INNOVATIONS IN TEACHING AND LEARNING IN HIGHER EDUCATION

CONFERENCE PAPER:

Aspects of Distance Learning and the Use and Impact
of Information Technology

Paper for: The Romanian Internet Learning Workshop,
2nd Annual Conference, 17 - 22 July 1998
in Kida, Ilieni, Romania http://oc1.itim-cj.ro/rilw/

Susan English

Faculty of Arts & Education
University of Plymouth, U.K
http://www.fae.plym.ac.uk/itlhe.html
s.english@plymouth.ac.uk

The first phase of our 'Innovations' project involved visiting universities that primarily provide undergraduate courses to students based on the campus. In this context, it was considered that 'Distance Education' (DE) was the provision of courses that are designed to allow a student to study 'at a distance' from the institution. These courses were not common for undergraduate study (which was the main focus of our project), most universities concentrated their distance provision on post-graduate courses. The main philosophy behind DE, as illustrated by the Open University over the last 30 years, is to open access to higher education so that everyone has the opportunity to study, no matter what their age or personal circumstances. It soon became apparent that in most of the institutions we visited, which included these types of courses, the term more frequently used was 'Distance Learning' (DL) and this was often linked to 'Open Learning' (OL). DL seems to refer specifically to the teaching and learning element of DE rather than the context or curriculum, but this is not universal and is often used in a way that blurs the distinction. Having the word 'learning' completing the phrase infers design, approach and method. This links DL to other, now familiar phrases, that end with 'learning' including: flexible; open; student-centred; resource-based; independent; active and work-based. Definitions coincide and overlap, but here is an attempt at naming some general features that are associated with DL:

Recently some (or all) of these elements have been entering the realms of mainstream higher education. Among the many possible reasons for this are that the student population in the U.K has doubled during the last ten years and changed with regard to student 'type' :

'Universities and higher education colleges educated 2.8 million students in 1996-97. Less than a quarter of these were from the group which used to be the mainstay of the old universities - young people studying full-time for a qualification. Of those pursuing a qualification, 64 per cent were mature students and 37 per cent were part-timers.' (DfEE, 1998, para 4.26)

This phenomenon of 'convergence' between DL and mainstream methods was noted by Kaye (1989, p.9) in reference to Smith & Kelly (1987) :

'It is suggested that, in general, methods of teaching in DE & mainstream on-campus education are beginning to converge, and that traditional teaching methods are in some instances being abandoned or modified in favour of a resource-based approach which no longer emphasises the teacher as the main source of knowledge'.

Apart from a change in the nature and quantity of students, there are many other reasons why this may be happening. Here are three suggestions which could be significant factors as to why mainstream university education appears to be incorporating some methodologies previously considered to be linked to DL methods:

Our definition of 'innovation' (for the criteria of our Project), has meant that we have been investigating changes in teaching and learning which were designed with the intention of improvement on previous methods (expanded in Silver, Hannan & English, 1997). During our research, 'innovative' teaching practices did not, generally, fit neatly or consistently into definitions associated with the regularly used 'learning' expressions (mentioned above), including those related to DL. The point being that 'innovation' relevant to DL was not always found on a course designed for DE.

The Project

The research involved visiting and interviewing people (who are regarded as 'innovators') in 15 universities across the United Kingdom. The sample represented a geographic spread and an even mix of 'old' and 'new' universities. However, the most important aspect in choosing which institutions to visit was the identification of 'innovative' people who had some public recognition (in the form of funding or awards) regarding methods of teaching and learning. Interviewees included lecturers, professors, support service personnel (Teaching and Learning Advisers and Directors of DL or OL programmes) and departmental as well as institutional managers (Heads of Department, Programme Area Directors, Pro VCs) and researchers. A wide range of HE subject areas was covered. Some of these people were identified by recommendations from others (especially in response to an enquiry regarding DL), but also from recent papers and conferences.

The design of our research methodology involved gathering data of a qualitative nature based on face to face interviews, generally with individuals but sometimes involving two or three people as participants in an interview. There were also several telephone interviews recorded when this proved to be more convenient for our interviewees. Data included many relevant documents about courses, strategies or policies as well as papers written by participants that were given to us.

The 'Distance Learning' Evidence

Of the 15 institutions visited, data regarding DL was obtained from 9, this represented those which offered some DE, including pre- and post- degree courses, only 4 included some undergraduate courses at a distance (or modules within those courses). Just a few universities had invested in new designs of DE courses, which offered a different learning experience to the traditional text-based model. Despite the limited number of undergraduate courses being offered, it was notable that the concept of developing DE was currently under investigation or being encouraged by some universities. This was shown by the existence of a director, co-ordinator or adviser, often attached to an 'Educational Development' (or 'Teaching Support') Unit, whose title and brief included DL. Five of these people from different institutions were interviewed and provided valuable information regarding attitudes and experience of staff as well as central management strategies.

It was particularly by talking to people who are involved in developing the use of learning technologies that it became apparent how OL and DL methodologies were beginning to be employed with campus-based students. Generally, these methods were still at an experimental stage of use and were being adjusted from year to year. In some of these cases the potential of the methodology for use in distance courses was being considered. From a total of 21 DL examples (projects, courses or modules), here are a few that illustrate different ways in which learning technologies are being used for DL, two of these involving students based on-site but learning at a distance:

1. 'Open to Europe' - A Collaborative Erasmus Project.
2. 'Structure Based Drug Design' in a Virtual School of Molecular Science.
3. MANTCHI (Metropolitan Area Network Tutoring in Computer-Human Interaction)

1. 'Open to Europe'

The project involved collaboration between 17 European universities, and included 11 sub-projects lasting one academic year. Second year undergraduate students from 50 departments took part and the assessment contributed to their degree. Students were arranged in teams of 4 and a pair of teams (from different universities) collaborated to decide on a project - relevant to their subject, and the way in which they were going to work together. Communication was primarily by using email but IRC (Internet Relay Chat) was also used. This was also the case with the organisation, although there were a couple of 'crucial' face to face meetings. The Web was used to present finished work.

Why?

It grew from a European Strategy of the University which already had links with 500 universities internationally. It was also as a result of the enthusiasm and dedication of the Project Manager who had committed support from the Director and managed to secure European funding as well as co-ordinating everyone. The aims included giving students a broad cultural experience and developing their self-confidence to learn as well as incorporating language and IT skills into their existing degree courses.

Reaction?

Perceptions are that students experienced frustration - due to lack of responses, different timescales and deadlines as well as cultural aspects affecting a reluctance to share work. But, because of all the problems, the outcome was of greater confidence and self-reliance - many of the students becoming more critical and questioning in lectures. Formal evaluation is not yet complete. Tutors had mixed feelings, some experienced 'political' problems, some became distracted with their own research, others were 'champions' and it was these projects that were the most successful.

2. 'Structure Based Drug Design' in a Virtual School of Molecular Science

A course called 'Structure Based Drug Design', funded, designed and run in collaboration with 4 major pharmaceutical companies. It is run entirely on the Internet where the aim is to create an 'interactive learning community' which involves asynchronous communication, web-based software and simulation of lectures and molecular structure. The students are all post-graduate and in employment (it is hoped to add 'academically-based' students at a later date). Experts from the 4 collaborating companies contribute to the course in return for student places. The course consists of a modular design which students can complete over 1 or 2 years.

Why?

The 'innovator' is committed to developing ways in which the web can be used as an environment for collaboration and for promoting a new generation of tools. His background was in the pharmaceutical industry and the university welcomed this expertise and provided a position and support specifically to build in this area. The subject matter was in demand and funding was available from industry who became involved as collaborators.


Reaction?

This is a prototype. There are currently 21 students each working independently. Each student also has a mentor in their organisation. Conducting discussion between the students has been the least satisfying element of the design, it is not part of the assessment. The course was still at an early stage and outcomes were not yet available.


3. MANTCHI (Metropolitan Area Network Tutoring in Computer-Human Interaction)

This was a collaborative project involving 4 universities funded by SHEFC (Scottish Higher Education Funding Council). It is now at the end of the 2 year duration. It involved students and lecturers based at the universities which are part of the framework of high bandwidth telecommunication connections across all Scottish Institutions (known as MAN). The project has involved reciprocal and collaborative authoring of tutorial units which are exchanged via the internet. Each tutorial had a typical size of one week's work for the student (about 8 hours). This may consist of an exercise or a video-conference tutorial or give feedback on submitted student work. Sometimes students and teachers from different courses interacted. Students used the Internet to submit their work to the remote tutor.


Why?

The framework for such a collaboration was in place and needed to be explored. The investigators share an educational approach, influenced by the work of Laurillard (1993), envisaging a learning community in which the teacher supports the development of the student. They also believed that this design may allow the possibility of giving adequate personal feedback to large numbers of students. The project gives an opportunity of measuring the educational effectiveness of this type of tutorial delivery.


Reaction?

Evaluation is currently taking place. All the collaborators have written tutorials for each other and used those produced by others for their students. This has added to the interest in relation to how it has been for the tutors to use the material of others. It has also been suggested that teachers have the opportunity to learn from the expertise of their colleagues, so that this kind of collaborative teaching could be viewed as professional development. Student reaction is currently under investigation.

Why use the Internet and other IT solutions for teaching?

Interviewees involved in the three examples given above gave the following reasons:

It can be argued that many of the comments made above can relate to other forms of teaching and learning that do not include new technology at all, but this has been the reaction of those that have experienced using it.

Reasons against using IT

From those that have tried using methods incorporating new learning technology:

From others:

At this time, there is huge diversity regarding access and provision of 'networked' computers for both staff and students. This has obviously affected levels of skill and confidence in IT for those with limited experience. So, although the reasons against using learning technology for DL (or campus-based) students are few, they are very big!

 

The Institutional Aspect

The Enterprise in Higher Education programme, implemented in 1988 and extending over the following seven years acted as a catalyst for an increase in teaching and learning innovation. The funding and administration of this process affected the creation of 'Educational Development Units' (EDUs) which have been staffed by people with a brief to support and develop teaching and learning initiatives. Gosling (1998, p3), suggests that 'The growth of EDU's may however be a more direct response to the external pressures of the 'quality industry' which is requiring universities to demonstrate more explicitly than ever before that they are taking measures to improve the quality of teaching that students receive'. There is some variation in the functions of these units, but they often seem to operate as a 'go-between' liaising with both lecturers and central mangement, sometimes meeting with resistance on either side. EDU staff regarded their role as rather more than one of 'service', they often saw themselves as 'strategic' in their institution. The provision of funding for 'innovative' teaching projects has sometimes rested within these units and included funding for new DL courses. Information regarding new methodologies or university policy are also disseminated throughout the university from this point. People we have seen that are based in these units have contributed to our understanding of an institutional focus.

Regarding DL courses, generally, priority is being given to offering courses at Masters level (the popularity of the distance MBA is a good example) and also to pre-degree, vocational, diplomas and short courses. This is because there is strong demand for these types of courses and universities need to increase their student numbers and compete in the market place by trying to raise their own revenue. On this theme, some universities are looking at ways to develop a 'niche-market' (offering courses on specialist subjects that others do not offer) as a way of building a reputation for the university based on its subject strengths. It has also been suggested by some senior managers, that OL methodologies incorporated on-site might ease the burden of increased student numbers on staff releasing them for more small group or individual tutorials as well as their own research. This has been regarded as quite optimistic, especially at the beginning of a change in approach. Although many individual lecturers have put forward arguments regarding increased educational benefits to the students with OL (as well as increased potential employability), central management see a need for flexible provision as a way of responding to competition in local, national and global markets of students. The VC of De Montfort University recently interviewed by BBC2 for a documentry (BBC2, 1998) stated very clearly that flexible, twenty-four hour provision, must be made available soon to compete, in particular, with the U.S.A who are expanding their educational provision rapidly.

Distance Learning - the Future

During our research most reasons given in favour of offering courses involving DL would fit in with the need for 'flexible' provision and opening of access to non-traditional learners. One comment was made that DL could safeguard jobs of university staff (others feel threatened) - hinting that a shift towards DL in the future is possibly inevitable. On the contrary, a reason why DL should not be offered by universities is that it is often claimed - 'it probably wouldn't work with undergraduate students'. The experience of the OU experimenting with 18 - 21 year olds would endorse that remark. However, these types of students are now in the minority in HE in the U.K. Therefore, the argument for the development of DL opportunities is greater. In the recent government Green Paper (DfEE,(1998)), a commitment to the expansion of HE and the inclusion of more types of students by opening access is made. By the end of 1999 a new university will be launched called 'The University for Industry'(Ufl) which looks as if it will operate in very similar ways to The Open University:

'The Ufl will tell you what learning is available and offer advice if you need it, and provide you with a course that meets your needs, whether full-time, part-time, or through study at home, at work or at a local learning centre. For example, it could deliver a learning package on a CD-ROM to your home or send it by email, or contract with a college for an evening class, or broadcast an interactive TV programme, or provide a course over the radio or on the internet. Students will not need to be tied to one particular location'. (p. 18-19)

This confirms that there is some political pressure on universities to provide 'open' and 'flexible' courses.

New Information and Communication Technologies (NICT) (which are rapidly being replaced with even newer technologies as I write) are now affecting all educational establishments just as the introduction of other media throughout the century has changed the way things have been done. The difference between technologies in the past (books, T.V, tapes, videos etc.) and the ICT more recently available is the potential for interaction in two directions - interaction between people and between people and the technology. In 1989, at a conference entitled 'The Information Society - a challenge for educational policies?' (Eraut, 1991), 27 states endorsed the following aims in the development of NICT:

'to enhance the quality of teaching and learning within existing educational establishments; and
to make learning opportunities available to those who find difficulty on gaining access to normal provision through poverty, handicap or distance'. (p. 36)

It looks as if attempts are being made among universities in the UK to acheive
these aims, subject, of course, to other priorities and the availability of finance.

To conclude, then, it is significant that a common way of using ICT is in collaborative educational enterprises; all three examples given earlier illustrate this in different ways. Speed and ease of interaction over vast distances may increase the potential of collaboration: between institutions and other 'external' agencies; between staff within and across disciplines and between students learning in groups. This process appears to be fraught with problems, but the possible breadth of educational benefits is exciting. It is this process that will be the subject of DL investigation next year.

References
BBC2 (March 16th, 1998) Fees, Degrees and the Numbers Game

Daniel, S (1996) Mega Universities and Knowledge Media:
Technology Strategies for Higher Education, Kogan Page Limited, London

DfEE, (1998), Higher Education for the 21st Century - The Government's Response to the Dearing Report

DfEE, (1998), Green Paper 'The Learning Age - a renaissance for a new Britain'.

Eraut, M (ed.) (1991) Education and the Information Society, Council of Europe, Cassell, London.

Gosling, D (1998) 'Educational Development: What is it and What Do Educational Development Units Do?' International Journal for Academic Development (Vol.1)

Kaye, A (1989) 'Computer-Mediated Communication & Distance Education' in Mason, R & Kaye, A (eds)(1989)

Mindweave: Communication, Computers & Distance Education Pergamon Press, Open University, UK Knowles, M (1990)

The Adult Learner: A Neglected Species 4th edition (first published in 1973) Gulf Publishing Company, Texas

Laurillard, D (1993) Rethinking University Teaching, a framework for the effective use of educational technology, Routledge, London

Silver, Hannan & English (1997) Working Paper 2, 'Innovation': questions of boundary, University of Plymouth also at EducatiON-LINE: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol

Smith, P & Kelly, M (1987) Distance Education & the Mainstream, Croom Helm, London

Back to Conference Papers

 Innovations in Teaching and Learning in HE