Centred on Learning

Citation

Cawkell, T. (2003), "Centred on Learning", Journal of Documentation, Vol. 59 No. 5, pp. 609-611. https://doi.org/10.1108/00220410310499618

One of the problems associated with the arrival of yet another wave of new technology is to assess the hype with which it is invariably accompanied. The arrival of non‐traditional methods such as “distance learning”, “online learning”, “computer mediated communication”, etc. in the late 1990s, are just such a case. The effect of these arrivals on this reviewer was to confirm him as a jack‐of‐all‐trades but master of none – I conduct research of a kind by talking to people and reading the literature – so a master of none I will remain. However, I have managed to find out that that it was Robert Barr and John Tagg (1995) who wrote the seminal article on the ”learning” topic.

Ironically, I cannot find a reference to this article in the book being reviewed here. As stated on the cover “This book demonstrates with detailed case studies how the learning model has being introduced at four UK universities with different constraints and priorities. The chapter headings are: “The changing face of higher education”; “Organisational frameworks”; “The changing staff experience”; “The student experience”; “Building new partnerships – changing institutional relations”; “Building new environments – the physical space”; “New environments – the environment for learning.”; “Looking over the horizon – a future perspective”.

In the late 1990s I became interested in “distance learning”, etc. and wrote a couple of short articles for “Online and CD Notes” (now incorporated into Library Hi Tech News) on this subject from which the following quotations are extracted:

To conceive extravagant hopes of the future are the common dispositions of the greatest part of mankind (Edmund Burke).

It is a sad fact of research and development funding in educational technology that the focus is always on a particular medium or method. Vast sums are made available to investigate the best way of using computers, where the subject matter taught is incidental. The more rational approach, seldom adopted, is to offer vast sums to investigate the best way of teaching a particular topic, and through that to fund the use of computers as an incidental part of the strategy (Diana Laurillard).

These quotations are not really applicable to Oyston's book which provides a realistic account of the situation in the UK today. Jennifer Rowley's review in this issue of JDoc also covers learning technology. There were, and still are, plenty of opinions in the literature about the pros and cons of distance learning versus traditional methods, but discussions about arranging meaningful tests to substantiate these opinions are rare. One article (Long and Javidi, 2001) turned up during an up‐dating literature search – the only publication I could find describing properly conducted tests. The authors start by quoting a 1997 forecast from Peter Drucker: “30 years from now big university campuses will be relics … universities won't survive … higher education is in a deep crisis. Already we are beginning to deliver more lectures and classes off‐campus via satellite or two‐way video at a fraction of the cost”.

Long and Javidi discuss the results obtained during their comparison tests and provide a number of references. They quote from an evaluation of the body of the literature on distance learning from the Institute for Higher Education Policy: “The original research is questionable and thereby renders many of the findings inconclusive …”. In replying to the question “are online and traditional classroom methods equally effective?”, they write “results supported the previously made contention that there is no difference in performance, as measured by test grades, between online distance learners and students in traditional classrooms. However, behaviours and quality ratings exhibited by the groups were not equal – significant differences existed”.

Judging by their announcements on the Worldwide Web, many universities have moved towards the learning centre approach in spite of the differences of opinion abut its effectiveness as recorded in the literature. The subtitle of Centred on Learning,the book being reviewed here, is “Academic case studies on learning centre development”. One of the authors, Alison Ward (Sheffield Hallam) writes: “in a typical scenario 1991 – a student joins the queue outside the library at 9 o'clock … and plans to come back this evening for a few hours study”. She continues: “fast‐forward to 2002 – the student has been working in the learning centre and plans to come back later”; and in the same chapter, “for many institutions access has also been extended by developing ways to use resources from off‐campus”.

What are these “ways” which are being developed? In the 2002 scenario in this chapter, “the library” is not mentioned nor does it get an entry in the rather good index. Does this suggest that students are no longer encouraged to use the library?

In the conclusion to Chapter 1, “The changing picture of higher education”, Claire Abson (Hallam) writes: “There are immense opportunities for the academic library if it can engage with this agenda [meaning engaging with the new models of teaching and learning discussed in the book]. However it is the argument of this chapter and of the book as a whole that it cannot fulfil its potential on the basis of its present role within the institution …”.

In the general “distance learning” literature the absence of a convenient well‐stocked library is not mentioned as a disadvantage. My suspicious mind tells me that the protagonists of distance learning never mention it because it weakens their argument – perhaps these suspicions are unfounded but it is not difficult to find support for this view. For example, Roccos (2001) says: “Libraries are rarely noted in distance education courses and books, other than as a referral to online catalogues and electronic resources. Library instruction in research skills is somehow bypassed … A review of articles on the topic of distance education shows that only a few of them mention issues related to library access or resources integration … searches in several databases for ‘distance education’ yield some remarkable statistics. Percentages show that there is almost no interest in the education field for studies about library resources”.

Returning to Centred on Learning, Alison Ward (Hallam) writes in her chapter: “Induction sessions have been provided for many years but have had to change in a number of ways. The increase in student numbers and the large size of some courses have meant that tours of the building have largely been dropped. Student feedback may indicate that this is one aspect that they would like to be included in their orientation but in practice it is no longer feasible both in terms of staff time and in terms of the disruption it would create within the building”.

This is a useful book. It would have been even more useful if there had been a chapter from the traditionalists arguing their case and criticising the introduction of learning centres in higher education.