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

254 International Perspectives of Distance Learning in Higher Education

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?

**3. Learning understood as** *productive interactions* 

Greeno, Collins and Resnic in their influential chapter on Cognition and Learning in Handbook of Educational Psychology (1996) refer to three traditions when it comes to conceptualisation of knowledge: In a behavioristic/empiristic perspective learning is seen as acquiring and applying associations. In a cognitive/rationalist view learning means to be able to acquire and use conceptual and cognitive structures. Finally the situative/ pragmatist-socio-historic perspective understands learning as a means to become attuned to constraints and affordances through participation. The computer can support all these ways of understanding learning. In the first case the computer is understood as a tutor or an instructor. In the second as a tool for individual knowledge building, and in the third the technology is seen as a mediating artefact for learning. Koschman (1996) uses the concept paradigm to explain the difference in perspectives on learning. The situative/pragmatist perspective claims that collaborative activities, creativity and argumentation are fundamental for learning through participants' sharing and constructing new knowledge. Through collaborative activities students are able to solve problems that are beyond the limits of what they would possibly have managed on their own. *Productive interactions* are depending on interaction between social aspects and the technology. Educational technology has the possibility for building new spaces inside the physical space. *Productive*  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 imaginations".

#### **4.1 The performance of the assignments**

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

Differences and Similarities in Approach Between Classroom and Distance Learning 257

PLUTO (Program for teacher education, technology and change) (ITU, 2000- 2003a) INVITIS (2000-2003) (Innovation by means of ICT in education of language teachers) at the University of Bergen in Norway (ITU, 2000-2003b). The students were on campus and did not understand why they had to do all the online activities. Parliamentary Proposition no. 27; (2001-2002) the so-called "Quality reform" (MER, 2001) concerning higher education in general, and the National Law for Teacher Education (MER, 2002) initiated great changes in formative assessment, a closer follow up of the individual student, and learning activities supported by ICT. The aim of the INVITIS project was to develop an alternative model for the education of language teachers. This model was to create a platform for language teachers' abilities to become creative and innovative in the traditional classroom. The different themes in pedagogy like classroom management were dealt with in lectures for the entire group of 80 students, in face-to-face discussions in seminar groups, and in digital portfolios where the students gave feedback to each other. The semester started with an Introduction week for the seminar groups. During the theoretical part of the study the students met face-to-face once or twice a week. The aim was to establish confidence, to become familiar with the main goals of teacher education and the INVITIS- project, and to learn how to use the technology. In order to prepare for the online collaboration, students in the basic groups had to write texts and give feedback to each other face-to-face. Participation in seminar groups as well as on-line activities was compulsory. Based on a procedure decided by the teacher educator, each student gave feedback to two peers on each assignment in the portfolio. Face-to-face as well as on-line discussions took place either between the members of the seminar groups or in the subject- related groups. The research questions of this study was *if*, and eventually *how*, the educational technology had been a

The students' motivation for using ICT was low by the beginning of the study. By the end of teacher education however, some of the students saw that there were qualitative differences making ICT and LMS (Learning Management Systems) suitable for productive learning processes not just for distance learning, but also for campus students. The activities they mention are portfolios with feedback from peers and asynchronous discussions. According to the students these activities opened for collaboration and deeper reflection. Through the reflective process the students became more open-minded for other students' ideas and also

"I have become much more positive to the ICT supported activities even though I still think it should be used with intelligence. To share texts and thoughts has been very nice. I used to be very negative. It was impossible for me to understand why we could not sit around a table and discuss. But now I see that a virtual discussion is something

An important reason was that the online discussions and feedback processes opened for a deeper reflection because there was a distance in time and space. The students did not have to respond immediately, but could wait and think before they pressed the button. Other groups of students were favoured than in ordinary rooms. In face-to-face discussions one or two students often dominate the discussion. Online discussions offer time for reflection before the students have to react to the other students' utterances. One

to get new ideas. Concerning the asynchronous discussions one student said:

quite different from a face to face discussion".

student said:

support for the students' learning process.

exercises (Mercer & Fischer, 1997; Helleve, 2003). The three categories are called *discussional talk, cumulative talk* and *explorative talk*. *Discussional talk* means that the co-operation between the members breaks down, or that no real communication takes place. Some pupils never managed to compose a story. In *cumulative* and *explorative talk*, on the other hand, the group members share a basic confidence and there is a willingness to co-operate. When this willingness to collaborate exists the further division into additional categories depends on the actual performance of the exercises. What were the pupils asked to write about? Cumulative talk means that the participants gained knowledge through accumulating shared knowledge. They described what they had done in the workshop. There was no room for disagreement, creativity or imagination. A statement from one of the members was confirmed by the other. In cumulative talk the dialogue is based on confirmations and repetitions. There is little room for the participants' own opinions, and therefore also limited learning potential. Explorative talk is also based on confidence and positive attitudes between the group members, but in contradiction to cumulative talk, the explorative talk opens for discussions, dialogue and different opinions. When the teacher had started a thrilling story and suddenly stopped she opened for imagination, creativity and disagreement. One example was about a cat which was alone at home. Two pupils continued on the story where the cat fell down from the shelf and into the soup. They wrote a story where the cat managed to enter the room where there was a cake on a shelf close to the ceiling and a bowl of soup on the floor. A question for discussion was if the cat was going to drown in the soup or not. The argumentation or conflict was based on trust and confidence. The pupils used their creativity and imagination. *Explorative talk* has therefore a greater learning potential, the potential of creating new knowledge. The challenge for the teacher is to perform assignments the students can solve by giving each other this kind of mutual support. Every day the teacher in 2nd grade started with an initial meeting where she shared her aims and plans with the pupils. Furthermore, her concern was how to prepare for learning activities the pupils could write about later. More then ever the teacher has to be able to foresee the consequences and to know his or her pupils' abilities and qualifications. "When the pupils go to the computer my job is done" said the teacher in this 2nd grade. As a researcher I discovered a pattern where the teacher had planned for *basic confidence*, *sharing aims* and *common experiences.* The learning process was characterised by the pupils' willingness to collaboration, assignments that opened for creativity and argumentation and the technology which are basic for *productive interactions*.

#### **5. A study of campus students in a blended environment**

Bridget Somekh (2007) raises the question: Why ICT? Are collaborative activities that enhance open dialogues, creativity, reflection and argumentation depending on computers? Educational technology can offer collaborative spaces that are qualitatively different from physical rooms. The example from the primary classroom shows that a text that is composed by two authors is qualitatively different from an individual text written by one person by means of pen and paper. The product of the writing process was a shared honour for both pupils. The final text was always referred to as "our" text. The pupils were proudly showing their product saying: "Look what *we* have written".

Another example that can answer the question: Why technology? is from teacher education. Data collection is made within the local part of the national teacher education programme;

exercises (Mercer & Fischer, 1997; Helleve, 2003). The three categories are called *discussional talk, cumulative talk* and *explorative talk*. *Discussional talk* means that the co-operation between the members breaks down, or that no real communication takes place. Some pupils never managed to compose a story. In *cumulative* and *explorative talk*, on the other hand, the group members share a basic confidence and there is a willingness to co-operate. When this willingness to collaborate exists the further division into additional categories depends on the actual performance of the exercises. What were the pupils asked to write about? Cumulative talk means that the participants gained knowledge through accumulating shared knowledge. They described what they had done in the workshop. There was no room for disagreement, creativity or imagination. A statement from one of the members was confirmed by the other. In cumulative talk the dialogue is based on confirmations and repetitions. There is little room for the participants' own opinions, and therefore also limited learning potential. Explorative talk is also based on confidence and positive attitudes between the group members, but in contradiction to cumulative talk, the explorative talk opens for discussions, dialogue and different opinions. When the teacher had started a thrilling story and suddenly stopped she opened for imagination, creativity and disagreement. One example was about a cat which was alone at home. Two pupils continued on the story where the cat fell down from the shelf and into the soup. They wrote a story where the cat managed to enter the room where there was a cake on a shelf close to the ceiling and a bowl of soup on the floor. A question for discussion was if the cat was going to drown in the soup or not. The argumentation or conflict was based on trust and confidence. The pupils used their creativity and imagination. *Explorative talk* has therefore a greater learning potential, the potential of creating new knowledge. The challenge for the teacher is to perform assignments the students can solve by giving each other this kind of mutual support. Every day the teacher in 2nd grade started with an initial meeting where she shared her aims and plans with the pupils. Furthermore, her concern was how to prepare for learning activities the pupils could write about later. More then ever the teacher has to be able to foresee the consequences and to know his or her pupils' abilities and qualifications. "When the pupils go to the computer my job is done" said the teacher in this 2nd grade. As a researcher I discovered a pattern where the teacher had planned for *basic confidence*, *sharing aims* and *common experiences.* The learning process was characterised by the pupils' willingness to collaboration, assignments that opened for creativity and argumentation and

the technology which are basic for *productive interactions*.

their product saying: "Look what *we* have written".

**5. A study of campus students in a blended environment** 

Bridget Somekh (2007) raises the question: Why ICT? Are collaborative activities that enhance open dialogues, creativity, reflection and argumentation depending on computers? Educational technology can offer collaborative spaces that are qualitatively different from physical rooms. The example from the primary classroom shows that a text that is composed by two authors is qualitatively different from an individual text written by one person by means of pen and paper. The product of the writing process was a shared honour for both pupils. The final text was always referred to as "our" text. The pupils were proudly showing

Another example that can answer the question: Why technology? is from teacher education. Data collection is made within the local part of the national teacher education programme; PLUTO (Program for teacher education, technology and change) (ITU, 2000- 2003a) INVITIS (2000-2003) (Innovation by means of ICT in education of language teachers) at the University of Bergen in Norway (ITU, 2000-2003b). The students were on campus and did not understand why they had to do all the online activities. Parliamentary Proposition no. 27; (2001-2002) the so-called "Quality reform" (MER, 2001) concerning higher education in general, and the National Law for Teacher Education (MER, 2002) initiated great changes in formative assessment, a closer follow up of the individual student, and learning activities supported by ICT. The aim of the INVITIS project was to develop an alternative model for the education of language teachers. This model was to create a platform for language teachers' abilities to become creative and innovative in the traditional classroom. The different themes in pedagogy like classroom management were dealt with in lectures for the entire group of 80 students, in face-to-face discussions in seminar groups, and in digital portfolios where the students gave feedback to each other. The semester started with an Introduction week for the seminar groups. During the theoretical part of the study the students met face-to-face once or twice a week. The aim was to establish confidence, to become familiar with the main goals of teacher education and the INVITIS- project, and to learn how to use the technology. In order to prepare for the online collaboration, students in the basic groups had to write texts and give feedback to each other face-to-face. Participation in seminar groups as well as on-line activities was compulsory. Based on a procedure decided by the teacher educator, each student gave feedback to two peers on each assignment in the portfolio. Face-to-face as well as on-line discussions took place either between the members of the seminar groups or in the subject- related groups. The research questions of this study was *if*, and eventually *how*, the educational technology had been a

The students' motivation for using ICT was low by the beginning of the study. By the end of teacher education however, some of the students saw that there were qualitative differences making ICT and LMS (Learning Management Systems) suitable for productive learning processes not just for distance learning, but also for campus students. The activities they mention are portfolios with feedback from peers and asynchronous discussions. According to the students these activities opened for collaboration and deeper reflection. Through the reflective process the students became more open-minded for other students' ideas and also to get new ideas. Concerning the asynchronous discussions one student said:

support for the students' learning process.

"I have become much more positive to the ICT supported activities even though I still think it should be used with intelligence. To share texts and thoughts has been very nice. I used to be very negative. It was impossible for me to understand why we could not sit around a table and discuss. But now I see that a virtual discussion is something quite different from a face to face discussion".

An important reason was that the online discussions and feedback processes opened for a deeper reflection because there was a distance in time and space. The students did not have to respond immediately, but could wait and think before they pressed the button. Other groups of students were favoured than in ordinary rooms. In face-to-face discussions one or two students often dominate the discussion. Online discussions offer time for reflection before the students have to react to the other students' utterances. One student said:

Differences and Similarities in Approach Between Classroom and Distance Learning 259

In a classroom the teacher has to create a need for using the technology as a means of communication. In distance learning there is no need for adjustment or motivation. Actually the distance makes the difference. Technology is the media that makes communication and learning possible. Communication understood as *transfer* as well as *making something a common property* is necessary. The Norwegian educational context is characterised by an increasing focus from politicians on goal achievement, accountability and market orientation. Results from tests like PISA and TIMMS have created an international educational competition of which Norway does not come out at the top. There is a strong belief in ICT as a support for learning. The political program for digital competence (MER, 2003) underlined that within 2008 Norway should be ranked on top of the world list when it comes to technology as a tool for learning. That goal is reached. All Norwegian pupils in upper secondary school are given a computer from the political authorities since 2007. The National Curriculum plan in 2006 (MER, 2006) states that digital competence is one of five basic competences together with reading, oral expression, writing and mathematics. The fact that all pupils have their own computer on their desk every day is a great challenge for the teachers. When teachers enter the classroom for a new lesson they are met by a row of backs of pupils who are deeply concentrated with computer supported activities mainly in form of social media. Some teachers have managed to change their way of teaching and adjust it to the new artefact while most teachers continue the way they have done before. Research shows that the pattern of IRE (information, response, evaluation) is still dominant in many classrooms. Teachers are passing information to the pupils, they ask questions, and evaluate the answers. In line with Greeno, et al (1996) the computer is understood as a tutor or an instructor. LMS is mainly used for messages and instructions. ITU monitor (Arnseth, et al 2007) revealed that there is still no depth in pedagogical reflection on the use of ICT among teachers in Norwegian schools. For teachers it is easy to send messages to pupils and parents through learning management platforms. In Norway *It's learning* is most commonly used. The system is constructed to support individual communication. Research shows that for some schools acquiring an LMS combined with use of e-mail seems to be the only aim of digitalized school development (Kløvstad, et al 2005; Krumsvik 2006, 2007). Learning management systems (LMS) open for possibilities for control. Plans for longer or shorter periods are stored and distributed from the teacher. Pupils receive instructions about their homework. Perhaps the greatest challenge for teachers as well as pupils when the IRE pattern is practiced in the classroom is the temptation of using social media. Continuing there is a struggle going on in classrooms between teachers and pupils when it comes to open screens and use of social medium. Student teachers describe from practicum that some pupils are online all the time. This happens in spite of the teacher's continuing requests to stop. When the teacher approaches the pupils change screen picture for a moment, but when he returns to his desk they immediately return to Facebook. Their social relations are more and more connected through the virtual world. Virtual friends join them in the classroom and they are only one click away. This is a constant problem for teachers who are presenting structured information (Erstad, 2010). The entrance of the computer on each desk has altered the communication pattern within the classroom. The old pattern of individual communication based on transfer and reproduction is kept alive, while the computer has strengthened a sense of suspicion, possibilities for control and crossing interests between pupils and teachers. The computer is supporting and strengthening an authoritarian pedagogy. Educational technology as part of a learning community changes nothing in

"It is another kind of process. You get more time for reflection when you participate in the asynchronous discussions. It is something else to write. You have to think more. I often write my answers to the discussion immediately, but I wait a while before I send it. In the meantime I do some housework before I press the button".

The distance in space also meant that they had to form the other person without actually seeing her. This means that the students experienced the computer to have transparent abilities, making it easier to understand the other students' opinions. The utterances were not isolated, but linked together over time like a chain of thoughts, possible to trace backwards. This gave them an opportunity to go deeper into the text, grasping the other student's thoughts and feelings. The fact that they first had to read the other students' texts or statements before responding was an important distinction between face-to-face and online feedback. Reading and writing meant that they had to go deeper into the essence of utterances. Another argument was that what is written into an online context is impossible to erase. The text leaves the writer and becomes the group's property. One student says: "You stress your words more because you know they will be standing there for ever". Because the students knew each other well, online collaboration seemed to contribute to an extra dimension in their understanding. In pedagogy the starting point for the virtual discussions was a topic related to pedagogical theory and practice initiated by the teacher educator. This could either be an open question, or an article everybody had to read. One student mentioned the question "What is learning in your opinion"? as an example of a suitable discussion topic. She argued that there was no correct answer to this question, but still everybody had their own theories and opinions. Another fact mentioned by one of the students, was that everybody had to participate in the online discussions. In face-to-face discussions one or two students often dominate. Gradually, the students realized that the closed space or room in the LMS became a sort of "treasure chest". All the texts and feedback from others were stored within the computer. But, as one of the students said, this was something she had to experience when she was compiling her own presentation portfolio. She concluded:

"It is very nice to have this archive there. It is there inside like a property chest. You can enter the "room" whenever you want and the archive expands all the time. Perhaps the teacher educators told us when we started as student teachers, but I did not understand it. We thought it was silly, but gradually we understood that we could find something there".

Summing up, some students saw that asynchronous text based activities had a potential for productive learning supporting face-to-face collaboration. Discussions and feedback from peers opened for reflective processes that made them more conscious of their own opinions and beliefs, and for other students' points of view. The process of writing and reading other students' texts opened for a deeper reflection than speech and could not possibly have taken place in an ordinary classroom without technology (Helleve & Krumsvik, 2009).

## **6. Differences between classroom learning and distance learning**

The previous paragraph showed that the campus students in a blended environment were unable to understand why they had to use ICT when they could speak to each-other instead.

The distance in space also meant that they had to form the other person without actually seeing her. This means that the students experienced the computer to have transparent abilities, making it easier to understand the other students' opinions. The utterances were not isolated, but linked together over time like a chain of thoughts, possible to trace backwards. This gave them an opportunity to go deeper into the text, grasping the other student's thoughts and feelings. The fact that they first had to read the other students' texts or statements before responding was an important distinction between face-to-face and online feedback. Reading and writing meant that they had to go deeper into the essence of utterances. Another argument was that what is written into an online context is impossible to erase. The text leaves the writer and becomes the group's property. One student says: "You stress your words more because you know they will be standing there for ever". Because the students knew each other well, online collaboration seemed to contribute to an extra dimension in their understanding. In pedagogy the starting point for the virtual discussions was a topic related to pedagogical theory and practice initiated by the teacher educator. This could either be an open question, or an article everybody had to read. One student mentioned the question "What is learning in your opinion"? as an example of a suitable discussion topic. She argued that there was no correct answer to this question, but still everybody had their own theories and opinions. Another fact mentioned by one of the students, was that everybody had to participate in the online discussions. In face-to-face discussions one or two students often dominate. Gradually, the students realized that the closed space or room in the LMS became a sort of "treasure chest". All the texts and feedback from others were stored within the computer. But, as one of the students said, this was something she had to experience when she was compiling her own presentation

"It is very nice to have this archive there. It is there inside like a property chest. You can enter the "room" whenever you want and the archive expands all the time. Perhaps the teacher educators told us when we started as student teachers, but I did not understand it. We thought it was silly, but gradually we understood that we could find something

Summing up, some students saw that asynchronous text based activities had a potential for productive learning supporting face-to-face collaboration. Discussions and feedback from peers opened for reflective processes that made them more conscious of their own opinions and beliefs, and for other students' points of view. The process of writing and reading other students' texts opened for a deeper reflection than speech and could not possibly have taken

The previous paragraph showed that the campus students in a blended environment were unable to understand why they had to use ICT when they could speak to each-other instead.

place in an ordinary classroom without technology (Helleve & Krumsvik, 2009).

**6. Differences between classroom learning and distance learning** 

it. In the meantime I do some housework before I press the button".

portfolio. She concluded:

there".

"It is another kind of process. You get more time for reflection when you participate in the asynchronous discussions. It is something else to write. You have to think more. I often write my answers to the discussion immediately, but I wait a while before I send In a classroom the teacher has to create a need for using the technology as a means of communication. In distance learning there is no need for adjustment or motivation. Actually the distance makes the difference. Technology is the media that makes communication and learning possible. Communication understood as *transfer* as well as *making something a common property* is necessary. The Norwegian educational context is characterised by an increasing focus from politicians on goal achievement, accountability and market orientation. Results from tests like PISA and TIMMS have created an international educational competition of which Norway does not come out at the top. There is a strong belief in ICT as a support for learning. The political program for digital competence (MER, 2003) underlined that within 2008 Norway should be ranked on top of the world list when it comes to technology as a tool for learning. That goal is reached. All Norwegian pupils in upper secondary school are given a computer from the political authorities since 2007. The National Curriculum plan in 2006 (MER, 2006) states that digital competence is one of five basic competences together with reading, oral expression, writing and mathematics. The fact that all pupils have their own computer on their desk every day is a great challenge for the teachers. When teachers enter the classroom for a new lesson they are met by a row of backs of pupils who are deeply concentrated with computer supported activities mainly in form of social media. Some teachers have managed to change their way of teaching and adjust it to the new artefact while most teachers continue the way they have done before. Research shows that the pattern of IRE (information, response, evaluation) is still dominant in many classrooms. Teachers are passing information to the pupils, they ask questions, and evaluate the answers. In line with Greeno, et al (1996) the computer is understood as a tutor or an instructor. LMS is mainly used for messages and instructions. ITU monitor (Arnseth, et al 2007) revealed that there is still no depth in pedagogical reflection on the use of ICT among teachers in Norwegian schools. For teachers it is easy to send messages to pupils and parents through learning management platforms. In Norway *It's learning* is most commonly used. The system is constructed to support individual communication. Research shows that for some schools acquiring an LMS combined with use of e-mail seems to be the only aim of digitalized school development (Kløvstad, et al 2005; Krumsvik 2006, 2007). Learning management systems (LMS) open for possibilities for control. Plans for longer or shorter periods are stored and distributed from the teacher. Pupils receive instructions about their homework. Perhaps the greatest challenge for teachers as well as pupils when the IRE pattern is practiced in the classroom is the temptation of using social media. Continuing there is a struggle going on in classrooms between teachers and pupils when it comes to open screens and use of social medium. Student teachers describe from practicum that some pupils are online all the time. This happens in spite of the teacher's continuing requests to stop. When the teacher approaches the pupils change screen picture for a moment, but when he returns to his desk they immediately return to Facebook. Their social relations are more and more connected through the virtual world. Virtual friends join them in the classroom and they are only one click away. This is a constant problem for teachers who are presenting structured information (Erstad, 2010). The entrance of the computer on each desk has altered the communication pattern within the classroom. The old pattern of individual communication based on transfer and reproduction is kept alive, while the computer has strengthened a sense of suspicion, possibilities for control and crossing interests between pupils and teachers. The computer is supporting and strengthening an authoritarian pedagogy. Educational technology as part of a learning community changes nothing in

Differences and Similarities in Approach Between Classroom and Distance Learning 261

closed space within an LMS for collaboration. Within this closed space they were expected to publish 15 texts for their portfolio and to give and receive feedback on these texts from their peers. The teacher and the five students in the group were the only ones who had access to the closed area. The portfolios they created were based on their texts and on critical feedback from the other group members. The portfolio was compiled from assignments given by the teacher educators. Since all the students were working as teachers, it was possible to relate the exercises to their own practice in the classroom, as well as to the pedagogical theory they were supposed to read. The students were asked to respond critically to texts written by two other students in their group. After a few weeks one of the groups claimed that they experienced the learning process to be more productive than any of them had experienced earlier. By the end of the year one of the students described the learning process as magic. This made me as a researcher curious to understand more. My research questions were: What are the most important assumptions for the productive learning process that the "magic group" experienced? And: What are the most important consequences for teacher educators in future planning of net-based studyprogrammes for distance learning student teachers? Through interviews the students were asked to describe why they experienced the learning process so meaningful. They all mentioned as very important that they had a basic confidence before they started their netbased work. The initial meeting was important. One of the students said when they met face-to-face after some months: "I had a strong feeling of coming home. This was *my* group. Or rather this was *our* group". Moreover, they had two strong members who defined the benchmarks and set positive standards for the work. Those who were probably less dedicated from the beginning developed a strong obligation like another student: "Knowing that the other members spent a lot of time on my text I just had to do the same, otherwise I would never have done it." The group experienced that similarity as well as difference, was important for successful collaboration. Similarity related to mutual respect, engagement, obligation and sensitivity, difference related to age, gender, geographical location, schools, age of pupils, subjects they were teaching, and nationality. But most of all they seem to appreciate the fruitful and productive learning process they experienced when they were discussing with people who had different opinions when it came to

What I as a researcher found was that the same conditions were present as I had seen in the 2nd grade. This made me curious to see if this also concerned the performance of the assignments made by the teacher. When I analyzed the students' texts and feedback process I noticed that there were several similarities. First, it was possible to divide the material into two different categories; informative and creative assignments. The informative assignments asked the students to collect information. An example is: *"Choose one of the educationalists from our curriculum. Please make a brief survey of what he represents and discuss the practical consequences of his theories. You may include your own experiences in your survey."* For this assignment, the student repeats or reconstructs what he has read. The creative assignments also ask the students for information, but additionally they challenge the students' personal opinions and values. An example of a creative assignment is: *"Is teaching a vocation for which you do not need any formal education? In your opinion, what is a professional teacher? Please give theoretical reasons for your answers."* The students have to reflect and argue. Second, the

beliefs, attitudes and values.

**7.1 The performance of the assignments** 

itself. In fact the opposite can be true. The technology has qualities that can revitalise the most rigid learning activities from pedagogy of the past. Larsen (1998) is concerned with the same problem. He argues that if educational technology is adjusted to the traditional way of teaching or what he calls to "put electric power" on traditional methods this is going to conserve old ways of teaching and stop necessary pedagogical development.

Another important difference is the body-less communication in distance learning. There are possibilities for visualization through solutions like i.e. Skype. However, the immediate effect of eye contact, the possibility for reading body language, and for immediate reaction on behaviour is absent in virtual communication. Vetlesen (2003) makes a distinction between strong and weak mutuality and claims that there are some important differences between face-to-face meetings and virtual meetings. According to him face-to-face meetings are characterized by *strong mutuality* and virtual written communication by *week*. When people meet face-to-face they react upon each other not only based on the words that are said, but also on the nonverbal expressions and the way the other person acts. Normally all these levels act in harmony and one level tend to support the other in a way that helps us to understand the other person. Lack of confidence is aroused if there is a discrepancy between the three levels. When people meet the perception of concurrence or discrepancy comes immediately without any hesitation. The immediate interpretation is impossible in written online communication. Another concern according to Vetlesen is that the ethical appeal of caretaking is much less strong and powerful in virtual communication. When people meet face-to-face the degree of vulnerability and exposure is high. There are some basic ethical and relational principles in education like i.e. respect and obligation that are fundamental for teaching and learning. What about the relational aspects of education when it comes to distance learning?
