8
This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University] On: 19 October 2014, At: 18:59 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Innovations in Education & Training International Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie19 Cracking ‘Open’ a Learnercentred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question? Russell Kinman a a University of Luton , UK Published online: 09 Jul 2006. To cite this article: Russell Kinman (1998) Cracking ‘Open’ a Learnercentred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?, Innovations in Education & Training International, 35:1, 59-65, DOI: 10.1080/1355800980350108 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1355800980350108 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?

  • Upload
    russell

  • View
    218

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?

This article was downloaded by: [Eindhoven Technical University]On: 19 October 2014, At: 18:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office:Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Innovations in Education & TrainingInternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscriptioninformation:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie19

Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door:Open Learning or Just an Open Question?Russell Kinman aa University of Luton , UKPublished online: 09 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Russell Kinman (1998) Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learningor Just an Open Question?, Innovations in Education & Training International, 35:1, 59-65, DOI:10.1080/1355800980350108

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1355800980350108

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, ouragents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions andviews expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are notthe views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not berelied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylorand Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantialor systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?

IETI 35, 1 59

Cracking 'Open' a Learner-centred Door: Open Learningor Just an Open Question?

Russell Kinman, University of Luton, UK

SUMMARY

In many educational settings a move to more open learning presents difficulties. In the contextof 'massified' higher education, in a new and impecunious British university, those difficulties areconsiderable. This paper discusses the problems in attempting to focus learning more upon thestudent in a popular undergraduate module which introduces the topic of business computing. Thechanges are described and an analysis of whether greater openness has been achieved is presented.Difficulties in encouraging students to move from a passive model of education are considered. Theunexpected changes flowing from withdrawal of academic staff in favour of technical demonstratorsare noted. A conclusion is that students, university management and academic staff themselves havereasons to resist greater openness, and that continued rapid change in a climate of stringency alsolimits the opportunities for innovation. Funding the continued research that is clearly needed will bedifficult.

INTRODUCTION

This paper offers some discussion of recent changesto the delivery of a module in the University ofLuton's undergraduate modular credit scheme. Itsaim is to report the experience of a small, poorlyresourced team in a new, rapidly expanded university,as they struggle to improve (or at least maintain)the quality of the student learning experience. It ismostly a dispiriting catalogue of the difficultiesof moving towards more 'open' delivery methods inan institution such as Luton, but some suggestions aremade for further research and development.

The module, 'Introduction to Business Computing'(IBC), is a first-level core for most students in theBusiness School. It aims to provide some under-standing of the nature and purpose of businessdesktop computing and to develop skills in the use ofspreadsheet and database software. Despite somerecent growth in the level of basic computing skill inthe student cohort at Luton, it is still apparent fromdiagnostic tests that the majority of students recruitedthrough the A-Level route have little or no relevantexperience of computer use. The critical importanceof computing skills in vocational provision suggests

that a separate module is essential (although not allacademic staff subscribe to this view and the institu-tion tends to a more 'integrationist' model). Morethan 700 students enrol on the module each year.

Until recently the delivery method involved eachstudent attending, each week, a one-hour lecture andtwo, one-hour workshops. The workshops were runfor groups of fifteen and supervised by a member ofacademic staff. For one of the two hours additionalsupport was provided by a technician or 'demon-strator', expert in the use of the machines and thesoftware, but providing no academic support forthe tasks set. Running a large module in this way wascostly, and made it a prime target for change in aclimate where the ratio of students to staff hasdoubled in less than five years. The univeristy does,of course, continue to encourage more flexible,student-centred learning methods for sound academicreasons, but it would be disingenuous to suggest thatthe exigencies of resource shortage were not theprimary reason for change.

The new delivery involves: five 'keynote' lectures; a

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:59

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 3: Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?

60 IETI35,1

scheduled, one-hour workshop staffed by a demon-strator; specially written 'study-packs'; and open,unsupported access to computers as the studentwishes. The demonstrator team also support studentsby running regular 'surgeries', and making them-selves available at other times. Assessment is bymeans of two time-constrained practical tests,involving completion of unseen exercises using thecomputer packages. Students who wish to advancebeyond the level of the study-pack are encouraged tomake use of a commercially written computer-assisted learning package, without demonstratorsupport. Those who take this option (about 40 percent) evidence significantly better assessmentresults.1

made much progress towards any recognized form ofopen learning. It is doubtful, indeed, if the changehas even achieved a move to a much more 'learner-centred' delivery, except for the minority whoprogress to the more advanced package.

What we are beginning to achieve, however, is amore effective use of available resources; a betterbalancing of academic staff time, demonstrator time,computer resources, learning materials and studentlearning time. We cannot yet afford to progress to amuch more open regime without funds for relativelycostly staff and materials development (or acqui-sition). In the present climate, such funds as areavailable have to be prioritized towards improvedbusiness school research performance.

OPEN OR CLOSED?

The term 'open learning' has been widely heard inthis university of late, unfortunately, mostly in thesame breath as 'efficiency'. It is doubtful whether themembers of the department running the IBC modulehave a clear, or shared, concept of the meaning ofthe term; all (including the writer of this paper) aresubject specialists rather than formally trainededucators. Academic staff commonly approach theconcept as though it is defined as 'teach less, andprovide more self-accessed material'.2 Definitionsin the literature vary somewhat, but a useful one isprovided by Lewis (1992): 'increased flexibility anduser choice over all aspects of the learning process'.Lewis (1990) defines the different aspects of learningin which choice might be extended as: who hasaccess to education; the reasons for the decision tostudy, the curriculum content; the method of study;the place of study; the time of study; the nature ofassessment and feedback; the availability of learnersupport; and the availability of destinations and'follow-on' routes.

Within this definition, openness has been increasedby recent institutional changes, most significantlymodularization,3 and more flexible entry require-ments. Once the module is commenced, however,as characterized by the choices then open to thestudent, the IBC model is some way from meetingthe criteria. The only real choices are the timingof reading, of practical work, and attendance atsurgeries. Most other aspects of the learning arehighly prescribed, not least the assessment points (ameasure suggested by Freeman (1990) as a guideto the real extent of 'openness'. Perhaps the changein delivery is a useful first step, but we have not yet

STUDENT ATTITUDES AND CAPABILITIES

Less than 20% of students in the BusinessSchool have selected either the university, or theirprogramme of studies as a first choice. In excess of95% of students taking the IBC module do so as partof core studies upon a range of business programmes.More than 80% are 'standard' entrants, with A-Levelor BTEC qualifications (in approximately equalnumbers). A-Level entrants hold, on average, justunder ten points. Core modules are not chosen freely,and (as regularly evidenced by selection of optionchoices) modules involving computing or numbersare not popular with Luton's business students.Inexperienced, relatively poorly qualified students,often poorly motivated and with low self-esteem, areperhaps not the best subjects for increased 'learner-centredness'. Most of their other modules are taughtin ways that better fit their personal values and theirexpectations of higher education. Both formal andinformal feedback from students suggests that theyare much more comfortable with a note-taking,'knowledge acquisition' model of education. Theyare ill-equipped with the skills of time-management,self-motivation, research, library use, higher levelproblem conceptualization, etc. They are, and wantto be, what Paul (1990) describes as 'dependentlearners'.

The unfortunate reality may be that most of us (in theBusiness School at Luton, and probably more widelyin similar departments in new universities) involvedin the development of a changed culture, and in thesocialization of students to that culture, have littleexpertise in the facilitation of the necessary change. Achange to more open learning forces us to face our

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:59

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 4: Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?

Cracking 'Open' a Leaner-centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question? 61

own, often deeply embedded beliefs about thedidactic process. Our status and power as authoritiescan be threatened. These problems have to be faced inthe context of an often overwhelming determinationby students that they be taught both what they need toknow and how they should learn it. There is anotherdifficulty, a paradox, that is almost impossible toresolve. It is succinctly explained by Lisewski (1994)as the difference between what students say theywant, (commonly, knowledge-passing lectures) andwhat students need, to be prepared for employment.Educators seeking more open learning have to be ableto say what is good for students on the one hand, yetoffer them choices about what and how to learn.

A further issue is that we do not know much aboutthe learning styles of our particular student cohort. Itis probable that a range of different styles is applied,despite the constraints of the tasks. Yet manystudents appear to take a superficial view of the workusing 'surface level processing'; this behaviour canbe encouraged by poorly executed changes to amore learner-centred approach (Issacs, 1990). Thesespeculative ideas warrant further investigation ifprogress is to be made towards greater learner-centredness.

THE LEARNING MATERIALS

The Open University estimates that it takes anexperienced team some 18 months to prepare anindividual course (Wilson, 1983). The student study-pack for IBC was prepared in three months by a verysmall team, consisting principally of the moduleleader and the three demonstrators; none had hadany previous experience of such a task. Given theresources available, the document is of high quality(in the judgement of local peers) and is commonlypraised by students in formal feedback. As might beexpected, however, it has not been formally tested orevaluated, it lacks some polish, and it makes manyassumptions about the level of students' literacy andingenuity.

The document is structured around the 14 workshops.For each week there is provided a mixture of advice,factual information, programmed tasks designed todevelop elementary skills, and structured exercisesfor students to work on their own. The study-packalso directs students to computer-assisted learningmaterial available for the various software packagesused. The book is used as supporting materialin demonstrator-run workshop sessions; it is very

doubtful whether any student would find it easy touse it without such regular support. The skill andexperience of the demonstrator team allows them tohelp students avoid many of the pitfalls and problemsthey might otherwise face.

Paradoxically, the change to the use of studentstudy-packs and workbooks might act more to close,rather than to open the education provided. The bookis taken by students to be the 'Bible' of the module;in discussions with them it soon becomes apparentthat many see it as sufficient in itself to provide themwith success. Perhaps the module team were naive,but it had always been the intention that suggestionsfor broader study in both lectures and the study-packwould usually be acted upon. But, as Paul (1990)suggests, the packaging of learning shifts the empha-sis in curriculum decision-making more firmly intothe hands of the institution. Students come to see themodule in terms of the skills and knowledge definedby the book. The curriculum has been encapsulatedand fixed, and is less open to challenge. All studentshave to do is transfer the knowledge it containsinto their brains, practise the skills, and pass thetests which prove their success. This is almost'programmed learning'. In a post-Fordist age, wemay have re-invented the production line (Edwards,1991). The valued aspects of the educational experi-ence are all diminished; there is no experience ofinspiring lecturing, of argument and discussion withpeers, of adventitious discovery of ideas throughreading. Furthermore, there is less scope to takeaccount of individual differences between students,the factors, unfortunately, that most influence theway individuals learn.4

As may be happening with much of what we doin the name of efficiency, we seem to havesimply substituted training for education. We havereinforced passive assimilation at the expense ofwhat little independence and autonomy we havebeen developing in students. Some of the promise ofthe flexibility in open learning remains elusive, andprogress towards it, it seems, is illusory.

One choice open to the Department may be to adaptthe contents of the study-pack to the provision of acomputer-assisted learning package. This proposal isbeing considered by departmental staff, but its cost issignificant, there is limited expertise in authoring,and there are many competing priorities; this isa problem already well recognized (see, for example,Stewart, 1993). An alternative might be to 'buy-in'appropriate software (if such exists), but the costs of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:59

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 5: Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?

62 IETI35,1

evaluating alternatives, and acquisition of a licencefor 700 or more users are considerable. Despiteadvances in hypertext or even multimedia, thedifficulties, dangers and costs are high (Williams,1992).

STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT

Assessment drives student behaviour more stronglythan almost any other factor - see for example,Boud (1988) - and its adverse effects are extremelydifficult to avoid, or even minimize. Closed assess-ment methods are anathema to open learning, butalmost essential if reliability, validity, and, aboveall, efficiency are sought (Heron, 1988). 'Open'assessment suggests student choice in how they areassessed. The difficulties of adapting the assessmentregime to achieve this in a 'massified' highereducational environment are substantial, as noted byEdwards and Sutton (1991). These authors do providean interesting (and brave) model of a possible wayforward, however, in a relevant domain, using studentset objectives, and student self-assessment. Themotivation of the students concerned is defined asbeing rather higher than of those at Luton; it isdifficult to see our students taking readily to such aregime (although this may be more a reflection of thepreconceptions of the author of this paper!). Whetherconcerns about reliability certain to be expressed atuniversity level could be assuaged is also a matter ofdoubt.

The tests by which the module is currently assessedare relatively straightforward, involving the carryingout of operations that evidence skill in the use ofspreadsheet and database computer packages. Asa skills assessment at first undergraduate level theregime is probably valid, reasonably reliable, andefficient. Under the previous regime, however, abroader syllabus was covered, and a wider range ofskills was assessed, including the ability to commentcritically upon some economic and social aspectsof the use of information technology in business.Perhaps through the powerful motivator ofassessment, ways need to be found to combat this lossof breadth in the syllabus.

STUDENT RESPONSE

The changed regime has now completed two years.In the first of these there was a high attrition ratefrom the module, when more than 15% of enrolled

students failed to complete. (It might be reasonableto assume that this loss would be even higher, wereit not for core requirements.) Whitlock (1989)catalogues some of the probable causes for suchlosses, and these seem to fit well the perceptions ofthe IBC module team: the goals of many of thestudents will not match closely the aims of themodule; the skills content of the module may not beseen as appropriate or necessary to the (anywayremote) career choice of the student; little accountcan be taken of the level of subject knowledgeand experience students bring - some will find themodule remarkably easy, others will struggle bothwith the content, and the conceptual skills necessaryfor first use of computers; learning styles will differwidely; linear rigidities inherent in the study-packand the assessment will alienate higher aptitudelearners.

The second year has not seen such high loss, and thelevel of student satisfaction is higher, as measured byevaluation questionnaires. It is not entirely clear whythis should be so, although changes have been madein the light of experience. The study-pack has beenrevised and improved; the advanced, commercialcomputer-assisted learning package has been intro-duced, and administrative procedures related tostudent group allocation and assessment have beenmarkedly improved. Perhaps another factor in theimproved satisfaction levels has been the decision toencourage students to collaborate with each other,rather than frown upon this. Students have come tosee the study-pack tasks as hurdles easier to jumpif holding hands with a co-learner. It is commonto see groups of two or three students taking turnsto explain aspects of the work to each other. AsGoodyear and Steeples (1992) suggest, puttingthoughts into words can 'stimulate the refinementand elaboration of understanding'.

Centrally administered student evaluation question-naires have shown generally favourable responses,with mean scores on almost all questions in excessof the school average.5 Similarly, responses onlocally administered questionnaires with openquestions have proved mostly positive. Through thequestionnaires and informal feedback studentshave particularly commented upon: the novelty of theapproach to their experience; their enjoyment ofindependent rather than lecture-based study; and theirbelief in the effectiveness of their learning, both ofthe curriculum content and of the skills needed towork independently. They look favourably upon theconcept of the study-pack and the level of support it

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:59

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 6: Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?

Cracking 'Open' a Leaner-centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question? 63

provides, although they have criticized aspects of itscontent and style. They have been particularlyfulsome in their praise of the demonstrators. Hardlyany students felt a need for more contact withacademic staff (a salutary lesson!). Students generallyfound the assessments sufficiently, but notexcessively challenging, and a fair mechanism toallow them to evidence their learning. They didnot, however, commonly express comfort with thereduced level of control exercised by academic staff;many indicated a preference for more, and more rigid,deadlines. These responses are encouraging in thatthey suggest that initial resistance to 'unconven-tional' delivery methods may be reduced after someexperience of the new methods.

THE DEMONSTRATORS' ROLE

Perhaps fortunately, no one will be able to establishwhether there is any causal relationship between thereduced role of academic staff on the module andincreased student satisfaction. It is well documented,however, that the role of local supervisors andinstructors is critical in the success of open learning- see, for example, Whitlock (1989), or Naylor et al.,(1990).

The demonstrators have taken on a didactic role forpart of each workshop where a new topic is intro-duced, giving brief presentations on the proceduresand exercises to be carried out. This was not theintention in the employment of demonstrators, and itis arguable that it is not within their contracts.6 Facedwith large, demanding student groups, shortage oftime, and their own considerable experience of majorareas of student difficulty, they have evolved copingmethods that include formal presentation. Someexpectations of students about delivery of educationare thus being met, possibly a factor that improvesresponses to the otherwise less conventional deliveryof the module!

The demonstrators are well liked by students, areseen to be competent and approachable, and, aboveall, they are almost always available. The demand fortheir support outside the times of formal workshopsis high. They have evolved a very successful deliverystyle, but one that is tending to reduce the willingnessof students to take ownership of their own learning.Similar problems faced by another institution, ina similar module are discussed by Hull andSaunders (1993). These authors note the difficulty inpersuading academic staff to 'stand off to encourage

students to discover answers for themselves. AtLuton we have achieved a suitable reduction in useof the valuable time of academic staff, but only bydiverting demand to demonstrators.

INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE

The search for efficiency has driven much of thechange described above. There is an argument, as yetunresolved in the literature, as to whether anyattempt at an open learning regime, if implementedin a way that maintains or improves student learningoutcomes, can be more efficient than a traditionalmodel. Lisewski (1994), describing an open learningproject at Liverpool Business School, cites the con-siderable costs of staff development, the productioncosts of high quality learning materials, and theextra support needed by students in the transition toindependent learners. Authoritative work by Lewis(1986) suggests that the introduction of open learningmust be motivated by the best interests of thelearners, else it risks failure; decisions as to planningand managing the learning, developing the materials,and supporting students must flow from an analysisof learner needs, rather than assessment of providerresources.

The context in which the changes have been madewill be familiar to UK readers: rapid increases instudent numbers without concomitant increasesin resource; a student intake profile of growingdiversity; increasing emphasis upon the vocationalnature of university education, and a competence-based curriculum; a rapid flight into wholesalemodularization of the curriculum; fierce competitionbetween institutions; sustained pressure uponacademic staff to develop new delivery methods,administer the ever more complex educationalprocess, attract funding for their institutions, anddeliver credible research outcomes. It is, perhaps,little wonder that this paper does not describesignificant success as yet. As Walker (1995) puts it:

An ability-based curriculum is . . . a hard option foruniversities, demanding a clear vision of the nature ofand purpose of the undergraduate curriculum, moreskilful teaching, more complex curriculum pathways,improved student support arrangements, and a deter-mination to experiment with new models. It is also ahard option for students who are expected to takemore responsibility for their learning and to decreasetheir dependence upon consumption of pre-packagedinformation.

Luton faces all of the difficulties Walker describes,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:59

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 7: Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?

64 IETI35,1

with the added problem that it has the poorest unitof resource per student in England, and admitsstudents with some of the poorest qualifications. Theuniversity is justly proud of its success under theseconstraints, but it does not provide a climate inwhich innovation in curriculum delivery is easilyachieved.

Open learning requires more administration, butless formal teaching; it can be partly supported bystaff who are less well-qualified, but must bedesigned, implemented and monitored by capable,well-qualified and experienced academic staff.The university seeks to allow managers to moveresources from academic to administrative budgets,but continued reductions in the unit of resource haveoperated to effect a reduction in both resource types.

CONCLUSION

Some very complicated and deeply interrelatedissues are involved in the evaluation of the changesmade so far, and, with limited resources, limitedunderstanding, and continuing rapid change, it maynever be possible to untangle them all. Of particularinterest for future study is the investigation of thelearning styles of the students, and the mechanismsby which the delivery of the module can be adaptedbetter to fit these. A series of interviews of studentsby structured questionnaire is being undertaken aspart of the process of investigation of this and anumber of other issues, including the motivation ofstudents to complete IBC and other modules.

Although this was not as envisaged, the emergentrole of the demonstrators appears to be a verysuccessful one, if measured by student response. Thedemonstrators' capability may also be significant inthe higher than average performance of studentsupon the module and their general satisfaction withits delivery. Ways need to be found to build uponthis success and other aspects of the success of themodule, without further limiting progress to a moreopen regime.

Perhaps the greatest challenge for the School and theuniversity is to develop and disseminate approachesto the encouragement in students of attitudes andbeliefs that permit independent learning; there is noclear strategy yet to achieve this difficult goal. Asubstantial central investment in staff developmentis also in hand, to enhance expertise on implementa-tion of open learning. Unfortunately, the excellent

programmes already offered by the university havebeen poorly attended, largely because academic staffare just too busy delivering education in traditionalways!

NOTES

1. The University uses a grade point system to recordassessment outcomes, with pass grade points rangingfrom 16 (first class) to 5 (bare pass); in the last year, themean score for the module was 9.1, but students electingto take the additional work recorded a mean of 11.8. Themean score for all Business School students on allmodules was 8.8.

2. The more sceptical (or more threatened?) describe theideas as 'FOFO' teaching, an acronym politely trans-lated as 'buzz off and find out'.

3. The university's modular credit scheme does stronglyfulfil one of the criteria for openness - that of choice inthe construction of the curriculum. Few universitiesin the UK provide such wide choice in what is one of thelargest modular credit schemes in the country.

4. There are, of course, broader issues here, to do withvocationalism, and the nature and purpose of highereducation. It is possible to view much so-called openlearning as presenting 'packages of knowledgeconstructed by others for some general, thereforemarketable, purpose' (Iphofen, 1993). The knowledgetransferred is seen as a private investment, individuallyowned, for personal gain. A knowledge supermarket iscreated, from which students buy undifferentiated,glossy packages carefully selected for them to suit theirneeds as saleable commodities. Tait (1989) puts it likethis:

Open learning . . . is very prone to [the] disseminationmodel of knowledge. Where is the place of notionsof equality of status between tutor and learner?Where is the place for negotiation of the curriculum?Where, in short, is the place for critical thinking andindependence of the learner?

5. The Institution operates a central evaluation system,on a module by module basis, using a computer-readquestionnaire containing 17 questions answered bymeans of a 'Likert' scale. An extensive report isprovided summarizing and analysing the data for allundergraduate modules. The questionnaires are notcompulsory, and the response rate on IBC has variedbetween 30 and 55 per cent of those completing themodule; the data is treated with some caution, not leastbecause of the likelihood that the more committedstudents are more likely to respond.

6. The demonstrator role involves support for students inthe use of hardware, and standard computer packages,such as word processing and spreadsheets. They areneither required nor expected to undertake tutorialsupport in the academic work in which the computer is

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:59

19

Oct

ober

201

4

Page 8: Cracking ‘Open’ a Learner‐centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question?

Cracking 'Open' a Leaner-centred Door: Open Learning or Just an Open Question? 65

being used as a tool. This distinction is rather easierto make in, for example, statistics, where the studentswill be helped to enter and extract data, but notwith the use of the technique or interpretation of itsoutputs. Where the module is about the generic useof computing in business, the distinction betweenacademic discussion of the use of the tools, and theiractual use, is blurred. Furthermore, demonstratorsinevitably become knowledgeable about the 'academic'curriculum, are frequently asked questions by students(who do not recognize the difference between academicand demonstrator staff), and find it very difficult torefuse help they can readily give.

REFERENCES

Boud, D (1988) Moving towards autonomy. In Boud, D(ed.) Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, 2ndedn, Kogan Page, London, 35-60.

Edwards, R (1991) The inevitable future? Post-Fordism andopen learning, Open Learning, Jun, 36-42.

Edwards, R and Sutton, A (1991) A practical approach tostudent-centred learning, British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 23, 1, 4-20.

Freeman, R (1990) Open learning: Taking stock, OpenLearning, Nov, 3-9.

Goodyear, P and Steeples, C (1992) IT-based openlearning: Tasks and tools, Journal of Computer AssistedLearning, 8, 163-76.

Heron, J (1988) Assessment revisited. In Boud, D (ed.)Developing Student Autonomy in Learning, 2nd edn,Kogan Page, London, 77-90.

Hull, J and Saunders, M (1993) Some lessons from astudent-centred approach to teaching and learning,British Journal of Educational Technology, 24, 3,207-22.

Iphofen, R (1993) The hidden costs of open learning, AdultsLearning, Oct, 42-3.

Isaacs, G (1990) Course and tutorial CAL lesson design:Helping students take control of their learning,Educational Training Technology International, 27, 1,85-91.

Lewis, R (1986) Key skills and competencies in openlearning, Open Learning, 1, 2, 48-50.

Lewis, R (1990) Open learning and the misuse of language:a response to Greville Rumble, Open Learning, Feb, 3-8.

Lewis, R (1992) Approaches to staff development in open

learning: The role of a competence framework, OpenLearning, Nov, 20-33.

Lisewski, B (1994) The open learning pilot project and theLiverpool Business School, Open Learning, June, 12-22.

Naylor, P, Cowie, H and Stevenson, K (1990) Usingstudent and tutor perspectives in the development ofopen tutoring, Open Learning, Feb, 9-18.

Paul, R (1990) Towards a new measure of success:Developing independent learners, Open Learning, Feb,31-8.

Stewart, J A (1993) How to manage educational computinginitiatives - lessons from the first five years of projectAthena at MIT. In Barrett, E (ed.), The Society of Text -Hypertext, Hypermedia and Social Construction ofInformation, MIT Press.

Tait, A (1989) The politics of open learning, AdultEducation, 61, 4, 308-13.

Walker, L (1995) The British context. Conference paper inWalker, L (ed.), Institutional Change Towards anAbility-Based Curriculum in Higher Education.Employment Department 1995.

Whitlock, Q (1989) Student failure in open learning,Educational Training Technology International, 26, 2,141-4.

Williams, N (1992) A hypertext open-learning system forwriters, Instructional Science, 21, 125-38.

Wilson, T (1983) Methodologies and open learning - Anopen university perspective, Educational MediaInternational, 20, 1, 16-18.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTES

Russell Kinman is head of the Department ofBusiness Systems at Luton Business School. Hisbackground is in accounting and systems, and heonce spent most of his time teaching. Now he spendsit fighting for resources in (arguably) the poorestdepartment in the poorest faculty in (factually) thepoorest university in England.

Address for Correspondence: Russell Kinman canbe contacted at Luton Business School, Faculty ofBusiness, Park Square, Luton, Bedfordshire, LU13JU.Tel: International+44-(0)1582-743181; e-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Ein

dhov

en T

echn

ical

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:59

19

Oct

ober

201

4