**10.1 Where should the teacher be?**

266 International Perspectives of Distance Learning in Higher Education

opportunity of sharing the aims and responsibility for the ICT supported activities. One

The teacher left the students without telling them why they had to do all the different ICT supported activities. They were left on their own. In the other two studies the initial meeting was used as a meeting arena where the students and the teacher were sharing goals. This does not mean that the teacher met without any plans for the activities. What it means is that the teacher through the design had made a plan. Through the initial meeting, the teacher shared his or her plans with the students permitting the students access and potential ownership to the aims. They got a shared focus for the activities (Matusov, 2001). The students in the blended environment missed the opportunity to share the aims of the activity. This turned out to be a significant problem for many of them. They simply did not

According to the findings the initial meeting between teacher and students is decisive for the development of the further collaborative process. The term initial is here understood as the moment when the teacher initiates the activities for the group. This might be every day or during a longer period of time. The initial meeting is critical for establishing a common basis or platform for further collaboration. The initial meeting has a double purpose. It serves as a foundation for development of common human agency as well as a basis for development of common aims for the learning activities. The shared responsibility and mutual obligation seems to be important. Tom in the distance-learning

"Knowing that the other members spent a lot of time on my text I just had to do the

Three different notions of inter-subjectivity are relevant in order to explain the concept; as *having in common,* as an *arena for respectful disagreement* and as *human agency* (Matusov, 2001). The notions of inter-subjectivity as *having in common* and as *human agency* are relevant for understanding the importance of the activities in an educational context understood as a community of learners in all three studies. The third analytical concept is *respectful disagreement* as a reflective tool for understanding a community of learners. Referring to Bakhtin (1981) there seems to be an agreement underpinning the fact that different perspectives drive dialogues (Mercer, 1995; Engle & Conant, 2002; Hattie & Timperley, 2007). Based on an article of Lillejord & Dysthe (2008) the question on whether a conflict or a dispute is productive or unproductive is raised. A common finding for all the three studies is that it seems to be important to have a confident basis for collaboration. Otherwise *counteraction* and no collaboration is the result. If this sense of trust is present the students seem to develop productive interactions from disagreement as well as agreement. In the study of distance learning the students explicitly claim that they appreciate difference and different opinions. The pupils in 2nd grade might well disagree, but what seems to be just as important is the possibility of using creativity and imagination. Students in the study seem to develop *productive interactions* from arguing

"What I reacted to most was that we heard a lot from the teacher educators about pupil's autonomy and pupils' interests and how important it was to speak to them, take them seriously and listen to them. But as students we experienced quite the opposite. So

student says:

study says:

I felt no kind of motivation".

understand why they had to do all the ICT-supported activities.

same. Otherwise I would never have done it".

Designing and conducting group activities has always been a challenge for teachers. When should she leave the students to work on their own, and when should she intervene or just be available? The challenge of designing for collaborative activities supported by ICT is no less complicated. According to Webb & Cox (2004) teachers in ICT supported education should be able to plan activities that enable students to exercise control over their learning and to provide appropriate support or scaffolding when students need it. When the students are collaborating in these three case studies, it is the result of a long process. Still in the design of the programme the teacher should be aware and conscious of how the performance of the assignments should facilitate or block the aim of the teaching and learning programme. If the aim is to support creativity and argumentation then this has to be built into the activities and the expected outcome in terms of the way the assignments are performed as in the *creative story* and the *creative assignment*. This is important in all kinds of group activities, but even more in ICT supported activities where students are left alone with the computer.

Throughout the three studies, findings show that the students want the teacher to be an active part of the collaborative process. The small pupils clearly stated that they wanted the teacher to read and comment their texts and to be available when they needed her. The campus-students express that they want the teacher to read their texts, to make comments and to be there. The teacher should be the only person outside the group with admittance to the closed space within the LMS. The study shows that the students missed the teacher who was absent.

"I missed the teacher who could conduct the process. We were fumbling. We thought maybe we had misunderstood the articles, and when we gave feedback it was perhaps not so fruitful as it might have been.

They missed the teacher's participation. The students claim that even though the teacher has another position when students are collaborating online and in distance, he or she should still be watching the learning activity and the process going on, and be a "visible" participant in the groups. The theory of a community of learners is based on the fact that the teacher should have a double responsibility. As well as carrying responsibility for the design, the teacher should be oriented towards the students' activities (Matusov & Rogoff, 1995; Rogoff & Gardener, 1999). This means that the teacher should not take control of all the activities taking place. Nor should the teacher abdicate and leave the responsibility to the pupils alone. In a community of learners teacher and students have a shared responsibility for learning. The first is for the teacher to contribute to building a confident learning society. Second, the teacher needs to take into account that the collaborating

Differences and Similarities in Approach Between Classroom and Distance Learning 269

cheating and lack of confidence. This chapter has shown that educational technology may open for new possibilities but also for great challenges. If the computer is used as an instructor it is more authoritarian than any human being. If it is used for making knowledge a common property it has great possibilities. My conclusion is that there are more similarities between classroom learning and distance learning than there are differences. The

Andriessen, J., Baker, M., & Suthers. D. (2003). *Arguing to learn*. London. Kluwer Academic

Arnseth, H. C., Hatlevik, O., Kløvstad, V., Kristiansen, T., & Ottestad, G. (2007). *ITU-Monitor* 

Brown, A. & Campione, J. (1994). Guided discovery in a community of learners. In: K.

Burbules, N.C., & Callister, T. (2000). Watch IT: The risks and promises of information

Engeström, Y. (1998) Den nærmeste udviklingssone som den basale kategori i pædagogisk Psykologi, in: M. Hermansen (Eds) *Fra læingens horisont* . Århus, Klim. Engle, R. A.,& Conant, F. C. (2002). Guiding Principles for Fostering Productive Disiplinary

Gee, P. G. (2005). Semiotic Social Spaces and Affinity Spaces; From The age of Mythologies

Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In D.C. Berliner

Hattie, J. & Timperley, H. (2007). The Power of Feedback. *Review of Educational Research,*

Helleve, I. (2003). Samspel med data? [Interaction with the computer? in Norwegian].

Helleve, I. (2007). In an ICT-based teacher- education context: Why was our group "The

Helleve, I. (2009b). *Productive Interactions in ICT supported Communities of Learners*. Dissertation for the degree of philosophiae (PhD). Bergen. Universitetet i Bergen.

magic group"? *European Journal of Teacher Education, 30*(3), 267-284. Helleve, I. (2009a). Theoretical foundations of teachers' professional development I Ola Lindberg & Anders Olofsson (red.). *Online learning Communities and Teacher Professional* 

*Development* New York: Information Science References. 1-20.

*2007. Skolens digitale tilstand 2007 [ITU Monitor The Digital Condition in School 2007*; in Norwegian]. Oslo. Forsknings- og kompetansenettverk for IT i utdanning.

McGilly (Ed.). *Classroom lessons: integrating cognitive theory and classroom practice* (pp.

Engagement: Explaining Emergent Argumentation in a Community of Learners

to Today's Schools. In D. Barton & K. Tusting (Eds.).Beyond Communities of

& R.C. Calfee (Eds.). *Handbook of Educational Psychology* (pp. 15-46). New York.

challenge is the consciousness of how to utilize the technology.

229-270). Cambridge, MA. Bradford Books.

Bakhtin, M. (1981). *The Dialogic Imagination.* Texas. Texas University Press.

technology for education. Boulder, CO. Westview Press.

Classroom. *Cognition and Instruction, 20*(4), 399-483.

Brown, A. (1994). The Advancement of Learning. *Educational Researcher 23*(8), 4-12.

Erstad, O. (2010). *Digital kompetanse i skolen- en innføring.* Oslo. Universitetsforlaget.

Practice (pp. 214-232). London. Cambridge University Press.

**13. References** 

Publishers.

Macmillan.

*77*(1), 81-112.

*Nordisk Pedagogik, 3*, 161-170.

confident group should be similar in relation to mutual respect and obligations, but different when it comes to experiences and values. Third, that the assignments connected to the portfolio are decisive for the learning process. If the students are asked to collect information, as in the informative assignments, there is limited or no room at all for disagreement, argumentation, creativity and reflection. The students should be exploring the zone of possibilities (Engeström, 1998) and creating new knowledge (Paavola, Lipponen & Hakkarainen, 2005). Fourth, the students should know that the teacher is watching the process and is closely involved and cares, even if the students are doing most of the work on their own.
