Fig.1
Abstract: Open learning via net-based technologies gives many opportunities for collaboration. This lesson focuses on the NITOL collaboration to examine the importance of cooperation in the pedagogics of open learning.
Authors: Bodil and Fin Ask
The course lessons remain the property of their authors. The
course participants may freely utilise the lessons for their personal
use. However, if they want to use the lessons for teaching or
other courses they must contact the author directly for a more
precise agreement.
"Live and learn" is an old saying which we believe still
holds true. It agrees with our personal experience: If you stay
alert, there is always something to learn in the school of life.
Teachers have turned this old adage around, saying: "Teach
and learn". They say it jokingly, but are serious underneath.
Anybody who has tried teaching, knows how much they themselves
actually learn in the process, even in subjects they believed
they already knew well.
Jon Dewey, pedagogue and philosopher, put it this way: "Learning
by doing!". It is only when you implement your ideas in the
practical world that you realise their actual worth.
The Dane Piet Hein, an amazing genius and humorist, put his
own twist on the same truth: "Your best thinking occurs after
you have spoken". Does this not sound familiar to you? When
sitting down again after some off-the-cuff remark in a formal
debate, have you ever had a sneaking feeling of "Darn, why
didn't I say that instead?"
Behind all this there lurks a point: skills and understanding
are improved by rethinking something, saying it again, doing it
again. Improving the ability to understand and act is the core
of learning. This is what learning is. A good way of learning
is to use the teaching material, transforming it into action,
speech and new ideas. This wisdom is confirmed by all research
on learning.
This is the background, then, on which we wish to work on the subject of collaboration in distance learning. The objective must be to initiate students into a process where they
start to think, actively and consciously, about their own learning and how to improve it
develop an understanding of the value of using what they are studying when writing and acting
understand that collaborating with others offers opportunities for this.
Thus they will understand precisely why collaboration becomes the cornerstone of the pedagogics of open learning.
At least this is what we believe in NITOL (Norway net with IT
for Open Learning)
Collaboration among institutions is one of the strategic approaches
given prominence in the Norwegian national education policy. The
most familiar aspect of this is the development of a national
knowledge network among centres for higher education and research.
The NITOL partners are four colleges/universities representing
different educational levels and profiles, but nevertheless experiencing
that collectively they are able to offer better study opportunities
to their students than each of the institutions on their own.
Collaboration is a keyword in the pedagogics of open learning.
Various collaboration models have been tested in the NITOL project
and constitute the basis for collaboration in open learning. We
shall examine some of these models here.
A professional collaboration model was initiated in a European
project, JITOL (Just In Time Open Learning), with the intention
of establishing some sort of knowledge base in which experts would
contribute their experience. This experience and expertise would
be updated at regular intervals, and other experts in similar
fields would be permitted access to the material, as well as being
fully allowed to add their own contributions to the knowledge
base. This base was dubbed "The Evolving Knowledge Base"
(EKB).
This was the first model implemented under the NITOL project.
Under the auspices of the NITOL collaboration each of the four
partners offered some of their courses to a pool of courses on
the network. All lecturers at the collaborating institutions were
allowed full access to this material, indeed anybody with a modem
and the ability to connect to the Winix network was allowed to
read and comment on contents and programmes. It was taken for
granted that all the students should be allowed access, and they
were encouraged to comment upon the material they studied. Of
course, for quite a number of the teachers involved, the thought
of pulling back the curtain and allowing colleagues and other
professionals insight into their courses and work was hard to
swallow!.
Since those institutions which posted their lecture modules in
the pool on the network by and large were working within the same
professional field, the lecturers found they were greatly inspired
in their fields by being able to see so openly what their colleagues
were doing. Joint discussions on good ways of presenting material
of especially difficult accessibility came as a natural step in
this cooperative process.
In this model the teachers at the collaborating institutions agreed
that during the test period they would be allowed free access
to everyone else's material, including the option of copying bits
and pieces for one's own use when teaching: Cut, use and rewrite!
The only requirement was to insert a reference to the person the
material had been "stolen" from.
In other words, this model gave teachers insight into the teaching
programmes of others, and included the invitation to comment upon
what was seen. This was a model that could inspire professional
collaboration among "professional experts".
The next collaboration model implemented in NITOL was of a more
administrative character. Agreement was reached among the four
institutions that they would all publish courses or modules on
the net, which would be open to everybody! Disregarding which
of the four institutions they formally belonged to, students would
freely and at no cost be able to choose among the subjects at
the four institutions and take exams in the chosen subjects, provided
this fit with the progression in their programme of studies.
This model was a novelty in Norway for institutions at this level.
By merely pushing a few keys, as it were, a total change in the
situation for students had been accomplished. Suddenly the number
of courses students could choose had been multiplied. Courses
from one institution could be used in the degree from another.
Students were able to stay in their own institution while following
courses at another, whose staff would offer them guidance and
supervision. Exams were made by the institution offering the course,
but the location for the exam was the student's home institution.
In some cases one institution did not bother initiating a course
already being offered by one of the other institutions, in order
to save money! (This took place after open consultation among
the institutions).
Under this model the institutions still control the choices which
are made, not necessarily those that concern the individual subject,
but rather how subjects or topics are assembled into larger units
or degrees. The institutions are still responsible for deciding
which units are required for a larger unit, for example a 20-credit
group (undergraduate studies) or two-semester courses etc. This
model creates great opportunities and poses challenges for institutions
and students alike.
Fig.1
The illustration shows a common subject 'pool', made
up of courses placed on the net by each of the institutions. Together
this gives a considerably higher number of courses for the students
to choose from than if they could only choose those from their
own institution.
A different form of this collaboration is when a major course
is used in different ways by the institutions. One example is
a 5-credit module offered by NTNU, (the Norwegian technical university
in the middle part of Norway). Part of this module was used for
a 2-credit course by HiA (Agder College, located at the Southern
coastline of Norway). The institutions collaborated on the teaching
programme, the extent of the course and the exercises, hence customising
the course for both institutions at the same time, while also
allowing the students to take a 5-credit or 2-credit exam, both
of which were accepted by both institutions. This version still
exists, but the choice now is between 2 or 3 credits. Under this
type of programme the posting of video recordings of lectures
addressing the teaching materials and offered in conference settings
has also been tested. This digitalized video, transferred via
the Internet, loops continuously, thus allowing students to download
when they need it, creating an asynchronous opportunity to follow
lectures on the teaching material.
Collaboration on module development really is collaboration on
developing course contents. One of the examples in this context
is one of the basic informatics courses, where one institution
creates some of the required modules, while another creates some
modules especially adapted to its needs. Thus a course might consist
of 12 modules, 10 of these being joint modules, while two are
adapted to particular needs, for example teacher education or
engineering.
Fig. 2.
This figure shows that some courses may have a common
component, but instead of making all the institutions maintain/update
their own component (confusingly similar to that of a colleague's),
one institution was assigned the responsibility for perhaps 10
of the modules, while the other institutions each designed their
specially adapted components ( two or three modules). Together
these made up the entire course.
Another version of this, perhaps even more demanding, is shown
by the course "Pedagogics in Open Learning". For this
course all the four institutions (and external professionals)
pool their resources to offer a new subject - one for which none
of the institutions alone has all the required competence.
Figure 3 shows an example
of such a programme, where teachers basically design their own
lessons. Initially, merging the components into a whole appears
difficult, as nothing fits totally and parts appear disjointed.
However, this method forces collaboration beyond parallel work,
resulting in real collaboration, forcing course designers to join
in the work of others in order to create a unified whole.
The "Pedagogics in Open Learning" programme commenced
when the NITOL steering group discussed which subjects to include
in the course. The responsibility for each lesson was then left
to the individual "authors". The next step is the ongoing
processing of lessons, not only by the original author, but jointly
with others, and with the students through their course evaluation
contributions. This course is still under development.
One would hope this would improve the course, to the advantage
of the students. However, there are advantages also for teachers.
The teacher role will change from being one of isolation from
colleagues in the direction of becoming a joint effort with colleagues.
The majority of teacher tasks will move from lecturing to supervising
students. The same experience was gained by teachers in open
schools when these were introduced in Norway. A number of
teachers feel this new role fits them better, as this gives them
support, strength and inspiration - in short, greater job satisfaction
and thus greater work effort. The work method has a synergy effect.
Another version of this example is when two subjects have some
common topics, and where two teachers choose to exploit each other's
speciality fields by creating links into each other's course programmes.
This implies that students must be linked to a network in order
to traverse to another course, thus being best suited for students
with permanent on-line connections (no private modem solutions).
This is under development in order to provide the opportunity
for connecting only in those cases where it is needed. In this
case this concerns a common area of addresses for two (or more)
courses. New paths are being cleared for education in Norway,
which you and we are a part of!
In open learning programmes there will always be teaching material
which must be learned. This means that students who follow the
course should feel that their thinking and understanding of the
subject have improved. Then the postulation is made that the material
must be so arranged as to inspire students to think, speak and
act on the basis of the subjects they study. They must be activated.
Students who select courses of the open, flexible distance learning
type may generally be divided into two groups: Real "distant"
students and students at universities/colleges. One group lives
in a more or less isolated, solitary environment, the other in
the midst of a thriving educational community.
Whether a student belongs in one or the other group, it is necessary
to establish a situation enabling thinking, speaking and acting
on the basis of the subject material under study. The opportunities
for the two groups vary, but the point of open distance learning
(ODL) is that both groups should have them. (Please note that
a student in the crowded educational community may also be lonely!)
It is in the nature of things that a developer of open learning
courses should be experienced in the technological management
of the programme. One thing is knowing how, something entirely
different is having experience in doing it. Thus all students
must use the teaching material! They should employ the
opportunities provided by information technology to contact fellow
students to experience that the technology works and what
personal contact entails. The technology in itself is as dry as
the Gobi desert. But the screens are watched by people. They,
at least, can be made to come alive! Many things will then acquire
more meaning, and the idea is that you learn more and better when
learning in a social environment which makes you feel happy and
satisfied.
Some times you want to relax and enjoy. Why not chat with somebody
in another municipality, with somebody you have a number of things
in common with, since both of you are working through this course?
Do you actually know how far west, south, north or east you have
co-students?
At other times you may need to know more or have something explained
to you. If you offer somebody the chance to explain something
to you, chances are this will benefit the person who explains
at least as much as it will benefit you. This means that if somebody
out there in the discussion conference has a question, you should
not be too tardy in offering an answer. Remember: Your best thinking
occurs after you have spoken. If your initial understanding may
not have been entirely complete, what you or others understand
at a later stage may have developed much further.
The opportunities for the distance learning student, by means
of information technology, to contact teaching staff at the teaching
institutions, as well as the other way round, is a central part
Open Learning theory. The utilization of these opportunities may
thus decide the success of an ODL programme.
The opportunities exist in the area of personal contact and the
area of discussion/conferences. Both are important, and neither
can replace the other.
The pedagogical value of personal contact is extremely high. It
appears that this is the most important factor for many students.
This might also reveal a problem: Teachers are one or two, students
are many. Even so, students should be encouraged to seek contacts,
send greetings and establish their presence. They also must receive
answers, at the very minimum! Anything beyond this in the matter
of personal or professional contact will be a bonus for students.
Hardly anyone doubts this.
Considering the fact that teachers must economise with their time,
and also that pedagogically, contact among students is important,
the consequence must be that it would be most beneficial for students
to post their subject questions on the discussion conference before
addressing themselves directly to their teacher. We intend that
teachers and students should keep in touch with the discussion
conference and contribute to it (teachers, however, none too fast,
according to many experts!). If the students encounter problems
because of the way the teaching material is formulated, or simply
fail to understand what is written, they should be encouraged
to contact co-students in the discussion conference to enquire
whether they understand, and if so, whether they would be so kind
as to explain. Summing up, we see vast pedagogical opportunities
concerning discussion conferences, but as stated before in some
of the other lessons: so far our results have not corresponded
to our expectations. The methodology has not yet been sufficiently
developed in this field.