**12. Conclusion**

Through this chapter I have argued for learning understood as *productive interactions* built into *learning communities* that might as well be inside classrooms as far away. Why should students need a teacher when they are more digitally literate themselves and are able to collect all kinds of information in one second? My answer is that the ethical and intersubjective aspects that a learning community is built on perhaps are more important in the digital age than ever before. How should children and young people learn to take care, to feel obliged or to have respect for others if there were no teachers to organize and prepare the learning conditions? The body-less communication that ICT is based on may promote 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 challenge is the consciousness of how to utilize the technology.

#### **13. References**

268 International Perspectives of Distance Learning in Higher Education

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

The fact that there is a discrepancy between visionary policy initiatives and change in classroom practice concerning educational technology means that there is a strong need for further research in the field of ICT and learning within education contexts on different levels. Further research as classroom observations, observations of conversations in front of stand-alone-computers and online learning conversations is necessary. This study shows that designing for *productive interactions* in ICT supported learning communities, means that teachers have to undertake more complex pedagogical reasoning than in faceto-face contexts. In the studies described in this chapter the teacher is designing and guiding learning communities where the aim of the activity is collaborative writing. Obviously there is a need for further research on the teacher's position in other kinds of ICT supported learning activities and subjects. Another finding concerning the position of the teacher is that when students collaborate by means of educational technology the teacher has a more peripheral position than in ordinary classrooms. Still the students want the teacher to be present even in distance learning. A question for further research should be what this presence means in different situations. When should the teacher leave

the students to work on their own and when should she intervene or be available?

intended collaboration often ends in *counteraction* or *discussional talk*.

The study also shows that as a parallel to teachers' change in teachers' position the position of the students change as well. The focus of this study is on what characterises productive interactions. Other research shows that students often avoid conflicts and discussions and choose not to be involved in online dialogues (Taylor, 1991; Burbules & Callister, 2000; Andriessen et al 2003; Koschmann, 2004). Given the extensive and increasing use of online communication in education I think there is a strong need for further research in why

Through this chapter I have argued for learning understood as *productive interactions* built into *learning communities* that might as well be inside classrooms as far away. Why should students need a teacher when they are more digitally literate themselves and are able to collect all kinds of information in one second? My answer is that the ethical and intersubjective aspects that a learning community is built on perhaps are more important in the digital age than ever before. How should children and young people learn to take care, to feel obliged or to have respect for others if there were no teachers to organize and prepare the learning conditions? The body-less communication that ICT is based on may promote

their own.

**11. Future research** 

**12. Conclusion** 


Differences and Similarities in Approach Between Classroom and Distance Learning 271

MER (2006). [Undervisnings-og forskningsdepartementet] [UFD]. *National curriculum* 

A Comparison of Three Models of Innovative Knowledge Communities. Retrieved

& J. Lave (Eds.). *Everyday Cognition. Development in Social Context* (pp. 95-117).

Blaker (Eds.). *Studies of language, thought and verbal communication* (pp. 93-107). New

experience and symbolic behaviour control. In J.V. Wertsch (Ed.). *Culture, communication and cognition: Vygotskian perspectives* (pp. 183-204). Cambridge.

*and the development of the concept Intersubjectivity*. Paper presented at

professional development]. Doktoravhandling for graden Philosophiae Doctor.

Rogoff, B. & Gardener, W. (1999). Adult Guidance of Cognitive Development. In: B. Rogoff

Rommetveit, R. (1979). On the architecture of intersubjectivity. In R. Rommetveit & R. M.

Rommetveit, R. (1985). Language acquisition as increasing linguistic structuring of

Rommetveit, R. (2008). *My meeting with the cognitive revolution (at MIT) in the early Seventies,* 

Sjøhelle, D. (2007). *Læringsfellesskap og profesjonsutvikling.* [Learning communities and

Säljö, R. (2000). *Lärande i praktiken; et sociokulturelt perspektiv. [Learning in Practice in a socio-*

Trageton, A. (2000). Millioner av muligheter med 29 bokstaver. [Billions of possibilities with

Vetlesen, A. J. (2003). Det forpliktende møtet. ⌠The obliging meeting; in Norwegian⌡ In Y.

Wasser, J. D. & Bresler, L. (1996). Working in the Interpretive Zone: Conceptualizing collaboration in qualitative research teams. *Educational researcher, 25*(5), 5-15. Webb, M. & Cox, M. (2004). A Review of Pedagogy Related to Information and Communication Technology. *Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13*(3), 235-286.

Wegerif, R. & Mercer, N. (1997). A Dialogical Framework for Researching Peer Talk. In R.

Wegerif & P. Schrimshaw (Eds.). *Computers and Talk in Primary Classrooms* (pp. 49-

Fritze, G. Haugsbakk & Y. Nordkvelle (Eds.), *Dialog og nærhet: IKT og undervisning* ⌠*Dialogue and presence: ICT and education;* in Norwegian⌡(pp. 76-94). Kristiansand:

Rommetveitseminaret. Stord Haugesund University College. 12.06.

[The degree doctor philosophiae; in Norwegian]. Trondheim. NTNU.

Somekh, B. (2007). *Pedagogy and Learning with ICT.* London. Routledge.

*cultural perspective*; in Swedish]. Stockholm: Prisma.

Wegerif, R. (2007). *Dialogic Education and Technology.* Lausanne. Springer.

65). Clevedon. Multilingual Matters.

29 letters; in Norwegian]. *Norsklæreren, 5,* 28-31.

Taylor, C. (1991). *The Malaise of Modernity.* Canada. Stoddart Publishing Co. Ltd.

*plan⌠Kunnskapsløftet,* in Norwegian⌡ Retrieved May 18, 2010, from: http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/kd/tema/grunnopplaring/kunnskapsloeftet

Mercer, N. (1995). *The guided construction of knowledge.* Clevedon. Multilingual Matters. Mercer, N., & Fisher, E. (1997). Scaffolding Through Talk. In: R. Wegerif & P. Schrimshaw (Eds.). *Computers and Talk in Primary Classrooms.* Clevedon. Multilingual Matters. Paavola, S., Lipponen,, L., Hakkarainen, K. (2005). Episptomological Foundations for CSCL:

.html?id=1411

Lincoln. Harvard College.

York. Academic Press.

Høyskoleforlaget

Cambridge University Press.

18


http://odin.dep.no/kd/norsk/satsingsomraade/ikt/045011-990066/dok-bn.html

Helleve, I. & Krumsvik, R. (2009). If Innovation by means of Educational Technology is The

Hoel, L. T. (2001). Ord på vandring [Wandering words; in Norwegian]. In O. Dysthe (Ed.).

Hoel, T. L. (2003). Dialogen i fleksibel retning. [Dialogue in a flexible direction; in

ITU (2000-2003a). The INVITES-project[INVITES-prosjektet]. Retrived October 23rd from:

Kløvstad, V., Erstad, O., Krisitansen, T., & Søby, M. (2005). *ITU Monitor 2005. På vei mot en* 

Koschmann, T. (2004). CSCL: Argumentation, and Deweyan inquiry: Argumentation is

Krumsvik, R.J. (2006). ICT in the school. ICT-iniated school development in lower secondary

Larsen,S. (1998). *IT og nye læreprocesser. [ICT and new learning processes*; in Danish]. Hellerup.

Lillejord, S. & Dysthe, O. (2008). Productive learning practice- A theoretical discussion based

Matusov, E., & Rogoff, B. (1995). Evidence of Development from People's Participation in

Matusov, E. (2001). Intersubjectivity as a way of informing teaching design for a community of learners classrooms. *Teaching and Teacher Education, 17*(4), 383-402. MER (2003).[Undervisnings-og forskningsdepartementet] [UFD]. *The Program for digital* 

http://odin.dep.no/kd/norsk/satsingsomraade/ikt/045011-990066/dok-bn.html

Communities of Learners In J. H. Falck & L. D. Dierking (Eds.). *Public Institutions for Personal Learning* (pp. 97-104). American Association of Museums Technical

*competence 2004-2008 [Program for digital kompetanse 2004-2008].* Retrieved October

philosophiae; in Norwegian]. Bergen. University of Bergen. Norway. Krumsvik, R.J. (2007). *Skulen og den digitale læringsrevolusjonen.[The digital learning revolution* 

ITU (2000-2003b). The PLUTO-project[PLUTO-prosjektet]. Retrived October 23rd from:

*digitized society*. New York. Nova Science Publishers.

269-289). Oslo. Abstrakt Forlag.

(pp. 56- 76) Kristiansand.Høyskoleforlaget.

http://www.itu.no/Prosjekter/1079504497.79/view

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

*in school; in Norwegian].* Oslo. Universitetsforlaget.

on two cases. *Journal of Education and Work, 21*(1), 75-89.

Academic Publishers.

Steen Larsen.

Information service.

23, 2008, from:

http://www.itu.no/filearchive/fil\_Sluttrapp\_INVITIS.pdf

Answer- What should the Question be? In R. Krumsvik (Ed.). *Learning in the* 

*Dialog, samspel og læring* [Dialogue, Interaction and Learning; in Norwegian] (pp.

Norwegian]. I Y. Fritze, G. Haugsbakk & Y. T. Norkvelle (Eds.). *Dialog og nærhet. IKT og undervisning* [Dialogue and closeness. ICT and education; in Norwegian].

*digital kompetanse i grunnopplæringen. [ITU Monitor 2005. Towards a digital competence in primary education*; in Norwegian]. Rapport 2/2005. Oslo. Universitetsforlaget. Koschmann, T. (1996). CSCL: *Theory and Practice of an emerging paradigm*. New Jersey.

Learning. In: J. Andriessen, M. Baker & D. Suthers (Eds.). *Arguing to learn.Confronting Cognitions in Electronic Learning Environments*. (pp. 261-267). Dordrecht. Kluver

school. The degree doctor philosophiae. Dr.philos. [The degree doctor


In a country where postsecondary education traditionally results in social and economic advancement, 54 million working American adults lack a college degree (Pusser et al., 2007). Statistically, these adults are more likely to be low-wage earners. In 2009, the median earnings for young adults (25-34) with a bachelor's degree was \$45,000, while the median was \$21,000 for those without a high school diploma, \$30,000 for those with a high school diploma, and \$36,000 for those with an associate's degree. This indicates that young adults with a bachelor's degree earned over 100% more than those without a high school diploma, 50% more than those with high school diplomas, and 25% more than young adults with associate's degrees (Aud et al., 2011). In addition, the median earnings of young adults with a master's degree or higher was \$60,000, which was 33% more than the median for young adults with a bachelor's degree (Aud et al., 2011). Given these numbers, it is not surprising low income and working adults explore (or are encouraged to explore) postsecondary

According to Pusser et al. (2007), the challenges faced by adult learners place them at great risk of failing to complete courses and degrees. Adults not only learn differently than the young, they learn for different reasons (Green, 1998), including what they need to know, how they can take control of learning, what their prior learning experiences are, and why they need to learn (Huang, 2002; Knowles, 1984). Traditional undergraduate education is often inflexible and inconvenient for their schedules and lifestyles. Obligations, such as caring for family or work, are among the main barriers for adult/mature students to enroll in courses (Tones, Fraser, Elder, & White, 2009). These financial, family, and work concerns lead adult learners to nontraditional postsecondary programs, including distance learning (Pusser et al., 2007), because they provide a practical, convenient, and economical opportunity for those who are

The definition of distance education as proposed by Holmberg (1995) situates it as an instructional delivery method that could be beneficial for low income and working learners.

the learning-teaching activities in the cognitive and/or psychomotor and affective domains of an individual learner and a supporting organization. It is characterized by

education. The route to degree entry and completion is not easy though.

unable to participate in residential options (Yoon, 2003).

Holmberg defined distance education as:

**1. Introduction** 

Angela Benson1, Joi L. Moore2, Nicole Norfles3 and Carolyn Starkey4

*1University of Alabama 2University of Missouri* 

*4University of Alabama* 

*USA* 

*3Council for Opportunity in Education* 

Wubbels, T. (2007). Do we know a community of practice when we see one? *Technology Pedagogy and Education, 16*(2), 225-233. **13**

Angela Benson1, Joi L. Moore2, Nicole Norfles3 and Carolyn Starkey4

*1University of Alabama 2University of Missouri 3Council for Opportunity in Education 4University of Alabama USA* 
