  This second part of a 2 volume-expertise is mainly based on the results of
the inventory described in the first part. It is also based on a "worrying"
statement in the terms of reference of this expert report 1, which states that
"Asia enjoys a favourable technological context [in terms of equipment
according to UN statistics]. Nevertheless, digital technology is still hardly
present in the practices of the member institutions of the Agency and the
francophone university community; So distance education is not well developed:
there are currently no French-language distance training courses offered by an
establishment in Asia; The region has only 14 enrolled in ODL over the period
2010 - 2014; Only three institutions have responded to the AUF's "Mooc" calls
for projects over the last two years, etc.". The terms of reference also
indicate a state of deficiency "in the Francophone digital campuses whose
officials explain that the computer equipment are less and less used for
individual practices". The proliferation of mobile digital technologies that
would normally constitute an important asset for the development of teaching
practices and innovative research around the Francophone digital campuses has
not lived up to expectations. The paper refers to another no less important
detail that would explain the paradox between the proliferation of
technological tools and the reduction in usage when it indicates that, in
parallel, and contrary to the francophone campuses, In English a positive
dynamics of integration of T ICE and distance". The document provides concrete
examples, such as the ASEAN Cyber University (ACU) program run by South Korea
and its e-learning centers in Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam and Myanmar, The
Vietnamese language and the fablab set up in the region since 2014 without the
Francophonie being involved. A first hypothesis emerges from this premonitory
observation that it is not technology that justifies the gradual demobilization
(or even demotivation) of local actors to establish forms of Francophone
partnerships for training and research. Nor is it a question of political will
to improve technological infrastructure in digital training and research.
Almost all the interviews carried out within the framework of this mission
demonstrated the convergence of views and ambitious attitudes expressed by
three categories of actors encountered:- political actors met in the ministries
of education of the three countries who are aware of the importance of digital
education and the added value generated by technologies for education. Each of
the three countries has a regulatory framework and national technological
innovation projects for education and digital education;- public and private
academic institutions which, through their rectors, presidents and technical
and pedagogical leaders, demonstrate their profound convictions for digital
education (for reasons of quality, competitiveness and economic interest).
However, given the rather centralized governance model at state level, the
majority of academic institutions in the three countries are often awaiting the
promulgation of legal texts (decrees, charters, conventions, directives , Etc.)
that enable them to act and adopt innovative solutions in teaching and
research;- Teacher-researchers relatively little consulted in this expertise,
but sufficiently engaged as actors on the ground to be able to predict their
points of view with regard to the use of digital in their pedagogical and
research activities. Teachers and researchers with relatively modest incomes
would inevitably have a decisive role in any academic reform on the digital
level if concrete mobilizing arguments could compensate for their shortfalls by
joining digital training or development projects or programs.
