Josep Gallifa and his colleague, professor Albert Sangrà, have recently published the book Transformar la Universidad. Desafíos, oportunidades y propuestas desde una mirada global. Barcelona, Editorial UOC (available free of charge in Spanish). In this work, the authors try to explain and analyse the new challenges universities have to face, and how the Covid-19 has helped to accelerate the digitisation process some areas of society were already undergoing. In order to do so, eleven different experts on the matter from the five continents were interviewed with two main aims: offer the reader the broadest analysis possible and try to help diagnose the current situation, stimulating debate on the transformation of the University.

Did you notice significant differences among the interviewees -depending on country of origin and type of university- in the way they perceive and use the educational technologies?

Yes. In less developed countries connectivity is still an issue. The lockdown in response to the pandemic revealed these deficiencies. But even worse was the disconnection that this situation caused and the effects it had on terms of equity, because a significant percentage of the more vulnerable students dropped out, and the majority of them were women.

The type of university they attend also affects the way they perceive technology. When we talk about open universities with distance learning programs, educational technologies define all the educational activity. There are other kind of universities with intensive use of technology, like multicampus universities with activities shared between campuses by using technologies.

But, generally speaking, we could say that in all universities you can find members of the staff willing to change and incorporate the use of educational technologies and others more reluctant to do so. Even in the most prestigious institutions.

Are those differences related to their pedagogical-methodological or philosophical- ethical nature, or more closely related to technology implementation instead?

Some differences are related to technology implementation, as explained before. Others are of a more philosophical-ethical nature, for example, there is criticism about the way communication companies, such as Google, Microsoft, Zoom or others use the information, and what the fine print of their contracts allows them to do. Other differences are, of course, pedagogical-methodological. In some cases, the use of educational technology helped to get closer to industries and to respond to workforce training demands, for example with short stackable courses. In other occasions, to create more authentic learning situations. International exchanges or sharing lectures at distance are other possibilities.

One very common situation, and common narrative among experts, was the sudden and unpredicted need imposed to respond quickly to the pandemic, which involved online teaching. Even the most reluctant schools and colleges saw themselves forced to adopt this way of teaching. Although the capacity of adaptation was great and in many places the process was spectacular, the pedagogical value of the experiences was low because, unfortunately, in many cases, teachers just lectured online with a talking face in a rectangle on the screen. However, this situation stimulated the participation in training courses and enhanced the institutions’ interest to improve their digital competence.

Which are the points different universities around the world with different methodological perspectives have in common? Can we still find they share the same roots/essence?

We identified four ways, at a global level, of understanding the transformation of universities. The transformation can be understood as:

• Transformation in teaching and learning processes
• Transformation related to the creation of knowledge
• Transformation in the values or the organisational culture

• Transformation to promote the integral human development

These transformations were identified in three levels: Macro (University System level), Meso (University institutional level), Micro (Classroom level). In all of these ways and levels technology is playing a crucial role.

In spite of the differences in size, context and tradition, public-private nature, type of university, fields of specialisation, etc., the university is identified worldwide as a whole unity with a mission (more or less explicit) that makes a complex effort to ease and promote the development of young people through knowledge and values.

Open access:(http://hdl.handle.net/10609/134926)

From your point of view, is the current debate about physical universities (with a high number of classes in person) correctly focused?

In many places, when they went back to post-pandemic normality, things were expected to return to the pre-pandemic situation. In other places, the changes experienced had no way back. It depends on the intensity of the experience of training, but also influential was that in countries where universities were more exposed to the market, the institutions were pushed to innovate. Some governments favoured the funding of some kind of programs (for example to train the workforce after covid crises).

In general, the trend is that universities joined in distance learning technologies and pedagogies. Blended or hybrid models are the most common. Despite the difficulties, this offers the possibility to have programs more adapted to personal or industrial needs of training. These possibilities would have to be used according to the modalities of the different kinds of programs.

New educational technologies (EdTech) are somehow being ‘demonised’ by some members of the university teaching staff, do you think this shows fear of change?

New Educational Technologies are more and more used after the pandemic and more popular among teachers and professors. In the Universities, what we identified was not an unspecified fear of change, but different tensions that affected the possibility of transformation. These tensions were found in diverse universities at a global level.

The possibilities of change depend strongly on leadership. In this sense we recently published a paper on leadership and how these identified tensions affect the challenge to integrate digital education:

Albert Sangrà, Deborah Arnold & Josep Gallifa (2022) Liderazgo y Tensiones en la Universidad: El Reto de Integrar la Educación Digital, American Journal of Distance Education, DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2022.2027687

Last year your paper The Knowledge Building International Project as an Innovative Learning Environment was published in the Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology. According to this study, what main conclusions can be drawn about the use of innovative techniques in a teaching-learning environment?

This International Project initiated by Canadian Educational Psychologists Marlene Scardamalia and Carl Bereiter is a learning space oriented to cooperative knowledge building. It uses a technological platform (Knowledge Forum) where participants propose ideas, theories, and build knowledge cooperatively. It is one among other pioneer projects in the field of Computer-Supported Cooperative Learning.

In our region, Catalonia, eight schools and two universities are cooperating in that experience. The investigation followed a Design-Based Research approach and the project was evaluated in terms of the accomplishment of the 7+3 criteria of the Innovative Learning Environments (OECD).

The main conclusion is that educational innovations are undoubtedly relevant and contribute effectively to learning. In the case of the Knowledge Building International Project, technology facilitates knowledge building in a learning community, which is interesting because this kind of learning is difficult to be achieved without an appropriate use of technology.

From your experience as a professor and researcher, and after publishing innumerable papers in the field of education, what do you think the future of EdTech will bring in the medium-term?

Thank you for your kind comment. This question would require a more systematic and specific response depending on contexts and levels. In general, and as an approximate answer, we can identify at least:

More possibilities and modalities of learning and evaluation. Types of evaluation that are more embedded in the same process of learning. The possibility to develop learning analytics. More cooperative ways of learning. Also, the facilitation of more authentic learning situations. At University level the possibility of more personal curricular adaptation and the facilitation of international cooperation, among other possibilities.

But all these trends will need appropriate training of teachers and pedagogical leadership. If the possibilities of technology merge with pedagogical creativity the EdTech experiences have the potential to significantly contribute to enhance the integral human development.

Gallifa, Josep & Sangrà, Albert. (2021). Transformar la Universidad. Desafíos, oportunidades y propuestas desde una mirada global. Barcelona, Editorial UOC. http://hdl.handle.net/10609/134926

Gallifa, Josep, Montané, Mireia, Lund, Sandra, Amorós, Carme, Bernaus, Mercè, Gisbert. Mercè & Martínez-Olmo, Francesc. (2021). The Knowledge Building International Project as an Innovative Learning Environment. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology / La revue canadienne de l’apprentissage et de la technologie https://doi.org/10.21432/cjlt27920

Albert Sangrà, Deborah Arnold & Josep Gallifa (2022) Liderazgo y Tensiones en la Universidad: El Reto de Integrar la Educación Digital, American Journal of Distance Education, DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2022.2027687