|
Distance Learning and eLearning in European Policy and Practice:
The Vision and the Reality
Click here to read the Spanish version of the Policy Paper
Policy Paper of the European ODL Liaison Committee approved
by the Member Networks
Released 17 November 2004
1. eLearning in 2000 and 2004: Two Different Pictures
When the so called “Lisbon Strategy” to make Europe the most competitive
and socially inclusive economy in the world by 2010 was defined the need to
include education and training as a key component of the eEurope Plan was immediately
perceived. At the same time it was recognised that the existing education systems
in their traditional roles would not be able to cope with this need. An eLearning
Initiative was therefore proposed shortly afterwards[1].
In fact this level of priority given to eLearning was, to a large extent,
the result of a certain ambiguity between the never disputed need to provide/develop
eSkills to all workers and citizens to face the challenges of information society
and the – much more disputed – need/opportunity to use ICT to support
the learning processes in view of a growing demand for learning. For many “newcomers” in
the field - including some first row policy makers - learning ICT and learning
through ICT was such a natural combination that eLearning became a star in
the policy discourse of the years 2000 and 2001. At that time, by the way,
eLearning companies in the USA were reputed to be amongst the most profitable
in prospective and very few people were questioning estimated growth rates
of the eLearning market of more than 100% per year.
The eLearning Initiative was launched by the European Commission as a strategic
effort to integrate the resources of different Directorates General and activate
fresh economic resources from the European Investment Bank and European Structural
Funds towards this new priority. It was not rare to hear Heads of Government
quote eLearning as one of the top priorities in the Information Society Strategy.
In reaction, practically the whole education and training world started to
consider eLearning as a serious opportunity, or as a serious threat. The practice
of eLearning in Europe was still marginal in most EU countries, but a strong
impulse came from the policy initiative, especially in those countries in which
national developments had not been very substantial up to the year 2000.
More than four years later the situation appears very different: in synthesis
we could say that eLearning is up in practice and down in policy discourse.
In theory this could be the best possible development. However, we produce
this Policy Paper because we think it is not.
eLearning has almost completely disappeared from top-level policy speeches,
both as a term suspected of having lost its impact, and - more seriously- as
a significant component of educational policy. In part this is due to the fact
that education has lost weight on the overall policy agenda due to the increased
concerns on security and the need to concentrate resources elsewhere (a significant
number of EU countries have decreased the weight of educational expenditure
on GNP in the last years). Many encouraging developments have taken place also
thanks to EU support, but those who were resisting eLearning from inside the
education and training systems had the time to build their case against it,
at least partly due to very low quality and simplistic promotional messages
associated to first (and second) generations of eLearning provision.
Another ambiguity has developed: on the one hand the term blended learning
is used to represent the new awareness of the need to design learning systems
which are able to integrate at best different learning strategies including
ICT-supported learning, and on the other to hide a resistance to innovation
that expresses itself by introducing small elements of ICT based learning
to offer the same teaching as before.
The eLearning market has developed - and still develops - at a much lower
rate than foreseen some years ago: present estimates converge around an average
yearly rate - in Europe - of about 30%, with strong differentiation among market
segments and countries.
But this reduction of expectations should not hide the
fact that 30% per year is still a very substantial growth rate, and that
school, the corporate sector,
universities and the training services of the public administration have
progressively learnt how to use ICT in learning, to integrate it and, if not
completely to
build quality into eLearning, at least learnt how to recognise lack of quality.
In
fact a growth of quality awareness is probably the most influential factor
of eLearning developments in recent years.
At European Union level the ambitious but somehow undefined eLearning Initiative
has almost disappeared from the scene to leave ground to the “small and
beautiful” eLearning Programme that privileges higher education and school
twinning but leaves much of lifelong learning out in the rain for a few years.
The proposal for the new “integrated” European programme for lifelong
learning after 2007 sees ICT (note that eLearning as a term is no longer used)
as part of a “transversal programme” crossing the sectoral lines
of COMENIUS, ERASMUS, LEONARDO DA VINCI and GRUNDTVIG. This generates some
hope that not only schools and universities will be encouraged to use eLearning
in the future, but also other parts of the learning systems.
In our view this approach aiming at society as a whole is important because
ICT - supported learning is not an objective in itself but indispensable for
bringing about the socio-economical changes in which the European Union has
engaged itself.
And even more: this urge is not only based on internal needs.
Many countries in the world prefer to look to the European Union/EU-member
states as examples
for their own socio-economic development and are therefore interested in
our education which reflects these values. This is a mission/opportunity we
should
not overlook or neglect!
There is a need to highlight, to involve, and to use in a systematic way the
experience, professional pedagogical and technological methods, quality and
organisational standards, that have been developed and validated in professional
environments. Distance/eLearning is now certainly presenting itself as a distinct,
autonomous, multidimensional professional discipline and resource of coherent
experience, increasingly producing and demonstrating its values, integrating
theoretical aspects and system approach with valuable practical experience,
strategy issues, implementation and management solutions. This experience at
the same time forms a valuable collection of progressive visions, which serve
as basis of educational modernisation, positioning the human factor as the
focal element of innovation.
2. Review of the Impact of EU eLearning Policies
As an umbrella of European Associations and Networks in the field of open,
distance education and eLearning, the European
ODL Liaison Committee recognises
both strengths and weaknesses in the approach that the European institutions
have adopted towards eLearning in recent years. On the positive
side the following points may certainly be mentioned:
- a strong mobilisation effect of national authorities, higher education,
industry and several other stakeholders, which was mainly achieved at the
beginning of the period considered here, when the rhetoric of eLearning was
still strong;
- massive networking activity at European level, thanks to the fact that
projects containing eLearning elements were actually supported, not only
- of course
- within the eLearning Action Plan and the neighbouring MINERVA Action of
the SOCRATES Programme, but also in Leonardo da Vinci, GRUNDVIG, LINGUA,
ERASMUS
and IST. Even in European initiatives such as EQUAL and in the Cooperation
Programmes of the European Union with other parts of the world eLearning
has gained some room as a result of the early years’ mobilisation;
- a substantial contribution to the evolution of the rhetoric of eLearning
away from just computers, connectivity competitiveness and cost-effectiveness,
and towards contents, context, collaboration and learning communities, so
facilitating the integration of eLearning and ICT in the processes of endogenous
innovation
of education and training systems;
- also as a result of EU initiatives, a wealth
of new R&D results and
developments have become available, not necessarily in the way politicians
were looking
forward to; but they led to the formation of an increasingly professionalized
community, a factor undervalued by some political comments;
- openness of mind
of the responsible people as a recognised quality that has made new ideas
and concepts acceptable and integrated within the European
eLearning
agenda;
- we also note a critical willingness to simplify the EU financial
regulations and administrative procedures, such as proposed in new educational
programmes,
but we also have to add that this attitude is not yet part of daily practice
which is even sometimes contradictory.
Several weaknesses should also be noted:
- first of all, the lack of persistence
on the concept and practice of the eLearning Initiative: in fact real co-ordination
of the EU intervention in
this domain has been given up. This does not mean that DG Education and
Culture in other Programmes or other DGs are not active, but that regarding
eLearning
much less than optimal use of resources is made and replication and lack
of sustainability of initiatives become serious risks;
- the reduced amount
of resources attributed to the new eLearning Programme which - also symbolically
- shows the reluctance that all the decision making
bodies at EU level (not only the Commission, but also the Parliament and
especially the Council of Ministers and the related Education Committee)
have had in taking
eLearning seriously.
Probably most people involved in these bodies – understandably - have
very little personal experience of eLearning or the use of ICT in learning
and fail to appreciate the full potential of ICT, or perceive more risks
than benefits at first sight.
If we go beyond a superficial criticism toward this lack of understanding,
we will probably find visions of the world and rooted values that made -
and still make - a large part of education policy makers, managers, teachers
resistant
to the initial rhetoric of eLearning, because this rhetoric was carrying
simplified visions and over-optimistic statements on the virtues of ICT in
learning. In
our view this “visions and values” tension has practically resulted
in the interruption of a dialogue that, a few years ago, was starting;
- a lack
of systematic consultation by decision makers at different levels in the
policy-making process of the professional environment of ODL and eLearning,
as a result of which they depend too much on the institutional representations
of Member Countries and top level relations with the relevant industry and
academic elites;
- the lack of real integration of the eLearning discourse into
the lifelong learning agenda, as if the two “movements”, one
originated by the eEurope strategy and the other more “endogenous” to
education and training policy, were to be kept separate to avoid contaminations
(by
the way,
the same applies to the Bologna process in Higher Education);
- connected and
partially explaining the previous point is the unbalanced emphasis, especially
in the first period, on European competitiveness rather
than equity
and inclusiveness. This has been corrected in a more recent phase, but produced
a certain reluctance in the educational community to join the promotional
messages on eLearning;
- too much focus on formal education as opposed to post-initial,
non-formal and informal learning, where the use of ICT may be integrated
without facing
a strong institutional resistance or at least inertia;
- finally, a certain
discontinuity of actions supported by the EC funding, partially due to administrative
principles that may discourage continuity
of funding to the same initiatives/actors/partnerships. This is partly based
on
a certain “beauty contest” attitude in the selection of such
proposals, irrespective of their relevance, that look more innovative than
those which
develop, consolidate or mainstream previous lines of action.
We have analysed several aspects of these weaknesses in the earlier Policy
Note of the Liaison Committee (released
4 February 2002);
additional reflections can be found in the report of the project HECTIC (Higher
Education Consultation in Technologies of Communication and Information, April
2002).
These consolidated studies (in the area of Higher Education, in other areas
such studies would be very useful) have revealed that there is yet another
serious problem that needs attention: the fact that leaders of universities
are badly equipped and supported to implement and mainstream changes needed
for successful introduction of meaningful eLearning in their institutions.
The HECTIC report presents concrete recommendations.
As a whole, our thesis is that a new vision on ICT for learning is needed
at policy, management and grass roots practice level if a new window of opportunity
is to be found for ICT to become really interesting to innovators in the learning
system.
This new vision should put context, community, collaboration, competencies,
motivation of learners before computer, cost-effectiveness, contents and connectivity;
it should relate more closely eLearning to the lifelong learning agenda and
the creation of a European Lifelong Learning Area and to the role Europe can
and should play in global, especially higher, education. It should start from
the assumption that in the knowledge society some level of use of ICT in learning
activities cannot remain the exception, but will become normal practice; and
probably create order in the confused “panacea concept” of “blended
learning” by distinguishing between innovative and merely substitutive
use of ICT in different learning contexts.
It should be clear that this new vision would certainly include contents
of earlier established policies that have not yet been fully implemented.
3. Summary and Recommendations for Action
In view of the previous considerations, the European ODL Liaison Committee
urges European institutions to consider the following:
- Re-establish the policy momentum for the eLearning Initiative, but with
two adaptations: make sure that the new discourse is more based on societal-economic
demand and more coherent, linking eLearning closely to the lifelong learning
agenda. Try seriously to achieve coordination of resources and actions in
the field, to the benefit of effective use of public resources and higher
impact
and visibility of the implemented actions. Accept intervention of “other” resources
and policy concerns to support eLearning - even though that may cost something
in terms of autonomy and administrative procedures - because the public benefit
will easily justify the procedural complications.
- Both lifelong learning
and eLearning are too important and pervasive in the knowledge society
to be the exclusive competence of educational authorities
who are used to manage school and higher education systems originally created
to serve or accompany the industrial society by providing initial education.
At present institutional competencies should be re-aggregated, at European
as well as at national and regional levels, to guarantee coordination and
coherence of action in the field.
- Guarantee that eLearning and use of ICT
for learning are fully integrated in the lifelong learning agenda and their
potential is fully explored, without
prejudice, to accompany innovation processes taking place in the education
and training systems, including non-formal and informal learning.
- Put more
emphasis on the integration of ICT in the Bologna process, also to enable
European Higher Education to offer European education globally.
- Make
sufficient resources available through coordination and integration of EU
initiatives and national initiatives to harvest the real advantages beyond
the rhetoric about the potential of eLearning and to respond to the demand
of the field actors (more than 300 proposals were introduced following the
2004 call for proposals of the eLearning Programme, endowed with about 9M€ only!).
Co-ordination between different Programmes may support different phases in
the life cycle of a given initiative.
- Establish a distinction between first
generation projects, in which a “beauty
contest” selection logic is acceptable to allow newcomers and innovators
to access public support, and “second generation” or mainstreaming
projects, that follow-up and develop previous successful activities, and
build sustainability and usability of results through a longer life-cycle.
The needs
of these two kinds of activities are quite different and justify their own
appropriate procedures which may differ from those used so far.
- Be realistic
about sustainability of projects after a two -or three- years cycle: short
term summative evaluation driven by economic sustainability arguments
has killed and may continue to kill innovative initiatives that produce benefits
which both have and do not have a clear market value, but correspond to public
interest anyway (e.g.: visibility of indicators for policy making or social
inclusion).
Additional public funding may be part of sustainability, if a project has
a recognised public interest value.
- Give full attention to the fact that leaders
of education and training institutions are badly equipped and supported
to implement changes needed for
successful introduction and mainstreaming of meaningful eLearning.
- Involve
sectoral branches and the social partners in projects since this engages
the world of “work” equally to the world of ”study”.
- Consult
and involve the professional environment and its representative networks
not only in the definition of new phases of European Programming but
also in the implementation of strategic actions at system level.
The European ODL Liaison Committee is available and willing to act as a facilitator
of this recommended consultation and involvement process and proposes to discuss
this short policy paper in the appropriate institutional and non-institutional
settings in a constructive spirit.
The European Union has developed and implemented the largest scale and the
most successful coherent Programmes in the field of information society building,
with particular relevance in the (e)Learning domain. It has accumulated a long
and rich experience in the related policy development, implementation and analysis
fields.
We need to continue the momentum and avoid discontinuity of this valuable
experience.
17 November 2004
At present the following organisations are members of the European ODL Liaison
Committee:
EuroPACE, Leuven
European Association for Distance Learning (EADL), Vienna
European Association of Distance Teaching Universities (EADTU), Heerlen
European Distance and E-Learning Network (EDEN), Budapest
European Federation for Open and Distance Learning (E.F.ODL), Gent
European Universities Continuing Education Network (EUCEN), Porto
International Council for Open and Distance Education - Europe (ICDE-Europe),
Oslo
Liaison Committee contacts: Dr Andras Szucs, Secretary, secretariat@eden-online.org
Dr Peter Floor, Chairman, floor.p@planet.nl
1 A definition of eLearning is given on the eLearning Europa
website www.elearningeuropa.info/index.php?lng=1: eLearning means using new
multimedia technologies and the Internet to improve the quality of learning
by facilitating access to facilities and services as
well as remote exchanges and collaboration.
|
