R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M. Ross. G. Staples (eds). Learning and Teaching Issues in Software Quality, Proceedings of the 11th INternational Conference on Software Process Improvement - Research into Education and Training, (INSPIRE 2006), April, Southampton, UK, ISBN 1-902505-77-8, The British Computer Society, pp. 139-150
Distance Learning: Technologies; Enabling Learning at Own Place, Own Pace, Own Time Elli Georgiadou and Kerstin V. Siakas Middlesex University, UK School of Computing Science
[email protected] Alexandreio Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece Department of Informatics
[email protected]
Abstract Education and learning is undergoing a world-wide change by participation of teachers, students and industry and with governments actively involved in its promotion. Gordon Moore, the founder of Intel and originator of the famous Moore’s Law in Electronics in his parting address on the day of his retirement in April 2001 said, “Education is our Achilles heel”. Indeed, the progress of our nations, their due position in the knowledge era depends upon how efficiently we empower our higher education system to become the engine of growth. The capacity to apply knowledge creates value. This capacity is best created through quality and holistic higher education with built-in development of the learner’s values, ethics and character. This paper presents an overview of Distance Learning and associated technologies over the last 50 years. Until recently students worked largely in isolation. The advent of multimedia technologies and the widespread use of the Internet have put an end to isolation and have increasingly enabled interactive learning and teaching and facilitated the creation of learning communities. At the same time educators have shifted from the didactic/teachercentred mode of delivery to student-centred, participative teaching and learning.
1.
Fifty years of Distance Education
Distance mode education has undergone dramatic changes since the 60s when the UK Open University (OU) provided open education to thousands of students who might otherwise miss out on access to Higher Education. In previous years learning in distance mode entailed studying by correspondence. There was no technology involved and learners worked in isolation with occasional correspondence with tutors/advisors. Learning materials consisted of printed matter and books, and assessment was normally unseen examinations at the end of the study period. The OU student continued to study in isolation but now audio tapes, video tapes and TV programmes were added. Also, occasional seminar/tutorial support in local colleges augmented the distance mode delivery. Assessment involved both examinations and assignments, and some assignments were computer marked (through Optical Character Recognition). Some group telephone tutorials appeared in the mid-80s. The unprecedented developments in Information and Communications Technologies brought a revolution in education. From the late 80s, throughout the 90s and at the beginning of the 21st century we have seen Videoconferencing, Virtual Learning Environments, Multimedia and Interactive Environments. These technologies have in turn demanded re-thinking of pedagogic principles and frameworks. The student is now able to study in Distance Mode yet to also be part of a community.
R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M. Ross. G. Staples (eds). Learning and Teaching Issues in Software Quality, Proceedings of the 11th INternational Conference on Software Process Improvement - Research into Education and Training, (INSPIRE 2006), April, Southampton, UK, ISBN 1-902505-77-8, The British Computer Society, pp. 139-150
According to Wenger [1] “Communities may develop as a consequence of interactivity; and/or interactivity is a function of community. “Communities involve the mutual engagement of participants, a commitment to joint enterprise, and a shared repertoire of approaches/techniques.”) As shown in table 1 the pace of introduction of new technologies has accelerated dramatically in the last 20 years. In particular, in the last decade increasingly more interactive environments became mainstream. These developments enabled “high technology solutions to support collaborative endeavour “ [2]. All human activity was affected including learning and teaching. Studying through the use of static technology often results of feeling of learner isolation. Interactive technologies enable the learner to participate in group discussions and group work, obtain feedback from the teacher and fellow students promoting group identity and belonging. Pedagogical innovations nowadays incorporate open, distance mode, lifelong, flexible, asynchronous, interactive and blended learning. Assessment methods and instructor training in the use of technologies, production of materials and pedagogic aspects as well as evaluation have become mainstream. Table 1 – Distance Learning Technologies
Printed Materials Audio Tapes Video Tapes TV lectures Group tutorial over the phone Videoconferences (bilateral) Videoconferences (multiple simultaneous links) Internet based Virtual Learning Environments Multimedia Computer Supported Co-operative Work Mobile Devices Pedagogic Frameworks Learning Communities Communities of Practice
Pre1960s S
1960s
1970s
1980s
1990s
2000+
S S S I I I I I I I I I I I
Key: S = Static, I=Interactive
Learning at Own Place/Location A Distance Learner can truly study from another position (locally, regionally, internationally) and even while on the move due to the availability of mobile devices.
Learning at Own Pace Distance Learners often study in part-time mode. Modular degrees form the backbone of British Undergraduate degrees. Students can study in intensive mode or over a much longer period of time on customised programmes.
Learning at Own Time Traditional modes of study are offered around a fixed timetable over pre-scribed academic sessions. Learners can study in a ay that accommodates other commitments (e.g. work and family) and restrictions (such as disability or illness).
R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M. Ross. G. Staples (eds). Learning and Teaching Issues in Software Quality, Proceedings of the 11th INternational Conference on Software Process Improvement - Research into Education and Training, (INSPIRE 2006), April, Southampton, UK, ISBN 1-902505-77-8, The British Computer Society, pp. 139-150
2.
Towards a general flexible teaching framework
As we move from the industrial age to the information and knowledge age, a necessity is created for new models in education in order to face the new requirements. Some frameworks were proposed in the 90s concentrating on either the development of learning resources or the deployment of open and distance learning. In an emerging knowledge-shaped economy, which views organisations as ‘knowledge creators’ and ‘communities-of-work’, a widening of the principles and concepts of the learning process is required. Broadening the context of technology and knowledge prompts for consideration of the role of the human being as an active and reflective learner. Technology should not only support the co-ordination of work processes; it should, additionally, serve the learning needs [3] The goal is to create a general flexible teaching framework for offering technology-based learning. The framework will give rise for an instructional design, which in a systematic way will create detailed instructional specifications, using learning and instructional theories, for the development, implementation, evaluation and maintenance of all the situations that facilitate learning and ensure the quality of the instruction.
D
A
Web learning materials Study Guides Review Questions Quizzes Notice boards Interactive Sessions Feedback mechanisms
I
R
D
U A = Analyse D = Design D = Develop U = Use R = Review I = Improve
Figure 1: The ADDURI Model [3]
Here we emphasise the cyclic nature of the process, and the need to built-in review and improvement sub-processes. Because an Integrated Resource is made possible by the technologies (internet, data exchanges, database, and interactive platforms) the lifecycle is largely based on the prototyping paradigm with the emphasis on Reviewing and Improvements which are fed into the Analysis stage and so on. The learning resources are at the heart of the framework and comprise the learning materials which include specification of learning objectives and outcomes together with quizzes, study guides, review questions and interactive sessions.
R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M. Ross. G. Staples (eds). Learning and Teaching Issues in Software Quality, Proceedings of the 11th INternational Conference on Software Process Improvement - Research into Education and Training, (INSPIRE 2006), April, Southampton, UK, ISBN 1-902505-77-8, The British Computer Society, pp. 139-150
3.
Blended Learning
Over the past few years technology-based teaching and learning approaches combined with traditional forms of teaching, such as classroom instruction and text-based materials, has led to the rise of the term blended learning [4]. T h e term blended learning is ill-defined and inconsistently used [5]. Definitions abound in the literature from broad definitions about combining face-to-face learning methods with technology to more narrow descriptions about combining a number of pedagogic approaches with an e-learning environment or combining media and tools in an e-learning environment [6]. However, if the blend of approaches is seen from the learners point of view (student centred learning) regarding own pace (including considerations of variations of experience of learning), own place and own time Blended Learning certainly offer advantages to many student groups. According to the Thomson Job Impact Study [7] faster performance was found on real world tasks by people who had learned through a blended strategy than those who had studied through e-learning alone. Similarly, DeLacey and Leonard [8] reported that students not only learned more when online sessions were added to traditional courses, but student interaction and satisfaction improved as well. For a better understanding of the different approaches involved in blended learning table 2 is used. Table 2 - Blended learning approach adopted from Rosett et.al. [9]
Live face-to-face (formal)
Live face-to-face (informal)
• Instructor-led classroom • Workshops • Coaching/mentoring • On-the-job (OTJ) training
• Collegial connections • Work teams • Role modeling
Virtual collaboration/synchronous
Virtual collaboration/asynchronous
• Live e-learning classes • E-mentoring
• Email • Online bulletin boards • Listservs • Online communities
Self-paced learning
Performance support
• Web learning modules • Online resource links • Simulations • Scenarios • Video and audio CD/DVDs • Online self-assessments • Workbooks
• Help systems • Print job aids • Knowledge databases • Documentation • Performance/decision support tools
4.
Changing Demographics and the Learner’s Viewpoint
Distance education and more specifically eLearning provides opportunities for access to geographically remote regions, people based in different countries, disabled people, people with work and/or family responsibilities. The student body is no longer comprised of 18-year old school leavers. Whilst in the past people studied and prepared for a career for life these days they invariably have a life of many careers. The unprecedented changes in Information and Communications Technologies and the rapidly shifting (forceful and voluntary) populations as well as economies in transition demand that the workforce is educated and trained to satisfy the demands of industry at a global level. The learner therefore needs to meet these challenges whilst attending to other responsibilities (work, family, travel…). Laurrilard [10] identified a number of Drivers for change including: funding imperatives, learners needs, stakeholders demands, career opportunities and quality standards. Laurilllard [10] pointed out that in order to advocate a learner centred approach the learner and stakeholders (society in large) should be considered in the first place followed by career opportunities
R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M. Ross. G. Staples (eds). Learning and Teaching Issues in Software Quality, Proceedings of the 11th INternational Conference on Software Process Improvement - Research into Education and Training, (INSPIRE 2006), April, Southampton, UK, ISBN 1-902505-77-8, The British Computer Society, pp. 139-150
(present and future). The other drivers, like strategy, quality standards etc. should be tuned to fit our goals. Learning environments such as WebCT provide for interactive learning whereby the student combines working on their own whilst they also have the option to relate to other students on the same course as well as to interact with the tutors and lecturers.
4. The teacher’s view Moving from traditional teaching and learning demands a change of attitude on the part of the teacher. In the early days the enthusiasts and technical wizards started outing their existing materials (lecture notes, exercises, examples) on computers more or less replicating the paper-based method. This was coupled with the didactic method of the teacher as a ‘guru’ and the student as a passive recipient of knowledge and wisdom. As we move towards participative methods of teaching and to the student-centred paradigm the teacher is challenged to anticipate areas of potential difficulty and to plan and respond to such situations prior to creating learning materials. The student will study in self-directed mode, often alone without a ‘guru’ who will instantly provide an answer to his query/worry. Synchronous sessions can of course provide some instant interaction (bilateral) through email and chat facilities. Technology and more specifically collaborative learning environments enable the creation of a learning community [1, 11] where the teacher participates in two ways namely by the prior preparation of materials, tests and case studies, and by actually ‘conversing’ with the students both synchronously and asynchronously.
5. Blended Distance Education at Middlesex University The Global Campus model [12] is built around the synergy of the University and a Local Study Centre at distant locations. Students prepare by reading pre-prepared materials and by using the Interactive Learning Environment. Self assessment, on line tests and activities reinforce the understanding of concepts through Problem-Solving. There are no lectures but students have access (electronically) with the lecturers who are based in the UK, and with their local tutors who are based at the Local Study Centre which also provides library and computer facilities as well as administrative and pastoral support. Communication between all constituencies facilitates the process of learning and teaching. There are 7 types of communication channels in Blended Learning as practiced in the Global Campus model at Middlesex University. These are as follows: a)
Administrative (e.g. posting examination scripts, and coursework samples)
b)
Programme Level Academic Issues (e.g. Annual Monitoring and Programme Reviews)
c)
Academic Liaison/Support e.g. addressing issues relating to the delivery of modules, difficulties and ideas for improvement
d)
Module leader to seminar/laboratories tutors
e)
Students to seminar/laboratory tutors
f)
Students to Module Leaders – Module Leaders respond to emails (LST copied in) – this corresponds to the duty tutor slot practised at Middlesex whereby the module leader is available at a specific time for ‘talking’ students
g)
Students-to-students – This is increasingly a channel used by students who are studying in this blended, hybrid mode. Students taking the same module can communicate via the OASIS/WebCT infrastructure by posting messages, questions, and ideas. In general this forum forms the backbone of the overall communication process.
R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M. Ross. G. Staples (eds). Learning and Teaching Issues in Software Quality, Proceedings of the 11th INternational Conference on Software Process Improvement - Research into Education and Training, (INSPIRE 2006), April, Southampton, UK, ISBN 1-902505-77-8, The British Computer Society, pp. 139-150
The Middlesex Global campus learning environment uses the in-house SCATE model which stands for Scope, Content, Activity, Think, Extra. Each learning unit (typically requiring a minimum of 9 hours of study for single units and 18 hours for double units). Scope: provides the context, learning outcomes, required study time, details of equipment/software required and reading materials. Content: gives textual and pictorial information, introduces new concepts and knowledge. Activity: this section requires the learner to engage in problem solving aiming to develop in-depth knowledge and understanding of the issues introduced under content. Discussion and a solution to the activity follow. Think: This section includes review questions, group discussion topics, learning journal and end-of-unit self-assessment. Extra: here the students have opportunities to tackle further activities, further reading and generally they can explore areas out of interest and not necessarily because they will be examined down the line. In addition to the on-line materials students have a reader or core text book as well as a module handbook which contains general information, assignment specifications and case studies.
8. Conclusions and further work Recent years have witnessed the proliferation of Information and Communications Technologies. Such technologies have accelerated the development of Distance Mode education (mostly in Higher Education). These technologies have facilitated a transformation in the mind set of educators and in the expectations of the learner who can engage in learning at their own place, own pace and own time. Lifelong Learning has become commonplace. Blended Learning is emerging as a popular and effective model [9] which encapsulates self-directed study and some face-to-face sessions including videolinks and virtual meetings.. We outlined the Global Campus model used at Middlesex University for the last 6 years. A similar model currently used at Middlesex University is under development at the Alexandrio Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki, Greece. At Middlesex we are carrying out a number of longitudinal studies to monitor trends, identify good practice and achieve improvements to cater variations in culture [13], level of study and subject domain. Further work involves the development and deployment of the ADDURI framework, and its validation through the production of learning resources within academia, and of training materials for professional updating and continuous professional development in industry.
References 1.
Wenger, E. (1998): Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
2.
Spurr Kathy, Layzell Paul, Jennison Leslie, Richards Neil (1994): Computer Support for Cooperative Work, John Wiley&Sons, Uk
3.
Valkanos Nikolaos, Georgiadou Elli, Hatzipanagos Stylianos, Berki Eleni, Siakas Kerstin (2005): ADDURI: A Framework for the Development and Support of Resource Based Learning Environments and Materials, in A Dafoylas, Walaa Mohamed Bakry, Alan Murfy (eds): e-Learning Online Communities, International Workshop Proceedings, 3 Jan. 2005, Cairo, Egypt, pp. 129–133
4.
Kerres M., DE Witt C. (2003): A Didactical Framework for the Design of Blended Learning Arrangements, Journal of Educational Media, 28(2-3), pp. 101-113
R. Dawson, E. Georgiadou, P. Linecar, M. Ross. G. Staples (eds). Learning and Teaching Issues in Software Quality, Proceedings of the 11th INternational Conference on Software Process Improvement - Research into Education and Training, (INSPIRE 2006), April, Southampton, UK, ISBN 1-902505-77-8, The British Computer Society, pp. 139-150
5.
Oliver Martin, Trigwell Keith. (2005): Can ‘Blended Learning’ Be Redeemed? E-Learning, 2(1), pp. 17-26
6.
Jelfs A., Whitelock D. (2000) The notion of presence in virtual learning environments: What makes the environment "real"? The British Journal of Educational Technology Special Issue from the Ninth International PEG Conference. Guest Editors Linda Baggott and Jon Nichol. Vol 31 No 2 pp145-152. ISSN 0007-1013.
7.
Thompon (2002): Thomson Job Impact Study: The Next Generation of Corporate Learning http://www.netg.com/NewsAndEvents/PressReleases/top/
8.
DeLacey B., Leonard D. (2002): Case study on technology and distance in education at the Harvard Business School. Educational Technology & Society, 5(2),
9.
Rossett Allison, Douglis Felicia, Frazee Rebecca V (2005): Strategies for Building Blended Learning, http://www.learningcircuits.org/2003/jul2003/rossett.htm (retrieved 05.11.2005)
10. Laurillard, D (2001): Rethinking University Teaching: A framework for the effective use of educational technology. London: Routledge Publishers 11. Jäkälä, M. & Berki, E. 2004. Exploring the Principles of Individual and Group Identity in Virtual Communities. In the Proc. of IADIS 1st Conference on Web-based Communities, Lisbon Portugal 24-26 Mar 12. Global Campus, Middlesex University, School of Computing Science: http://www.mdx.ac.uk/gc/ (accessed 16/01/06) 13. Georgiadou, E., Siakas, K.V. (2003): Technology-based Learning – Cultural Dimensions and Considerations, In Proceedings of INSPIRE 2003, Limerick, Ireland
