**1. Introduction**

252 International Perspectives of Distance Learning in Higher Education

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components

Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college

Richardson, J. T. E. (2007). Motives, attitudes and approaches to studying in distance education. *Higher Education*, Vol.54, No.3, pp. 385-416, ISSN 0018-1560 Roblyer, M. D. (2000). Is choice important in distance learning? A study of student motives

Rovai, A. F. (2003). In search of higher persistence rates in distance education online

Salili, F. (1997). Explaining Chinese students' motivation and achievement: A sociocultural

Simpson, O. (2008). Motivating learners in open and distance learning: do we need a new

Skaalvik, E. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task

*Educational Psychology*, Vol.71, No.4, (Dec 2001), pp. 561-572, ISSN 0007-0998 Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Núñez, J. C., González-Pienda, J., Rodríguez, S., & Piñeiro, I.

Wilson, V., & Bagley, L. (1999). Learning at a distance: The case of the community

Young, A. J. (1997). I think, therefore I'm motivated: The relations among cognitive strategy

*Individual Differences*, Vol.9, No.3, pp. 249-283, ISSN 1041-6080

Pintrich (Eds.), pp. (73-118), ISSN 0749-7423, JAI Press, Greenwich, CT. Sankaran, S. R., & Bui, T. (2001). Impact of learning strategies and motivation on

Vol.28, No.3, (Sept 2001), 191-198, ISSN 0094-1956

Pintrich (Eds.), pp. (371-402), ISSN 0749-7423, JAI Press, Greenwich CT. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., & Garcia, T. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the

2000), pp. 544-555, ISSN 0022-0663

ISSN 0888-6504

Vol.2, No.2, pp. 2-6,

pp. 355-369, ISSN 0260-1370

7516

(March 1990), pp. 33-40, ISSN 0022-0663

learning and achievement. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, Vol.92, No.3, (Sept

of classroom academic performance. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, Vol.82, No.1,

classroom, In: *Advances in motivation and achievement* Vol. 7, M. L. Maehr & P. R.

motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). *Educational and Psychological Measurement*, Vol.53, No.3, (autumn 1993), pp. 801-813, ISSN 0013-1644

for taking internet-based courses at the high school and community college levels. *Journal of Research on Computing in Education*, Vol.32, No.1 (Fall 1999), pp. 157-171,

programs. *Internet and Higher Education*, Vol.6, No.1, (Jan 2003), pp. 1-16, ISSN 1096-

analysis. In: *Advances in motivation and achievement*, Vol. 9, M. L. Maehr & P. R.

performance: A study in web-based instruction. *Journal of Instructional Psychology*,

theory of learner support? *Open Learning*, Vol.23, No.3, pp. 159-170, ISSN 0268-0513

avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. *Journal of Educational Psychology*, Vol.89, No.1, (March 1997), pp. 71-81, ISSN 0022-0663 Suárez Riveiro, J. M., Cabanach, R. G., & Valle Arias, A. (2001). Multiple-goal pursuit and its

relation to cognitive, self-regulatory, and motivational strategies. *British Journal of* 

(2003). Multiple goals, motivation and academic learning. *British Journal of Educational Psychology*, Vol.73, No.1, (March 2003), pp. 71-87, ISSN 0007-0998 von Prummer, C. (1990). Study motivation of distance students: A report on some results

from a survey done at the FernUniverstat in 1987/88. *Research in Distance Education*,

pharmacist. *International Journal of Lifelong Education*, Vol.18, No.5, (Sept-Oct 1999),

use, motivational orientation and classroom perceptions over time. *Learning and* 

This chapter will focus on differences and similarities between classroom and distance learning. What should count as learning and knowledge when information is available for everybody all the time? What are the consequences of these questions for teachers? These are questions that will be dealt with throughout the chapter. The aim of this Norwegian study is to single out what characterises productive interactions in ICT- (Information and communication technology) supported communities of learners, based on research from three different case studies. The study is based on the assumption that when teachers are designing and guiding learning communities there are some common features across agegroups and learning environments. Common for the three communities is that educational technology is supposed to serve as a space for collaborative writing activities. Across classrooms and distance learning there are some basic differences and similarities that will be discussed and illustrated through three different studies carried out between pupils in a classroom, on-campus students and distance learning students. The first study is carried out in 2nd grade in primary school where the students were supposed to write common texts by means of stand-alone-computers in the class-room. The next study deals with the experiences of 10 campus students in a blended environment. The students met every day, but were also supposed to collaborate online. The third study deals with distance learning. A group of five students called themselves the "*magic group*." They were student teachers who were supposed to publish portfolios and give feedback to each other. The research methods that are used are observations of the activities in the classroom, interviews and analysis of written texts. The conversation taking place when the pupils were writing common texts by means of the computers were recorded and analysed. The written online material is based on portfolios, feedback processes and online discussions. Further pupils, students and teachers in all three studies are interviewed. The aim of this chapter is to look across the borders of distance- and classroom learning in search of differences and similarities.

#### **2. Why organized teaching and learning?**

Schools as we have known them for hundreds of years have gathered people for the purpose of learning. Educational institutions are organized social societies. Currently it is relevant to raise the question of how to legitimize organized teaching and learning in a

Differences and Similarities in Approach Between Classroom and Distance Learning 255

*interactions* are the combination of the students' willingness to collaboration, assignments that open for creativity and argumentation and the technology. There are no correct answers. Opposite one question opens new questions in a creative dialogue. Creativity, reflection and imagination as well as argumentation and reasoning are valued in the

The following is an example of *productive interactions* illustrated by children in a 2nd grade classroom in primary school (Helleve, 2003). The class in which this research was conducted participated in a national action research project called "Collaborative writing by means of ICT" (Trageton, 2000). An articulated aim for the project was that students were to write collaborative texts supported by educational technology. Altogether 14 Norwegian schools participated in this project. I was curious to know more about collaboration and learning strategies in communities of learners supported by ICT, so I decided to choose one of these classes for my fieldwork. The class consisted of 24 eight year old pupils, and the teacher. There were two computers available. Two pairs of pupils wrote collaborative texts by means of educational technology on each of the days that I made my observations. The other pupils wrote collaborative texts by means of pencil and paper. The fieldwork was conducted within six months. During this period I spent one day, consisting of four lessons, each week together with the pupils and the teacher in the classroom. Each school day started with a meeting. During this meeting which I called the *reflection hour*, the teacher encouraged the pupils to share some personal experiences either from leisure time or from school. Also at this time she shared the goals for the learning activities she had designed for the day with the pupils. The pupils were asking questions and discussing these plans. The teacher then continued by telling a story to the class. After she had finished the story the pupils were supposed to do some activities in a workshop based on what she had told, or they were going to continue on her story. The pupils in the 2nd grade were observed through two different kinds of collaborative writing activities by means of a computer. The research questions were: What kind of learning strategies do the pupils develop, and what kind of interaction is created between pupils and between pupils and the teacher when the computer is the third collaborator? The first is called *experience story*, and the second *creative story*. In the *experience story* the pupils were asked to give an account and write a report from their collaborative activities in the workshop. The *creative story* asked the pupils to continue writing the story the teacher had initiated. She suddenly stopped when the story was most exiting and left to the pupils to compose the rest of the story together. The fact that they had a common aim through the text they were supposed to write made it more meaningful to compose this text together than writing alone. Through interviews most of the pupils claimed that they preferred collaborative to individual writing. One of the arguments the pupils had was that they shared a *common aim.* The pupils also experienced to be more creative and innovative when they wrote together. One of the girls said: "You become more imaginative. You become more like an innovator. It is like having two

The results of this study showed that it was possible to divide the children's oral communication into three different categories depending on the performance of the

understanding of the concept *productive interactions* (Helleve, 2009b).

**4. Productive interactions in a 2nd grade classroom** 

imaginations".

**4.1 The performance of the assignments** 

society that is surrounded by technology. If the main objective of going to school is to collect information it is reasonable to question if this is still a state of reasons for going to school. People have access to artefacts that can give immediate answers to all kinds of questions. Human beings are connected through social networks and media. Gee (2005) raises the question of *why* schools in future when students are more computer literate and learn better from the Internet-world than their teachers. Has the traditional school and organized learning situations as we have known them for generations outlived their purpose? According to Säljö (2000) computers represent the most serious challenge to the traditional classroom as we have known it for hundreds of years. The computer as an artefact in the classroom has changed the rules of the game. The traditional communication pattern between teachers and pupils is altered. The teacher is not necessarily the one who knows the correct answer. On the contrary information technology is much more familiar for the young generation than the older ones. The concept communication has two different meanings. The first refers to *communicare* as *transfer* or *hand over*. The second is *communico* which means to *make something a common property* (Erstad, 2010). The traditional classroom is characterized by the pattern of communication known as IRE (initiative, response, evaluation), or transfer. The teacher asks a question. The pupils answer and the teachers evaluate the answer. The role of the computer is to hand over information, to give instructions, to ask for correct answers and to care for as much control as possible. Communication understood as making something a common property means that the teacher should contribute to build a learning community. The term *community of learners* refers to communities where the main purpose is advancement of learning. A community of learners is independent of age. The learners may be any kind of group that is gathered for the purpose of learning; pupils in a classroom, students or visitors in a museum. This means that a community of learners might as well be an online community as a face to face meeting-place. (Brown, 1994; Brown & Campione, 1994; Matusov & Rogoff, 1995; Wubbels 2007; Helleve, 2009b). But what is learning?
