**7. Distance learning experienced as a magic process**

In this paragraph I want to return to the question of what learning is like, and to the understanding of the concept *community of learners.* Learning understood as *productive interactions* builds on some basic principles of what a learning community is. These principles are similar across the borders of classrooms and distance learning. Intersubjectivity understood as *having something in common*, *arena for respectful disagreement* and *human agency* are concepts that are useful in order to illustrate the foundation and maintenance of a learning community (Matusov, 2001; Rommetveit, 2008; Helleve, 2009b). I want to illustrate the similarities between distance learning and classroom learning through the study of a group of student teachers who called themselves the "magic group" (Helleve, 2007). The concept *magic* refers to the reflective and productive learning process five student teachers experienced. This study was conducted among 20 distance learning student teachers who lived geographically spread over a large area. They had finished their master studies and were working as unqualified teachers. During this period as PGCE students they were supposed to study pedagogy and didactics in two subjects combined with practicum. The students started with a seminar where they stayed together for three days. The aim of the seminar was to get to know the other students and to become aware of the aims of the project. The data-material in the study of "the magic group" is concerned with pedagogy. Most of the study programme was based on collaboration by means of the computer. The 20 students were divided into four groups and each group had their own

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

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

In this paragraph I want to return to the question of what learning is like, and to the understanding of the concept *community of learners.* Learning understood as *productive interactions* builds on some basic principles of what a learning community is. These principles are similar across the borders of classrooms and distance learning. Intersubjectivity understood as *having something in common*, *arena for respectful disagreement* and *human agency* are concepts that are useful in order to illustrate the foundation and maintenance of a learning community (Matusov, 2001; Rommetveit, 2008; Helleve, 2009b). I want to illustrate the similarities between distance learning and classroom learning through the study of a group of student teachers who called themselves the "magic group" (Helleve, 2007). The concept *magic* refers to the reflective and productive learning process five student teachers experienced. This study was conducted among 20 distance learning student teachers who lived geographically spread over a large area. They had finished their master studies and were working as unqualified teachers. During this period as PGCE students they were supposed to study pedagogy and didactics in two subjects combined with practicum. The students started with a seminar where they stayed together for three days. The aim of the seminar was to get to know the other students and to become aware of the aims of the project. The data-material in the study of "the magic group" is concerned with pedagogy. Most of the study programme was based on collaboration by means of the computer. The 20 students were divided into four groups and each group had their own

conserve old ways of teaching and stop necessary pedagogical development.

**7. Distance learning experienced as a magic process** 

distance learning?

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 beliefs, attitudes and values.

#### **7.1 The performance of the assignments**

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

Differences and Similarities in Approach Between Classroom and Distance Learning 263

creativity. *Cumulative* as well as *explorative* talk are characterised by interaction. However, cumulative talk is limited because the students have to repeat and reproduce information. Explorative talk, on the other hand, enhance *productive interactions*; the possibility for argumentation and creativity. Another question is what characterises the opposite situation when there is no interaction between the members? When the communication between the members broke down as described through the *discussional talk*, I chose to call this *counteraction.* In the study of the distance learners the students gave feedback to each other on texts written for their portfolio. Of fundamental importance to the "magic group" success is their *interaction*. However, the difference in the way the assignments are constructed decides if the students are going to collect common information or if they are challenged to engage in productive interactions. When the students are challenged on their values and attitudes as professional teachers they meet in the inter-subjective space that Rommetveit (1979) calls a *temporarily shared social world*. What makes the interaction productive is that they are challenged to a reflective dialogue with people they trust, but with whom they still disagree. Sara, one of the distance learners said that she thought of the other members' different opinions as guests. And then she thought: "What do the guests want from me? Will they be staying in my head for ever or will they disappear"? And from that point of view she gave feedback to the other members' texts, like guests. The concept *reflective dialogue* expressed through *explorative talk* and *explorative feedback* is used as an equivalent to what I have described as *productive interaction*. Thus the performance of the assignments is one element that characterizes productive interactions. The study of the students in the blended environment is only based on interviews with the student teachers, not on observations of the collaborative activities. What the students claim is that the productive learning or *productive interactions* that are important for them as future teachers are asynchronous discussion and feedback from peers. Summing up there seems to be some basic implications for development of productive interactions that are similar across classroom learning and distance learning in the three case studies.

**9. Important preconditions for productive interactions** 

Experiences from the three different studies show how the computer can be used as a tool for collaborative writing activities for students of different age groups; for students who meet every day as well as students who are distance learners. The fact that the groups and the activities in this study are so different makes the findings more general (Wegerif, 2007). Educational technology offers a new kind of room or an inter-subjective space for collaboration. The space might be compared to what (Engeström, 1998) calls a *zone of possibilities* that can help learners to renew existing knowledge and where both the individual's personal zone and the group's common zone develop according to the process of interaction (Wasser & Bresler, 1996; Hoel 2001). The fact that the texts become a common and not an individual property is discussed by Wegerif (2007). Referring to societies where oral, rather than written communication has been the norm, he claims that these cultures possess a kind of common wisdom that is absent in cultures where individual writing is more common. Educational technology by its nature offers a common space for sharing texts that makes common reflection possible. The computer has the ability of storing collaborative texts, in what one of the informants in one of the studies called a "treasure chest". Another fact is that these collaborative texts might be there for ever. Consequently

performance of the assignments has immediate consequences for what kind of feedback the other students are going to give. The informative assignments lead to cumulative feedback. Cumulative feedback gives limited room for disagreement and reflection because it does not challenge the students' personal attitudes or values. One of the students said:

"You had to agree and repeat what the others said or just stop the whole conversation. There was no room for dialogue. It had to be a monologue. And I thought, 'Where is my place in this?' It was confusing."

The creative assignments on the other hand open for explorative feedback. Explorative feedback, which results from creative assignments such as the one above, gives rise to and opens up for critical questions and objective disagreement, and leads to new, common knowledge. The students disagreed with each other and discussed their deepest beliefs, professional identity, and mission. The nature of the net-based discussion, as compared to real life discussion, was visualized by the student who expressed that he had to sharpen his thoughts and opinions on what the other students had written. He experienced much deeper conversations than if they had been sitting around a table because they could read long rows of thoughts that others had ruminated. In classroom teaching as well as distance learning the teacher has to be conscious of the influence the performance of the assignments has on the students' choice of learning strategies (Helleve, 2007).
