in tandem (as in the case of
the Opening Up Education communication) but more often still dealing with policy and practice silos that have developed
over many years.

Figure 4: Competences landscape
Transparency Perspective
Qualifications Quality
Exchangeable Credits
Visibility
Perspective:
Job/Professional
Roles
Competences
Landscape
Educational
Perspective:
Literacies
Vocational
Perspective:
Skills
At is simplest, policies are developed either to support the individual (educational) or to promote societal objectives (labour
market), and of course it is to be hoped that these are congruent. The overall goal is a highly self-actualised individual
shaping and contributing to and drawing from a society that offers jobs, security, quality of life and sustainability.
Two pillars of the ‘competence landscape’ evolve under the direction of DGs with an employment/vocational remit:
• Skills (specification, taxonomy, skills development and assessment)
• Visibility (identification of job/professional roles and the skills needed to match them)
The other two pillars reflect the need to holistically develop individuals and are driven largely by DG EAC. These include the
development of the necessary underpinning literacies and the methodological description of outcomes expected from our
educational systems at all levels. Central to this approach is the development of qualifications frameworks, quality assurance
mechanisms and transparency/credit recognition protocols that enable educational systems, particularly at tertiary level, to
work within and across borders.
If this appears to be a baffling conflation of overlapping policy directions, it is because it is. At the very least, there is an
urgent need to align and streamline them if we are to nurture an open education environment. The different perspectives
are summarised as follows:

3.1. Educational perspective
The Key Competences for Lifelong Learning (European Commission, 2006) represent a cornerstone of the education pillar
see Figure 5. Digital Competence, is most completely defined as: “the confident, critical and creative use of ICT to
achieve goals related to work, employability, learning, leisure, inclusion and/or participation in society” (Ferrari,
2013:2). Arguably, it is the most significant transversal skill for 21C living, and combined with the skill of ‘learning to learn’
underpins how individuals can develop and sustain their curiosity, motivation and enagement with learning opportunities
of all kinds.
Figure 5: Educational perspective
8 Key
Competences for
Lifelong
Learning
Educational
Perspective:
Literacies
Other key
Competences
Learning
to Learn
Information
Literacy
Media
Literacy
Digital
Competence
However, digital competence, as an evolved concept and practice, shares the same landscape as ‘media literacy’, and
‘information literacy’, and there is a need to resolve these overlapping paradigms that have evolved from different but
intersecting communities within the educational sector. Media literacy has a longer history, stretching back to the 1980’s
and its adherents will argue that their approach is broader and more engaged with ‘content’ in all its forms. Media literacy is
more rooted in media education at school level, whereas the term ‘information literacy’ has been preferred when addressing
the same agenda within higher education. More recently, they have coalesced in the term ‘media and information literacy’
(MIL) and the Declaration of the MIL Forum (Paris, 2014) defines the territory as: “a complex set of 21st century literacy
practices; a means of enhancing inclusion, knowledge, skills and critical attitudes to information, culture and co-
operation and a mechanism for all people to access, create and innovate”3
.
3 The MIL Forum is the result of international collaboration between UNESCO, the European Commission (EC), the Autonomous University of Barcelona and
other partners, within the framework of the Global Alliance for Partnerships on Media and Information Literacy.

Clearly there is little to separate the definitions of ‘digital competence’ and ‘media and information literacy’: both underpin
the ability of individuals to navigate the complexities of both the local and global world they inhabit. The imperative,
therefore, is how to find agreement among the competing policy actors about practical interventions to develop such
literacies/competences, the kinds of outcomes that could be expected and how they could be successfully measured or
assessed at different levels within our educational systems. Digital Competency/MIL for all must be a primary goal for
educators if we are to deliver on the promise of widening participation in the open education society we aspire to.
3.2. Transparency perspective
Irrespective of whether learning opportunities are free or incur costs for the individual, trust must underpin the relationship
between student and educational provider. From a policy perspective, transparency is the key to trust. The so-called
transparency instruments, see Figure 6, are now at a relatively mature stage of development in Europe, although embedding
them universally still remains a challenge. Conceptualisation and implementation of Qualifications Frameworks at European
level (EQF) in order to provide the common reference point to which member state National Qualifications Frameworks
(NQF) can be mapped is a major achievement. The key feature of such frameworks is the ability to offer a shared description
of complex learning outcomes, reflecting cognitive and non-cognitive skills particularised for academic disciplines and for
different levels, from compulsory schooling to doctoral levels. With such a design template in place, curriculum, teaching,
learning and assessment methods become more open to scrutiny. For example, a European-wide quality assurance regime
for higher education has been in place for some time, overseen by national agencies working in tandem to common
standards overseen by ENQA (European Network for Quality Assurance). Within the vocational training sector, a similar
framework has been developed (ECVET), albeit by a different pool of experts, and there are nuanced differences of approach
between EQF and ECVET that remain to be aligned.
Figure 6: Visibility perspective
Visibility
Perspective Qualifications
Quality Exchangeable
Credits
EQF European Qualifications
Framework and National
Qualifications Frameworks
ECVET European Credit
System for Vocational
Education and Training
ECTS European
Credit Transfer System

The ability to assign recognisable and transferable credits to a specific quantum of learning also represents a major step
towards harmonisation of grading systems across member states. The European Credit Transfer System (ECTS) has been
in development and refinement for more than ten years and for students completing higher education programmes, the
more recently introduced ‘Diploma Supplement’ provides a transcript of their achievements formatted to an agreed and
internationally readable template.
Focus to date has been on implementing NQFs and on the changing role of accreditation and quality assurance agencies.
Arguably, during a first iteration, the emphasis has been on setting up systems and processes to deal with the status quo.
With those in now in place, the new priority is to address the challenges posed by new modes of teaching and learning,
open education and by the transnational and multi-provider context in which learning can so readily now take place. New
private sector organisations entering the higher education sector must be anticipated, and quality and regulation regimes
must be able to adapt their processes, to take account of the different business models that new entrants will espouse.
3.3. Vocational perspective
The vocational perspective focuses on the supply and matching of skills required in a dynamic labour market, see Figure
7. The Digital Agenda for Europe, led by DG CNECT, has provided the impetus for the identification and development of
e-Skills, leading in turn to the development of the European eCompetence Framework (e-CF).4
Figure 7: Vocational perspective
Vocational
Perspective
Skills
eSkills
Competence
Reference
Frameworks
e-CF: European
eCompetence
Framework
4 European eCompetence Framework portal: http://www.ecompetences.eu

From a policy perspective, this framework is significant for two reasons:
• It provides a taxonomy of 40 competences, elaborated at five proficiency levels, required to fulfill ICT-related jobs,
not just in the ICT sector but in all sectors of business and the private sector;
• It has been developed in a way that it can potentially be mapped to the outcomes approach of the EQF.
While the e-CF is sector-specific, it provides a blueprint for how competence frameworks, more generally, can be developed
for other sectors. This offers clear opportunities for the development of competence-based approaches, applicable not only
to professional or vocational training, but also to the wider educational system. Proponents argue that this will lead to an
improved alignment of education with the world of work. However, many educationalists are concerned about what they
regard as a utilitarian direction, if it has as a consequence, albeit unintended, of diminishing wider, personal and societal
goals of education.
3.4. Visibility perspective
A more recent policy platform, the European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations (ESCO) commenced in
2010 as a joint initiative of DG EMPL, DG EAC and Cedefop (European Centre for the Development of Vocational Training)5
.
Figure 8: Visibility perspective
ECSO: European Skills,
Competences, Qualifications
and Occupations:
Job/Professional Roles
Visibility
Perspective
(Roles)
The economic crisis and youth unemployment in particular have focused attention not only on the decline in traditional
employment, but also on significant labour market mismatches. It appears that our schools, vocational training institutions
and higher education institutions are not able to demonstrate the agility required to graduate the right numbers, with the
5 European Skills, Competences, Qualifications and Occupations portal: https://ec.europa.eu/esco/home

right skills to meet demands for ‘new skills’ and ‘new jobs’, or with a capability for transnational mobility that would enable
them to seek employment where it is available.
In categorising the skills, competences, qualifications and occupations relevant for the EU labour market, ESCO is an
attempt to bridge the mismatch gap and to set the agenda for educational and vocational providers. As such, it represents
a first attempt to bring together a labour market/employers perspective with the outcomes approach to education and
training that has been in development for many years under EQF and ECVET.
4. FRAMEWORKS FOR DIGITAL COMPETENCE AND MEDIA/INFORMATION LITERACY
UNESCO plays a pivotal role as a global champion of Media and Information Literacy and has developed a curriculum and
competency framework for teachers (Wilson et al. 2011) as a guide to what might be undertaken in teacher education
and what in turn teachers might integrate in their teaching practice. Media Literacy is also a key theme in the EU Kids
Online Network6
. This approach values and promotes progressive curriculum integration of MIL, while acknowledging the
challenges of assessing MIL learning outcomes for students.
On the other hand, an agenda for Digital Competence has been accelerated in recent years by European policy makers,
anchoredinwhatwasoriginallyan‘ICTandEducation’themealliedtothedrivetowardseInclusion.Recentdevelopmentshave
been directed towards mapping of digital competences, taking an approach that mirrors that used in the conceptualisation
and construction of the eCompetence Framework.
The framework, devised under the ‘DIGCOMP’ research project (Ferrari, 2013) has identified a total of 21 competences,
arranged under 5 headings:
• Information
• Communication
• Content Creation
• Safety
• Problem solving
Taking the lead from the e-CF approach, proficiency levels are ascribed to each competence, although in this case three
levels are defined (as distinct from five in the case of the e-CF), see Figure 9.
6 See See www.eukidsonline.net

Figure 9: Example: Digital competence framework
DIMENSION 1
NAME OF AREA
COMMUNICATION
Dimension 2
Competence title and
description
2.6 Managing digital identity
To create , adapt and manage one or multiple digital identities, to be able to protect one's
ereputation, to deal with the data one produces through several accounts and applications
Dimension 3
Proficiency levels
A- Foundation B- Intermediate C- Advanced
I am aware of the benefits
and risks related to digital
identity.
I can shape my online digital
identity and keep track of
my digital footprint
I can manage several digital
identities according to the
context and purpose, I can
monitor the information
and data I produce through
my online interaction, I
know how to protect my
digital reputation.
Source: JRC-IPTS
Elaboration of the Digital Competence Framework also includes an outline self-assessment diagnostic instrument and the
next phase of development, currently the subject of a funding call for large-scale experimentation under the Erasmus+
programme, is to devise assessment instruments for deployment at scale suitable for use within schools or the wider
community.
To some extent, the OECD-PISA7
studies and the first iteration of OECD-PIAAC8
map this territory, particularly when looking
at problem solving in technology rich environments. What we know from the most recent studies is that significant digital
competence gaps exist among school-age students and in the adult population. Simply ‘being digital’ is no guarantee of
digital competence.
At a systemic level, policy makers recognise the need to provide meaningful education and training opportunities that are
more numerous, diverse and cost effective. A pull-factor working alone, however, is unlikely to be effective, as we have seen
from already considerable investment in platforms, open resources and open courses and in many ‘open learning’ initiatives
7 See PISA 2012 Key Findings: http://www.oecd.org/pisa/keyfindings/pisa-2012-results.htm
8 See first PIAAC report, 2013: http://www.oecd.org/site/piaac/

of past decades. ‘Build it and they will come’ is a supply-driven mindset that needs to be supplanted by investment in the
personal capability of individuals, and this can only be achieved by embedding digital competence widely in society, ideally
at higher proficiency levels.
The MIL curriculum offers a rich environment in which to cultivate individual curiosity, motivation, self-awareness and
autonomous learning skills. The Digital Competence Framework potentially provides an approach to confirming and measuring
personal accomplishment. Digital Competence is our personal passport to learning, the flipside and complement to the
e-Competence Framework that is effectively assures employers and the labour market of our particular work-related skills.
5. SO WHOSE AGENDA IS ‘OPEN EDUCATION’?
The vision of a digitally mediated educational, vocational and personal development landscape extending far beyond the
boundaries of our traditional systems is one that policy makers readily espouse. How can such a landscape develop, who
are the stakeholders and are their interests competing or aligned?
5.1. Individuals
Individuals can potentially shape the future open education landscape. Policy makers have already internalised the rhetoric
of flexibility, choice and personalisation of learning. The balance can be reset between provider-driven approaches and
those that are demand-led. In order to achieve this, however, a step change is required in how we embed high standards of
digital competence in society, in particular at a key formative stage among students of school going age. We already know
that digital inclusion, in the basic sense of being regularly online, is a reality for the vast majority in society and universal
for young people. The concern of educationalists has now moved the question of the quality of online activities and how
more challenging activities such as learning are in constant tension with a propensity for all forms of digital distraction. The
digitally competent individual is better equipped to make choices in a noisy digital world, and is better placed to demand,
find and make good use of a wide range of learning opportunities.
5.2. Traditional educational providers
Traditional educational providers, including public and private institutions and professional bodies offering higher or
professional education on-campus or through established online provision, will continue to dominate the educational
landscape for the foreseeable future. It is difficult yet to forecast the extent to which they will seek to push boundaries and
become players on a new and extended landscape. Some are experimenting through MOOC provision with limited options
for certification, others by creating open education resources (OER), others by expanding their capacity to invite and
process individual requests for recognition of prior learning (RPL) from individuals seeking admission or credit recognition
on the basis of a portfolio of studies undertaken through other means. They fulfil a critical role as gatekeepers of quality

and worthwhile qualifications, and can act either conservatively in an attempt to maintain the status quo or innovatively by
facilitating the creation of new forms of qualifications that can be offered with the same guarantees of quality and labour
market credibility.
5.3. New entrants to an education and training ‘market’
The open education landscape also provides opportunities for new entrants, for the most part private sector for profit
organisationsofferingarangeofserviceseitherindependentlyorinpartnershipwithtraditionalhighereducationinstitutions.
The kinds of transformative actions that potentially result can be broadly categorised as follows (Ernst and Young, 2012: 4):
• Streamlined status quo: with significant shifts towards reduced dependence on fully campus-based programmes
with a corresponding growth in flexible digital learning offers and engagement in external partnerships to
realise this;
• Niche Dominators, similar in their approach to that taken by the ‘streamlined status quo’, but highly focused on a
limited set of disciplines and targeting very specific student groups;
• Transformers, reflecting a range of private providers and new entrants, that extend the definition of what counts
as higher education, successfully disaggregate the value chain and offer for-profit combinations of predominantly
digital services.
Already we see novel forms of higher education provision and support being implemented at scale, for example the ability
of traditional universities to deploy MOOCs by collaborating with a private sector partner such as Coursera. Initiatives on
learning analytics, with the promise of improving students’ experiences of learning and the design of courses for more
diverse student cohorts are also being realised through partnerships between private sector organisations specialising in
analytics and universities seeking to modernise their programmes and supports.
5.4. The ‘Badges’ movement
Open credit models based on the Mozilla Open Badges standard for recognition of learning are evolving rapidly, particularly
in the United States and are a potential game changer. The intrinsic value of a badge to the individual recipient is no doubt
strongly related to the reputation of the granting organisation, to the individual’s perception of effort and attainment, and
to the cultural value attached to the concept of badges in particular countries or regions. The extrinsic value, for example,
how an employer might perceive a badge, correlates again with the reputation and credibility of the granting organisation
and the acceptability of the competence standards they set. The entry to the badges market of credible organisations
including professional bodies and cultural institutions lends weight, and the ease with which they can do so suggests that
traditional standards/awarding bodies may simply be bypassed. The consequence of doing so, however, is the creation of a
parallel credentialing market that will be difficult to reconcile with traditional, if highly bureaucratic, quality and standards
regimes. The digitally competent individual is better place to make choice and in doing so to shape the evolution of badges
as an alternative but acceptable form of recognition for learning accomplishments.

CONCLUSION: TOWARDS BETTER OUTCOMES FOR ALL
Opening Up Education, as an organising policy position for Europe, potentially aligns a number of hitherto separate agendas,
within an overarching paradigm of change through digital deployment and empowerment of individuals. We must not,
however, underestimate the challenge involved in harnessing policy initiatives designed for one purpose in support of
new open education goals. For example, embedding robust qualifications frameworks and quality assurance processes is
still a work in progress and the original intention was to harmonise and modernise existing higher education systems and
institutions. What has been learned in almost two decades of development can and should now be adapted and applied to
an extended educational landscape. Key indicators will be the number and variety of distinctly new programmes, capable
of attracting new and different audiences and of providing alternative but no less worthwhile qualifications. The credits
associated with such qualifications should be interchangeable with traditional higher education credits and the entire higher
education system should be seen to be more flexible and permeable. These goals are within our grasp, but to realise them
policy and practice silos need to be dismantled and unnecessary policy battlegrounds, for example on the relative merits
of MIL or digital competence need resolution. We have developed an excellent toolkit; we now need to use it effectively
to move beyond the status quo.
Wealsoneedtorecognisethatradicalinnovationismorelikelytooriginateoutsideoftraditionalhighereducationinstitutions,
both campus-based and online, for example the case of MOOC platforms and learning analytics engines. The question then
is whether existing higher education institutions will seek to hold the line and play a gatekeeping role, or whether they will
find ways to innovate and play a part in the development of a truly open education environment. For existing educational
institutions, innovation is more likely to be achieved through strategic partnerships, where the partnering organisation is
the provider of new platforms or services.
Finally, informed and digitally competent citizens hold the key to opening up education. By active participation, not just in
their chosen educational programme, but also by providing a constant source of critique of what is offered (or missing),
they can support a new learning design culture that is more open and responsive. Digital competence and open education
are symbiotic.
REFERENCES
Devine J. (2013). ReimaginingtheCampusExperienceinanOpenHyperconnectedWorld. Open Education 2030. JRC-IPTS Call
For Vision Papers. Part Iii:Higher Education. Retrieved on 15/08/2014 from: http://is.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pages/EAP/OEREU.html
Ernst & Young. (2012) University of the Future.
Retrieved on 15/08/2014 from: http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/University_of_the_future/$FILE/University_
of_the_future_2012.pdf

European Commission (2006) Recommendation Of The European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 on key
competences for lifelong learning. Official Journal of the European Union.
European Commission (2013). Opening up Education: Innovative teaching and learning for all through new Technologies and
Open Educational Resources. Brussels, 25.9.2013 COM(2013) 654 final.
Ferrari, A. (2013).DIGCOMP: A framework for developing and understanding digital competence in Europe. European
Commission Joint Research Centre Institute for Prospective Technological Studies. Retrieved on 15/08/2014 from: https://
ec.europa.eu/jrc/sites/default/files/lb-na-26035-enn.pdf
Ho, A.D. et al. (2014). HarvardX and MITx: The First Year of Open Online Courses, Fall 2012-Summer 2013. HarvardX and MITx
Working Paper No.1 Retrieved on 15/08/2014 from: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2381263
Lewis, R. (2002). The Hybridisation of Conventional Higher Education: UK Perspective. International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning. Vol 2 No.2. 2002. Retrieved on 15/08/2014 from: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/
article/view/58/120
Nation D. et.al. (1990) Open learning and the misuse of language: some comments on the Rumble/ Lewis debate. Open
Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning. Volume 5, Issue 2, 1990.
Nelson, S. (2014). Measuring Our First Eight Courses. FutureLearn.
Retrieved on 15/08/2014 from: https://about.futurelearn.com/blog/measuring-our-first-eight-courses/
Rumble, G. (1989). ‘Open learning’, ‘distance learning’, and the misuse of language. Open Learning: The Journal of Open,
Distance and e-Learning. Volume 4, Issue 2, 1989.
Wilson C. et al. (2011) Media and Information Literacy Curriculum for Teachers. Paris. UNESCO. Retrieved on 15/08/2014
from: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001929/192971e.pdf

Interview
Public policies in distance education
“If teachers are not properly valued, discussing quality becomes a hard endeavor.”
When interviewed by Professor Lygia Costa, with the Brazilian School of Public and Business
Administration of Getulio Vargas Foundation (Ebape - FGV), Fátima Oliveira Bayma, a Full Professor
with the same institution, discussed “Public policies in distance education”. For Dr. Bayma, valuing
teachers and seeking quality education are critical factors of public policies in Brazil, at both face-
to-face (F2F) and distance education spheres. She also assessed the role played by massive free
online courses (Moocs) as they translated into distance education in Brazil, and of online programs in
democratizing access to Higher Education in a continent-big country as Brazil.
What features do you view as bridges between F2F education and distance online education, and which features
set them apart?
F2F, distance and hybrid education are but modes of instruction, that is, they refer to the means used to deliver education.
However, education is their common point of reference, irrespective of the teaching mode. Therefore, I believe we must
constantly seek quality improvement. Several authors in the field believe there is an increasing trend for convergence
between these modes as institutions tend now to increasingly use information technology. On the other hand, although
many institutions that have developed distance courses are increasingly adding F2F events to their curriculum so as to
comply with the current legislation, many distance courses in Brazil and also overseas do not have F2F events as a course
requirement. So in a nutshell, the feature shared by the various modes – and in my view, of critical importance - is the
search for quality.
I’d like to link my previous question to the rocketing increase of online distance education courses. In your opinion,
what drives this soaring growth in online courses in Brazil?
The key factor to explain such growth is information technology. As of the 1980s, the advent of the internet has contributed
to the soaring growth of distance courses. It should be noted that distance education has been available for over a hundred
years, since the early 20th century, but it was then facilitated by different media - initially paper, then the radio and then
TV. But since the 1980s, information technology advances have enabled the widespread use of various media. At the same
time, many corporations embraced information technology and used their own intranets to develop distance courses for
their staff. Hence, corporate education initiatives have increased, resulting from the more complex knowledge society we
live in and the demand for more qualified and more able to innovate people.

What contribution can online massive open courses (Moocs) give to distance education in Brazil or to the broader
Brazilian context?
Moocs are massive courses, that is, available to a great number of students who are geographically spread. They are open
courses, which means there are no enrollment requirements. And they take place online, in virtual learning environments
set in internet platforms. These courses can give a significant contribution to education, since many of them as designed by
renowned educators who are with major educational institutions. Although many of such course are not originally designed
in Portuguese, this does not necessarily pose any problem as they are being translated in order to grant broader access to
Brazilian students.
There are two major types of Mooc: XMooc and CMooc. The former refers to most of the content and scalability based
courses, while the latter relies upon a collaborative connectivist frame. Several Moocs are very well designed and allow
students to enjoy quality study.
We are aware that Brazil lacks well-qualified teachers in several fields of knowledge. Moocs can als contribute in this
respect when they become components of F2F or hybrid teacher development programmes. They might be offered as a
preliminary module to the course or even as the course develops, to allow students to get familiar with the topic as they
gain access to specific contents that are worth further investigation.
In short, there are various ways to benefit from Moocs and I believe they can indeed contribute to increasing access
to knowledge.
What specific social or public policies could help to increase the value and the quality of online distance courses
in Brazil?
The 2014 National Education Directive has a highly important provision which is the core of good public policies, as it
constitutes one of the most sensitive features of our whole educational system – valuing teachers. Valuing teachers goes
further beyond paying better salaries and it implies recovering the respect towards the teaching profession. As we compare
the number of students that start a BEd Programme against the number of students who actually complete the programme,
the number of students interested in the Practicum Qualification is significantly lower. This is but one indicator of how little
teachers are valued nowadays.
There is a lack of teachers in Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics and other subjects and we certainly need well-qualified
teachers for Primary Education.
The fact is that today few student-teachers are interested in achieving the Practicum Qualification, and many of those
who start a BEd teacher education programme switch careers or choose a job in education that does not involve actually
teaching. This reflects how little our society – teachers themselves, student-teachers, their family – values teachers. If

teachers are not properly valued, discussing quality becomes a hard endeavor. I believe that valuing teachers is one of the
cornerstones of quality education, be it F2Ff. distance or hybrid education – or a combination of any of these modes.
One of our greatest challenges now is how to design and implement public policies that value the teaching profession and
make it worth of pride and respected by society.
What has come to your notice about online distance courses? Have these courses democratised access to Higher
Education in Brazil?
I believe they have, as more opportunities are provided to access to knowledge. Since distance education allows students
to study at home, at work or in remote locations, that means easier access to education.
We know that Brazil is a vast country, and that good educational institutions are located in the South and Southeast. So,
distance courses facilitate access to knowledge and so, they contribute to making access to education more democratic.
Fátima Bayma de Oliveira is a Full Professor with Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas (Ebape – Brazilian
School of Public and Business Administration) of Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV).
Lygia Coosta is a full professor with Escola Brasileira de Administração Pública e de Empresas (Ebape – Brazilian School of
Public and Business Administration) of Getulio Vargas Foundation (FGV).

Public Policies and Educational Data Processing:
Challenges faced by technology-mediated education
at municipal schools comprised by the Municipal
Office of Education of São Paulo (SME-SP)
Luci Ferraz de Mello
Jane Reolo da Silva
Luci Ferraz is a Doctoral Candidate and holds a MEd in Communication and Education (School of Communication and Arts,
São Paulo University). She is a consultant for communication technology-mediated educational projects, including teacher
and tutor diagnostics and qualification.
Jane Reolo da Silva is a History teacher and an expert in Education-oriented Interactive Applied Technologies and
Interpersonal Relationships at School. She is the head of the Educational Data Processing Centre with the Municipal Office
of Education of São Paulo.
Abstract
This article discusses the challenges faced by public policies oriented towards the implementation of communication
technologies, in particular by those facilitated by the discipline Educational Data Processing taught at municipal primary
schools in São Paulo. It initially provides an overview of the various management actions taken as well as of the ordinances
passed over time. It then explores in more detail the projects under development, more specially the instructional-
communicational approaches currently embraced.
Keywords: public policies; SME-SP; technology-mediated education; instructional-communicational approaches.
INTRODUCTION
Communication technologies have been widely discussed, researched and practised in both face-to-face (F2F) and
distance learning environments in the past fifteen or twenty years, especially with reference to more suitable instructional
communication practices. However, a lot more must be experimented with and assessed.

What was initially implemented as a mere introduction of such digital apparatuses to develop user functional competence has
evolved into facilitating classroom activities and school routine management and eventually into debating the effectiveness
of several teaching paradigms. The latter have hence become more complex given the addition of the communication
variable of different teaching contexts.
Some decades ago, educator Paulo Freire (2002:69) contented that “to educate means to communicate”1
. However, never
before had this assertion reached the wide scope it has today, as several classroom activities today use various languages
of communication technologies whose effectiveness is later assessed.
Discussing how effective these approaches are goes beyond the scope of this article. We herein aim to briefly
report the challenge posed by defining and implementing public policies oriented towards the introduction of such
digital tools into the curriculum of primary municipal schools in the city of São Paulo as facilitated by the discipline
Educational Data Processing.
Let us first contextualize the current instructional communicational scenario of our society.
1. IMPLEMENTINGCOMMUNICATIONTECHNOLOGIESINEDUCATION–ORTHEINTERWEAVING
OF COMMUNICATION-EDUCATION
The advent of digital media and their adoption by society for various purposes by people of all ages, social classes and
both genres has led to deep changes especially in the way people relate with each other. Their use in education was a
natural result, given the main aim of school to develop citizens for fully functioning in society and exercise their rights and
responsibilities as such.
The process started with data processing courses for children and adolescents to develop their basic
competence with primary digital tools. However, the fast development of communication technologies has
made them increasingly collaborative and has fostered what Moore’s (2006) Transactional Distance Theory2
has termed as ‘inter-emotion’ associations between people. Much more complex practices have emerged and are now
called instructional-communicational practices.
The more communication technology has been embraced in the classroom, the more instructional practices have been
debated, as resources have become increasingly collaborative and have brought in deeper reflection on the need to update
1 The first edition of the book Extensão ou Communication? by Paulo Freire, from which the quote is taken, was published in 1977.
2 To learn more about Michal Moore’s Transactional Distance Theory please visit <www.c3l.uni-oldenburg.de/cde/support/readings/moore93.pdf>.

instructional practices and to develop those competences that are critical for students’ effective functioning in a highly
technological society as today’s.
Nevertheless, in addition to new instructional approaches, classroom dynamics have also required more reliance on
communicational assumptions, as digital tools allow integrated use of various languages within one single learning
environment – be it F2F or distance education. There is today an evident need to more effectively manage the communication
process in order to achieve the educational objectives aimed at, taking great care to prevent practices from getting static
and to encourage teachers’ and students’ reflection and problem-solving (Soares, 2014).
This brave new world requires rethinking communication processes from the perspective of the new languages that are
promoted by digital technologies so that classroom participants feel encouraged to (re)construct their own ways to interact
with multi- or hypermedia technology and other classroom participants (Mello and Assumpção, 2012; Soares, 2014).
According to Hattie (2012), unplanned use, choice and integration of digital communication tools in learning environments
or not considering the specific competences that are aimed to be developed and the educational objectives aimed to be
achieved may even prevent the achievement of such objectives.
Therefore, communication processes must be facilitated by educators’ planning and managing activity implementation
in learning environments by using one or more technologies, taking into account learning objectives aimed at (Costa and
Lima, 2002). Throughout these processes, educators will be responsible for mediating student-student, student-medium
and student-language interactions within the learning environment, as well as for encouraging and strengthening dialogue
and pluralism between all participants.
Soares (2014) adds that managing communication in learning environment tackles planning communication processes
and the use of communication technologies as communicative ecosystems, with interrelations of their own and upon a
democratic and creative basis. The learning environment must be framed from a dialectic view between people and their
reality, where dialogue is built through exchanges of individual arguments in the search for consensus. Throughout this
process, all the participants stand on an equal basis – they are all issuers and receivers of interactions, at the same time.
Although the scenario above describes the period starting in the 1990s, Freire (2002) claimed for emancipation through
education in the early 1970s. For him, education means dialogue, that is, communication: “not knowledge transfer, but an
encounter of interlocutors seeking negotiation of meanings” (Freire, 2002:69 – free translation).
Between the 1920s and 1930s, Freinet (2004) built the case for communication management processes oriented towards
education in learning environments lying upon what he called ‘education as the expression of ideas’ – all those involved
in the educational process, educators and students alike, sending and receiving messages, alternatively playing the role of
issuers and receives so as to develop the exchange of ideas and hence strengthen the competences that were aimed at.

However, along the whole 20th century, the most widely practiced approach has been what Freire (2002) called ‘banking
education’, in which learners were viewed as passive recipients ideas that were expected to be acquired by memorizing
rather than by reflecting on them.
The introduction of communication technologies not only recaps on propositions for active and collaborative learners
but also makes the record of such collaborative and reflective practices (as well as of their outcomes) available at both
F2F and distance education. This new set of possible applications and results has been responsible for deeper reflection
upon reviewing, replacing and updating teaching and communicational practices as new media also allow checking the
effectiveness of the communicational approaches embraced.
The discussion below about implementing a richer curriculum at municipal primary schools comprised by SME-SP will
explain how the above discussed reflective framework allowed the implementation of the instructional-communicational
approach in the referred teaching and learning context and how it has affected practices in the past two decades.
2. THE ORGANISATION OF THE TECHNICAL GUIDANCE BOARD AT THE MUNICIPAL OFFICE OF
EDUCATION IN SÃO PAULO
An overview of the Technical Guidance Board at the Municipal Office of Education (DOT/SME-SP) will help us to better
understand the implementation of digital technologies and of the instructional-communicational approach at the municipal
schools in São Paulo.
The current organisation of the Municipal Office of Education of São Paulo (SME-SP) is the following:

The Secretary’s Office Municipal
Education
Council
Legal Dept
Communication
and
Press Dept
Technical and
Planning Dept
Special
Support –
CEU Room
Human
Resources
Dept
Board of
Technical
Guidance - DOT
Technical
Centre
Regional
Educational
Boards - DREs
Clerical Dept
Schools
Assistant Secretary
Head of Office
General
Coordinator
for Educational
Actions - CONAE
Source: SME-SP Website – About Us - http://portal.sme.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/Main/Page/PortalSMESP/Organograma
SME-SP currently has a General Coordinator for Educational Actions (CONAE) and the Regional Educational Boards (DREs),
and their activities are conducted by three departments - Human Resources, the Technical Centre and the Board of Technical
Guidance (DOT), which are responsible for developing all the directives and supplying the human and technical resources
for all the projects and approaches to be implemented by the 13 Regional Educational Boards (DREs) - Butantã, Campo
Limpo, Capela do Socorro, Freguesia/Brasilândia, Guaianases, Ipiranga, Itaquera, Jaçanã/Tremembé, Penha, Pirituba, Santo
Amaro, São Mateus and São Miguel.

DOT is subdivided into the following units, boards, programmes or centres:
• Educational Data Processing;
• Nas ondas do rádio [‘Radio Waves’];
• Ethnic-Racial Education Centre;
• Certificates;
• Technical guidance to infant education;
• Technical guidance to primary education;
• Technical guidance to young adult and adult education;
• Special Needs Education Centre;
• Reading room.
Concerning the Educational Data Processing Centre, their team is composed of permanently assigned educators responsible
for monitoring and implementing this programme in the 1418 schools comprised by the SME-SP. That means a regional
Educational Data Processing team assigned to every one of the thirteen DREs, responsible for teacher and student capacity-
building across the schools under each DRE in what refers to the use of Information and Communication Technologies
(ICTs) so as to qualify them to engage in projects that comply with the directives provided by the CONAE and the DOT.
Let us now discuss the details of the current approach, which focuses on project-based and formative evaluation-based
knowledge construction, mediated by technology and media languages and a self-authorship perspective.
3. EDUCATIONAL DATA PROCESSING: FORERUNNING ACTIVITIES, IMPLEMENTATION AND
CHANGES IN THE PAST TWENTY YEARS, ORIGINATED FROM MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES
Data processing practices in the SME-SP schools were initiated by the Genesis Project in the early 1990s, in the school
laboratories built for developing functional competence using LOGO language and text processors. The term Educational
Data Processing was first used in municipal ordinances that ruled these practices in 1993 (SME-SP, 1993).
From 2001 through 2005, Project A cidade que a gente quer [‘The city we want to have’] was implemented in approximately
150 schools. Its main focus was the acquisition of new digital technologies, data programming languages and encouraging
creative and autonomous knowledge construction.
In 2006 Project WebCurriculum officially implemented the Educational Data Processing Centre and discipline as they are
today. Educational Data Processing lessons are delivered in every SME-SP school data processing laboratory. However,
they are no longer limited to learning basic uses of computers, but rather to develop learners’ ability to use computers, the
internet, basic software (text editors, spreadsheets, presentation slides, etc.) and internet-available communicational tools
that enable knowledge construction through media languages and empowering (self-authorship) activities.

Baseline directives about Educational Data Processing are provided by Ordinance no. 900 of 24th January 2014 (SME-
SP, 2014a) and Ordinance no. 5.930 of 14th October 2013 (SME-SP, 2013). The latter provides for the Educational Data
Processing Centre responsibilities for Programme More Education São Paulo, established in December 2013.
All the primary, secondary and special education schools, as well as the Young Adult and Adult Education Integrated Centres
comprised by SME-SP now have a Data Processing Laboratory with 21 computers, cable internet and specific software
and resources for special needs students. There are now 545 primary schools, six secondary schools and Educational Data
Processing lessons are delivered once a week to all the classes by teachers with the Educational Data Processing Centre (POIE).
These facilities are also available for students to use outside school hours to conduct research, and for teacher and
student development through semi-distance courses and workshops that use virtual learning environments (ThinkQuest,
EdModo) or social networks (Facebook, Google+, etc.). These initiatives aim to develop the students’ and teachers’ specific
communication, research, empowerment and internet authorship skills.
In 2002, SME-SP entered a partnership with Telefonica Foundation to quality teachers in the use of internet tools at school.
This partnership was in place until at least 2006, when the partners published the document Caderno de orientações
didáticas – ler e escrever – Tecnologias na Educação [‘Teaching Guidance Notebook – reading and writing – technologies
at the service of education’], with suggestions for instructional use of various digital media in the classroom (SME-SP;
EDUCAREDE, 2014).
One of the Programme Coordinator’s concerns was to assess how and which competences were already put into use. In
2008 the first project evaluation was conducted.
Also in 2008 a new Educational Data Processing programme was implemented – Project Monitors, whose focus is to
develop students to work as monitors and thus assist POIE projects oriented towards encouraging collaborative activities
and enhancing teaching practices and the communication between São Paulo municipal schools.
To be eligible to this programme, students must engage in a year-long training delivered through weekly meetings with the
POIE of their school and peer monitors. The learn-by-doing methodology teaches them how to do lesson planning, role
assignment and theme project development for their school. They also become responsible for several tasks like laboratory-
oriented activities, interaction in the virtual learning environment and planning and evaluation of theme projects developed
by the students (SME-SP, 2014).
It is thus fundamental that POIEs develop this qualification aiming at a partnership with the monitor-student and at setting a
strongbondbetweenstudentsandprojectstobedevelopedbytheprogrammebyusingvariouscommunicationtechnologies.
When students adhere to this programme they are able to develop several critical competences like communication, team
work, autonomy, decision making, problem solving, social and professional responsibility, amongst others.

These initiatives were evaluated in 2010 and the findings were compiled into a guidance document for curriculum provision,
use of ICTs in education and their instructional role with SME-SP schools entitled Orientações curriculares – tecnologias
de informação e comunicação: proposições de expectativas de aprendizagem [‘Curriculum guidance – information and
communicationtechnologies:learningexpectationsreviewed’] (SME-SP, 2010). Some of the topics discussed were the current
educational use of ICTs in Brazil and around the world; SME-SP programmes that use ICT-mediated teaching practices;
ICT-related assumptions concerning the so-called 21st century competences regarding; sequencing the development of
competences along primary education; and an evaluation model for developing the teachers’ 21st century competences.
The outcomes of this diagnosis aided the restructuring of technology-mediated teaching practices implemented by POIE in
the Educational Data Processing lessons.
Still in 2010, Educational Data Processing projects developed by the students assisted by student-monitors and POIE
Coordinator were integrated to some of the Nasondasdoradio project and student-monitors guided teachers in developing
their competences in the use of various media and their respective languages (photography, audio, video, cartoon strips,
fanzine, printed newspaper, news bulletins, educational games).
It is worth noting that the practices and qualifications implemented by Programme Nas ondas do rádio were designed upon
educommunication assumptions ever since programme inception. Therefore, teachers and POIEs learned how to use these
digital tools so as to set more communicative ecosystems comprising empowerment, intensive dialogue about themes
under study and autonomous activities, amongst other features. These practices aimed to “improve the curriculum and
catalyse empowerment of primary students by focusing on communication” (SME-SP, 2014c).
As Educational Data Processing practices became more adjusted to the instructional-communicational approach and as per
the provisions of Ordinance no. 900/2014 (SME-SP, 2014a) we can notice that Educational Data Processing projects today
are advised to consider and implement after thoughtful planning the same practices as described above, amongst other
competences, so as to achieve the aimed educational objectives.
In order to provide a clearer view of the new Educational Data Processing practices, below are the topics under every
educational objective in compliance with Ordinance no. 900/2014 (SME-SP, 2014a), which in turn organizes the provisions
set by Ordinance no. 5930/2013 (SME-SP, 2013) as they apply to Programme More Education São Paulo:
Art. 2 – The activities and practices conducted at the laboratory of Educational Data Processing aim to:
I – promote syllabus integration so as to achieve the objectives of the three levels of instruction, to
be implemented by Political-Pedagogical projects designed by every Educational Unit (school).
II – enable the design of innovative, collaborative, interactive and integrative learning environments;
III – magnify the critical and creative use of various technological resources so as to foster
speaking, writing, socialising, text production and the recording of all these activities in different
contexts and languages;

IV – favour the use of Information and Communication Technologies – ICTs – to integrate Literacy,
Cross-disciplinary and Authorship Levels as well as the Education of Young Adults and Adults;
V – provide access to and use of research and knowledge-production oriented technologies for both
learners and teachers;
VI – magnify the use of Information and Communication Technologies – ICTs – for the school
community’s and students’ development and practices;
VII – foster the advancement of proficiency levels as established in the educational quality
development goals and external evaluation systems, particularly in the Primary School Evaluation
System (SAEB);
VIII – aid teacher activities and instructional management towards conducting Learning Evaluation,
particularly with reference to the Continuous Student Achievement Recovery process. (SME-SP, 2014)
The changes that the educational objectives of Educational Data Processing have undergone as well as the guidance for
practices that promote the final objectives, thus, become clear. And above that, the importance assigned to working with
different languages and the need of thoughtful planning for effective teaching becomes evident.
The above guidelines explain more clearly the focus on projects and the advice given to students regarding the use of
different languages so as to develop all the competences aimed by the initial planning, to strengthen the management of
the instructional-communicational process and to enable the achievement of the aimed objectives.
We can notice that these programmes went through changes over the years and their practices were reviewed until they
developed into the model described herein, which relies on the instructional-communicational approach, amongst other
approaches, to develop a number of competences, some of which were not previously addressed.
It is worth mentioning that since 2006 the proposition for formative evaluation - one of the components of the instructional-
communicational approach - has been considered. Formative evaluation has as its main aim:
The students were aware that evaluating the extent to which specific actions were implemented in
the Data Processing Laboratory was a regular practice. This evaluation aimed to support the design
of the Educational Data Processing Programme actions as well as of similar actions implemented
along the second term of the school year at other schools, so as to assess learning achievements in
the virtual environment. (SME-SP, 2014d)
Starting in 2011, new Educational Data Processing practices have been implemented aiming at a new approach to evaluate
the development of 21st century competences – technology mediated formative evaluation.

The assumptions that underlie this model point to developing and implementing practices embedded in the instructional-
communicational approach, since such practices require both students and educators to taken on the active role of producers
of meanings and to conduct intensive dialogue, among other practices, that make constant use of communication tools.
This evaluation model has facilitated and fostered producing and verifying results of the various practices implemented. As
the complexity of this model is beyond the scope of this article, it suffices to say that this innovation evidences SME-SP’s
concern with keeping up with best practices in Brazil and around the world to address the challenges posed by the use of
communication technologies in Education.
4. THE COMPLEXITY AND THE CHALLENGES FACED WHEN IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC POLICIES
IN A PRIMARY SCHOOL NETWORK AS LARGE AS THE ONE IN SÃO PAULO
As mentioned earlier, the Educational Data Processing Coordinator is responsible for establishing the practices to be
implemented in municipal schools by the respective discipline. It is also worth remembering that every school is linked
to one of the 13 DREs that represent the regions the city of São Paulo has been divided into for the purposes of this
programme. Given the current number of primary schools (545), in order to optimise the qualification of POIEs for so
many schools and the spread of the referred practices throughout the network, every DRE has a team of POIE educators
responsible for developing the school staff regarding the instructional-communicational approach.
The support provided by communication technologies that will be used in the Educational Data Processing laboratories
goes beyond the use of said technologies into defining actions together with project planning.
It follows that the current formative evaluation builds up on four types of strategic action: rubrics, thinking routines,
student feedback on the teacher and peer and self-evaluation practices aimed at self-regulation. The theoretical framework
and its strategic application in practice are briefly described below regarding the activities designed by the Educational Data
Processing Centre (Nunes, 2011).
4.1. 1st phase: POIE continued development
The Educational Data Processing Centre is working towards keeping teachers well informed about technology-mediated
instructional -communicational classroom activities. To serve this objective, continuous POIE development is provided by:
novice POIE training (2012, 2013 and 2014); free-choice continuous POIE development courses; free-choice continuous
educator development courses in Educational Technology using various media languages and software authorship; face-
to-face and distance courses held in virtual communities for both educators and students; Educational Data Processing
team meetings for every one of the 13 DREs aimed at course planning and shared agendas for the monthly continued
development meetings with the POIEs.

With reference to formative evaluation, around nine monthly meetings are held per year gathering Educational Data
Processing coordinators and DRE educators so as to follow up on POIE development and the spread of formative evaluation
practices across the school network. It is worth clarifying that by development coordinator we are referring to Expert
Coordinator Jane Reolo da Silva and Instruction Assistant Prof. Dr. Cesar A. A. Nunes, with the School of Education
Foundation, the University of São Paulo.
The following phase is under the responsibility of DRE educators, who convene the POIEs for regular meetings to discuss
some of the practices mentioned above which they will implement to guide student projects.
Hence, the first strategy dealt with is rubrics. Criteria are defined differently from the way they are defined within the school
network, as the POIEs themselves establish the criteria and the various qualification levels. Developing a full rubric grid may
require more than one meeting, as the grid results from negotiations comprising internal conceptual references and even
every educator’s personal references regarding one single competence to be evaluated. Collaborative criteria setting aims
to reflect the views of all the POIEs of a given DRE and to allow teachers to experience dialogue and negotiation oriented
towards consensus and collaborative criteria setting (Nunes, 2012).
Educators with every DRE regularly meet with their POIEs to provide the latter with guidance about project management as
well as their role as facilitators of dialogue between all the members of student groups. This development evolves through
very similar phases to those implemented with the students. POIE educators are especially concerned about POIEs not only
learning the theory and how the process unfolds, but mainly with providing POEIs with the opportunity to experience and
clearly understand how important every detail of every phase is – particularly regarding the dialogue interventions they will
have to conduct so as to ensure smooth phase development and transition, as expected by the Educational Data Processing
Coordinator.
There is also guided browsing, implemented through a Facebook event during the collective planning schedule. In this
event, POIEs, coordinators, managers and teachers are invited to learn about other schools’ practices in the virtual learning
environment adopted by Educational Data Processing (usually, one or two per guided browsing). Everyone logs into
Facebook at the same time and posts their comments and contributions on the assigned Facebook event page. The session
is mediated by Prof. Dr. Cesar Nunes, who is responsible for this project guidance. In 2012, the projects chosen for discussion
were selected by every DRE, but there was not a specific theme, while in 2014 the criterion was themes addressed by the
development meetings and participation was optional.
As new communication technologies and media languages emerge, POIE continued development enables them to get
acquainted with these technologies and languages and assess when and where they will be required to organise the
students’ reflective and constructive learning process. The various communication technologies and media languages are
grouped into the following categories:

TECHNOLOGIES AIMING AT...
Practice and route memory
Examples: HotPotatoes, online
tests, memory activities
Evaluation
Examples: online tests, rubrics,
simulations
Collaboration
Examples: Edmodo, Facebook,
Popplet, Padlet
Design
Examples: video, drawing, text,
cartoon strips, Scratch
Organisation
Examples: files, folders, portfolios,
DropBox, Drive
Communication
Examples: EducaPX, Youtube,
Padlet, blog, Tá na Rede
Investigation, Searching
Examples: Youtube, Google,
Wikipedia, Wikimedia, OER
Recording and saving
Examples: mobile phones, tablets,
Power Point, docs
Introducing, explaining,
showcasing
Examples: EducaPX, Scratch,
games, animation...
Source: Adapted from Nunes, 2014.
4.2. 2nd phase: general activity presentation
Here POIEs explain to a class how a given activity is expected to unfold and that the project shall be developed around a
previously set theme for all the schools. Records will be made in the virtual learning environment for all the Educational
Data Processing lessons. Activities conducted in the Data Processing laboratory, especially at project start up, aim to review
the rubrics that will be used in student evaluation, reflection upon the theme and other collaborations that will be added
as tasks are developed.
A key feature of this phase is the use of communication technologies. Students learn how to make the best of relevant
communicational digital resources and the purposes they serve within the whole project. If students choose to conduct
interviews, they may take pictures or even record audios and videos. The materials to be collected must be made available
in the virtual learning environment page assigned for this phase of the project.
4.3. 3rd phase: reviewing the rubrics
One of the aims of technology-mediated formative evaluation is to develop learners’ self-regulation which, in turn, results
in learners’ empowerment over their own learning process. Hence, one of the initial concerns is to help learners to clearly
understand the criteria upon which they will be evaluated along group project development (Nunes, 2012).

The rubrics discussed herein were developed collaboratively by all the POEIs of a given DRE during their development
programme. By then, rubrics have already been discussed with student-monitors who are responsible for the project in course.
Regarding the rubrics framework, the criterion under discussion should be “collaboration with technology”. As this criterion
is highly subjective to every POIE’s individual view of such practice and to possible learner attitudes along group project
development, awareness of and negotiation of meanings are very important at this phase for setting specific evaluation
levels for every criterion.
Every criterion and its specific evaluation levels are clearly explained to students not only for the sake of clear understanding
of what they are expected to do in each project activity, but mainly for the sake of planning their work along the process
and improve their attainment grades.
POIEs also try to validate the rubrics with the students by asking them to reflect upon rubric legitimacy and need of any
adjustment. Every suggestion forwarded is discussed by all attendees – students, student-monitors and the POIE in charge
of that project/group.
4.4. 4th phase: central theme (strategic actions regarding thinking routines and feedback)
This is the time when students are introduced to general features of the overarching theme so that they can identify one
specific topic they want to research, - something directly linked to their day-by-day school life or to the community around
the school.
The usual baseline theme to be dealt with by the projects developed along the school year is set by the Coordinator together
with the several Offices. For the sake of illustration, below are the themes that have been dealt with since 2008 by the
Educational Data Processing Centre and tstudent-monitors:
• 2008 – Nossa escola tem história [The history o four school’] (Office of Culture);
• 2009 – Minha terra [‘My land’] (Office of Culture);
• 2010 – Minha escola é Notícia [‘My school makes News’] (Office of Education);
• 2011 – Metrópole digital [‘Digital Metropolis’] (Office of Education);
• 2012 e 2013 – Minha escola é uma escola sustentável? [‘Is my school sustainable?’] (Office of Environment );
• 2014 – Educação em Direitos Humanos [‘Human Rights Education’] (Office of Human Rights).
In this phase, all the students work in the Educational Data Processing laboratory. There is one computer for every two
students but everyone has their own log in and password and is connected to the same webpage – the network virtual
learning environment set up for that specific lesson.

The activity starts with the teacher presenting a picture, a statement or a video about the overarching theme, followed by a
brief reflection activity. Students are then required to write their own account of the reflection onto the space available for
this purpose in the virtual learning environment and submit it in no longer than 5-10 minutes. The teacher then updates the
screen – which is by this time projected on a larger wall screen for everyone’s viewing - with all the individual contributions.
Based on the students’ contributions, the POIE in charge presents brief comments so as to lead the group into further
reflection on the theme. These are illustrative examples of usual routine thinking and feedback practices that feed into a
3-5 time loop procedure depending on the need for further reflection and discussion so that students eventually have full
grasp of the project overarching theme. The looping pattern allows for sequencing and interconnecting activities as every
new question posed by the teacher challenges students to deepen their knowledge about the central theme (Nunes, 2012).
One of the competences typically dealt with in this phase is reflective dialogue, encouraged upon individual contributions
and aiming to raise other viewpoints – not necessarily ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ judgmental views, but rather diverse perspectives
on the same theme which are not necessarily ‘better’ or ‘worse’.
4.5. 5th phase: group meeting
This is the time when members of the same group gather to set the project development schedule and get organised as
a unified group –assigning tasks and/or setting internal group dynamics based on the rubrics validated by the group.
Each group is provided with their own space in the virtual learning environment and there they must record their project
schedule, task assignment and specific group dynamics so as to enable follow-up by their peers, their teacher and the
student-monitors.
Student-monitors are advised to follow up on students constantly and to write out reports on process development,
activities that need adjusting or procedures that require reviewing. The aim is for them to have a full view of what is
happening, how it is happening and what can be learned as activities are implemented.
Depending on the project central theme, every group chooses and develops their specific project topic which will enable the
eventual production of several communication materials like audios and videos (for interviews or for their own conclusions),
private or public photos (published in the form of e-books to keep the record of specific dynamics linked to the theme),
several types of texts (blogs, e-books, cartoon strips, comic books). As mentioned above, groups may use any type of
communicational resources to collect data and express their conclusions about the project.
Thus, proving students with opportunities to use various communication technologies and media languages allows them
to choose the appropriate tools to be used throughout the project. Data processing language is one of such options and
it can be introduced through games, simulations, animations and prototypes of motor robots developed by the students.

4.6. 6th phase: peer and self-evaluation
After the final materials produced by the groups are presented to the whole class, the POIE, together with the student-
monitors, challenges students to reflectively evaluate the results achieved by every group based on the rubrics that were
earlier validated. Students are allowed to conduct this reflective evaluation in pairs, to evaluate one specific group, or
individually - their self-evaluation. Whatever specific type of evaluation is chosen it must be based on the criteria initially
presented by the POIE.
The POIE may also design a supplementary activity to further showcase the students’ project results, like a virtual exhibit
or a workshop for the other school students.

CONCLUSION
This brief report has shown all the phases that have led to the instructional models currently embraced by Educational Data
Processing at SME-SP schools.
It does not claim it is the best approach. However, we may certainly argue that it has effectively met the most recent demands
posed by the aimed educational objectives, including the development of a number of socio-emotional competences
discussed by experts in 21st century competences – critical thinking and reading, decision making, problem solving, use of
communication technologies in collaborative daily tasks and activities, amongst others.
We believe that some of the features of some of the Educational Data Processing activities implemented are subject to
debate. However, it should be remembered that the context under examination is a municipal network of 545 primary schools
scattered over a huge geographical area comprised by the municipality of São Paulo, over 900 POIEs and 30,000 educators
holding diverse educational positions. Therefore, although the current approach has been in place 2011, implementation
had translated into a long process as the aim is not implementing these POIE at only an academic level, but rather a process
to change the ingrained culture of ‘banking education’ so deeply-rooted in educators’ and school managers’ mind.
The challenge lies in not only training teachers to use various technologies in their daily classroom practices, but above
all, in changing that long-held culture using a learn-by-doing methodology that enables intensive dedication into better
understanding and eventually acquiring these new approaches in order to foster a real change in paradigm.
Finally, we aim to have more than minimally contributed to a clearer understanding of the overarching challenge of the
whole process discussed herein. This process has been developing and improving year after year as it has complied with the
current national and international trends in instructional-communicational practices.
As someone has once said, we should not look ahead to what is still to be done, but rather look back at all we have
accomplished so far, and then we become aware that changes are possible. Serious willingness to change education and
perseverance are fundamental for achieving that.
REFERENCES
Citelli, A. O and Costa, M. C. C. (2011). Educomunicação: construindo uma nova área de conhecimento. São Paulo: Paulinas.
Costa, M. C. C and Lima, C. C. N. (2002). Novos paradigmas para a comunicação. In: Costa, M. C. C. (Editor.). Gestão da
comunicação: projetos de intervenção. São Paulo: Paulinas, pp. 67-102.
Freinet, C. (2004). Pedagogia do bom senso. São Paulo: Martins Fontes.

Freire, P. (2002). Extensão ou comunicação? Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
Hattie, J. (2012). Visible learning for teachers: maximizing impact on learning. New York: Routledge. Mello, L. F. and
Assumpção, C. M. (2012). Redes sociais, educomunicação e linguagem hipermidiática: novas formas e novos espaços de
aprendizagem. Revista FGV Online, 4th Ed., pp. 40-57, Dec. 2012. Retrieved from <sv.www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/revista/home.
aspx?pub=1&edicao=4> on 26th Nov 2014.
Mello, L. F. and Vianna, C. E. (2013). Cultura digital e a educomunicação como novo paradigma educacional. Revista FGV
Online, 6th Ed., pp. 36-57, Dec. 2013. Retrieved from <sv.www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/revista/home.aspx?pub=1&edicao=6> on
26th Jun 2014.
Nunes, C. A. (2014). Avaliação formativa com mediação tecnológica. In: FormaçãoDeGestores SME-SP, Secretaria Municipal
de Educação de São Paulo. São Paulo.
Nunes, C. A. (2012). Reflexões sobre o uso de tecnologia na rede municipal de educação de São Paulo. Prefeitura de São Paulo
– Educação; Diretoria de Orientação Técnica; Gabinete – Informática Educativa, São Paulo, 19th Apr 2012. Retrieved from
http://portalsme.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/Projetos/ie/Documentos/Concepcao.pdf on 17th Nov 2014.
Nunes, C. A. (2011). Rotinas do pensamento. Prefeitura de São Paulo – Educação; Informativa Educativa. São Paulo, 27th Jul
2011. Retrieved from http://www.portalsme.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/Projetos/ie/Documentos/concepcaoteorica/Rotinas%20
de%20pensamento.pdf on 17th Nov 2014.
Nunes, C. A. (2014). Video: Usando rubricas para promover o pensamento e a aprendizagem. Evento Jornada Pedagógica,
SME-SP. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx8-bPVKhjY.
Reolo, J. (2014). (in print) O programme aluno monitor, da SME-SP. Encontro Brasileiro de Educomunicação, VI, 2014, São
Paulo. Anais do VI Encontro Brasileiro de Educomunicação, São Paulo: USP.
Secretaria Municipal de Educação de São Paulo (SME-SP). (2013). Gabinete do Secretário. Portaria nº 5.930, de 14 de outubro
de2013.DispõesobreaintegraçãodoEnsinoFundamentalcomduraçãode8(oito)anosaoEnsinoFundamentalcomduração
de 9 (nove) anos. Diário Oficial, São Paulo, SP, 25th Oct 2013, p. 13. Retrieved from http://www.docidadesp.imprensaoficial.
com.br/NavegaEdicao.aspx?ClipID=5C9AM32SHL8MJe45UMIQSUJ141T&PalavraChave=mais%20educa%E7%E3o%20
s%E3o%20paulo on Sept 2014.
Secretaria Municipal de Educação de São Paulo. (SME-SP) (2014). Gabinete do Secretário. Portaria nº 900, de 24 de janeiro
de 2014. Dispõe sobre a organização dos Laboratórios e Informática Educativa Unidades Educacionais da Rede Municipal

de Ensino, e dá outras providências. Diário Oficial, São Paulo, SP, 25th Jan 2014, p. 13. Retrieved from www.docidadesp.
imprensaoficial.com.br/NavegaEdicao.aspx?ClipID=3N530QAMDNRM8e8S31MKR30H7QO&PalavraChave=portaria%20
900 on Sept 2014.
Secretaria Municipal de Educação de São Paulo. (SME-SP). (2014). Informática Educativa– Concepção e Estrutura. Retrieved
from <portalsme.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/Projetos/ie/anonimosistema/detalhe.aspx?List=Lists/home&Identificador=Destaque
1&KeyField=Courses> on Sept 2014.
Secretaria Municipal de Educação de São Paulo. (SME-SP). (2010). Orientações curriculares: proposições de expectativas de
aprendizagem–TecnologiasdeInformaçãoeComunicação.SãoPaulo:SME;DOT,126p.Retrievedfrom<portalsme.prefeitura.
sp.gov.br/Projetos/BibliPed/Documentos/publicacoes/Informatica%20educativa/Orienta%C3%A7%C3%B5es%20
curriculares_tic.pdf> on Sept 2014.
Secretaria Municipal de Educação de São Paulo. (SME-SP). (2014). Programme Nas Ondas do Radio – Metodologia. Retrieved
from <portalsme.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/Projetos/ondas/AnonimoSistema/MenuTexto.aspx?MenuID=22&MenuIDAberto=1>
on Sept 2014.
Secretaria Municipal de Educação de São Paulo. (SME-SP). (2014). Diagnóstico de Avaliação Formativa – Acesso pelo Portal da
SME-SP. Retrieved from <portalsme.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/Documentos/BibliPed/EnsFundMedio/CicloI/OrientaCurriculares_
ExpectativasAprendizagem_EnsFnd_cicloI.pdf> on Sept 2014.
Secretaria Municipal de Educação de São Paulo. (SME-SP). (2014). EDUCAREDE. Caderno de orientações didáticas: ler
e escrever tecnologias na educação. Retrieved from <portalsme.prefeitura.sp.gov.br/documentos/BibliPed/Infoeduc/
caderno_impresso.pdf> on Sept 2014.
Secretaria Municipal de Educação de São Paulo. (SME-SP). (2013). Gabinete do Secretário. Portaria nº 8.346, de 14 de
outubro de 2013. Constitui grupo executivo de Informática Educativa com atribuições específicas. Diário Oficial, São Paulo,
SP, 17th Dec. 1993, p. 14.
Secretaria Municipal de Educação de São Paulo. (SME-SP). (2007). Orientações curriculares – Tecnologias de Informação e
Comunicação – Proposições de Expectativas de Aprendizagem para o Ensino Fundamental – Ciclo I – Primeiro ao Quinto
Ano. Year 2007.
Soares, I. O. (2014). Educomunicação e a formação de professores no século XXI. Revista FGV Online, vol. 7, pp. 18-37,
Retrieved from <sv.www5.fgv.br/fgvonline/revista/home.aspx?pub=1&edicao=7> on 1st Sept 2014.
Soares, I. O. (2002). Gestão comunicativa e educação: caminhos da educomunicação. Comunicação e Education Magazine,

no. 23, pp. 16-25, Jan/Apr. 2002. Retrieved from www.revistas.univerciencia.org/index.php/comeduc/article/view/4172/3911
on 6th Jun 2014.
Soares, I. O. and Costa, M. C. C. (2002) Planejando dos projetos de comunicação. In: Baccega, M. A. Gestão dos processos
comunicacionais. São Paulo: Atlas, pp. 157-179.

Brazil is faced with a global scenario of investment,
state-of-the-art technologies and open and flexible
education. Are we in or out?
by Susane Garrido
Susane Garrido holds a PhD in Educational Information Technology from UFRGS (Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul)
and is a Visiting Professor with Sheffield University (England) and Sevilla University (Spain). She is a consultant for major
Higher education Institutions and for MEC (Brazilian Ministry of Education and Culture) with INEP (National Institute of
Educational Studies and Research) and CNE (National Education council) as a member of the distance education committees.
She is also a member of ABED (Brazilian Association of Distance Education)
Abstract
Do we have the time? I don’t think so. Education in Brazil claims for changes! As information and technology are now
woven into the fabric of society, their integration has empowered society to change our planet. Wholesome and overarching
sustainable development is the key to the survival and life quality of generations. There is no need to refer to well-known
education jargon, particularly here in Brazil, where education has evolved into a stagnated landing for centuries, with no
evidence whatsoever of any linear development or improvement. Primary and Higher education policies have not been
updated, which has resulted in educational institutions not promoting relevant learning activities and knowledge application.
As education must be viewed as a process, the biggest mistake has been to dissociate Primary from Higher education, since
the process involves the very same learners – only at different ages. As we have access to major reference reports and
practices from sources like ABED (the Brazilian Distance Education Association), Horizon and ICDE (International council on
Distance Education), why not view and use them and seek to change the current gloomy scenario? Or perhaps, why don’t
we replicate acknowledged practices here? Static can be said to be the adjective that best defines the Brazilian educational
paradigm, followed by linear thinking and more presently, concomitantly collaborative and constructive action undertaken
by all the players in the education scenario. Therefore, why don’t we take a reaction?
Keywords
Open Education; distance education; market and investments; public policies; management; regulation and evaluation;
complexity and technologies; willingness and strength.

March 2015 - Public policies in distance education

March 2015 - Public policies in distance education

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (18)

Similar to March 2015 - Public policies in distance education

Similar to March 2015 - Public policies in distance education (20)

More from FGV Brazil

More from FGV Brazil (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

March 2015 - Public policies in distance education