9611
Open learning workshops: the way forward
Margaret Cashin
Open learning has been defined ‘as a process which focuses on access to educational opportunities and a philosophy which makes learning more client and student centred. It is learning which allows the learner to choose how to learn, when to learn, where to learn and what to learn as far as possible within the resource constraints of any education and training provision.[1]
Introduction
Statistics produced by the Government, CBI and local chambers of commerce indicate that companies will be turning away from 16-18 year-olds and will be looking to adult returners as prospective employees. Therefore, there needs to be some provision within the education system to provide for the adult returners. In 1991 the Government launched the Flexible Learning Framework, published by the Department of Employment, to provide for a flexible workforce for the future. It maintained that there is no longer a situation where one can assume that one can enter a job and stay there for the rest of one’s working life but, rather, working life is ‘characterised by rapid and escalating change, international competition, and a constant need to update skills and knowledge’ and one can expect to have several career changes. The only way to achieve this is by adopting a flexible approach to education and training. In 1995 the consultation document on ‘Lifetime Learning’ was published which was to bring to the fore the importance of lifelong learning/adult learning to the economic prosperity, social cohesion and personal development of people (both employed and unemployed) and open up the debate on how this was going to be achieved.
The basis of traditional education systems in Britain is one which is designed for the initial education and training of young people and children. The public provision for the education and training of adults has previously been external to the system designed for children. Adults who have had experiences during their school years are unlikely to be attracted to the conventional mode of adult education offered and open learning/open learning workshops can be a way to attract adults back into learning.
What are open learning workshops?
The whole area of defining ‘open Learning’ is highly problematic. It is problematic as to whether a whole activity is open learning or whether open learning can be an element within either some form of traditional learning or an activity with an individual outside the realms of any institutionalised learning. Many terms such as distance learning, flexible learning, independent learning, correspondence learning, Open University, flexistudy, discovery learning, programmed learning and so on have been used and the distinction between them has been very blurred. Open learning workshops can be anything from workshops where students can go to conduct research either with or without computer facilities/resources, with or without tutor support and open for limited periods of time to workshops which are fully tutor supported and open for long periods of time. For the purposes of this paper the open learning workshop is a workshop specifically designed for learners who can enrol at any time, attend when they like, for as long as they like and study what they want. It will always be tutor supported.
In this situation teachers are no longer sole purveyors of information. They are facilitators helping students to plan, manage and appraise their own learning. The teacher helps students to negotiate learning targets and works out the best way to achieve these. This is a totally different role for the teacher and there is frequently resistance to change as teachers do not want to lose the control they have had. It is also believed that institutions could be unscrupulous and use open learning for economic rather than educational reasons. This is particularly so at a time when institutions are competing on equal terms for students and ultimately for finances. When cutting down on costs, open learning is seen as a way of reducing course contact time, staff hours and increasing student numbers. Thus there is a threat to jobs, status and security.
Barriers to learning
For all adults there are potential barriers to learning. They can and do prevent potential learners from undertaking a programme of study.
One of the main functions of open learning is to attempt to remove the barriers that prevent attendance on traditionally run courses while at the same time suggesting a learner-centred philosophy. Some of these barriers have been previously identified by Cross (1978)[2], ACACE (1982)[3], Bailey[4], Woodley[5], Hampshire Open Learning Unit[6], Rogers[7], and McGivney[8].
There are barriers both external and internal to the learner. Those which are external include those which can be divided into geographical such as courses in inaccessible centres to students; transport not available or very expensive; lack of guidance from providers; lack of child care provision; high cost of course; high cost of equipment and books; stereotyping by age, race, class, gender, health, physical disabilities; those which can be divided into barriers created by traditional provision - fixed-time tables and term times; pre-requirements on entry; inappropriate curriculum; inappropriate course materials; inappropriate methods - that is, suitable for school leavers; lack of bridging courses; inappropriate provision for progression; study associated with written work, tests, marks and examinations; potential failure; poor liaison with employers and clients; lack of information and guidance; environment not conducive to learning; limitation of experience-based accreditation; insufficient market research to determine the needs of employers and learners, skills’ shortages. In the workplace barriers also exist: employers not convinced of the value of training; tendency for the short-term approach to education and training-based on immediate needs; inappropriate training practices and styles - not student centred; time constraints with work; restraints caused by cost of providing training; lack of training needs analysis; lack of or poor communication within an organisation; lack of contact with training providers; poor opinion of training providers; inequality of opportunity.
Barriers which are internal to the learner have been identified as personal such as: specific work experience/training is needed; lack of information on training; isolation; lack of support from family or friends; conflict of roles; constraints of time; family pressures; lack of motivation, that is, uncertainty as to the type of course to follow; low self esteem/confidence; stress, worry, anxiety over returning to study; fear of assessment; fear of failure; fear of losing face; inability to see value of a course of study due to restraints of the labour market; low self image. Others result from poor learning legacies: students not having the appropriate background knowledge; previous programmes at the wrong level; bad experiences in school; students not having the necessary skills; programmes of learning not relevant to the needs of the student; demotivation by poor marks on previous programmes; conflict with tutor. There can also be the influence of the ‘significant other adults’ which result in: indifference to the learner; dismissing previous achievement; ridiculing achievement; antagonism to learning achievement[9]. All these help create a poor self image which leads to problems for the learner wishing to follow a learning programme. To admit that there is something new to learn is to admit that there is something wrong with the present and this poses a challenge to previous beliefs[10]
Kent TEC commissioned IFF Research Ltd to carry out a major study of the learning experiences and attitudes of the people in Kent towards learning in order to provide information which would help them formulate a strategy to address the different target groups identified and increase their participation in learning. The study involved 1,000 face to face interviews with people from all over Kent between the ages of 15 and 55[11]
The barriers they identified were (for women): having to look after children; family commitment; learning being too expensive; wanting to relax after finishing work; being too busy to think about learning; being nervous; not having the necessary qualifications or too old to learn; (for men): just wanting to relax after finishing work; being too busy with work to start learning; unable to get time off work; learning too expensive; not having enjoyed learning when younger. Classroom teaching appeared to be the preferred learning method by the majority although just how accurate this is is questionable as it might not have been actual preference but rather what people know and are used to. There is always a problem when looking at research already carried out. Pre-determined lists have been used. Those being surveyed could also provide details of barriers or obstacles that are socially acceptable and not identify those they have actually experienced.
Cognitive styles and personality types
Several institutions in the US consider that only certain personality types are suited to open learning and before a student embarks on an open learning programme they have to undergo a personality test to see whether they have a cognitive style or personality type that is suitable to open learning. Certain cognitive styles or personality types are therefore unable to avail themselves of open learning programmes which places considerable emphasis on the individual as the focus of the learning process.
In the 1950s Guildford[12] differentiated between two different types of cognitive style: convergent and divergent thinking. Convergent thinkers were characterised by their ability to deal with problems requiring one correct answer. They are favoured by objective intelligence tests which have only one right answer which could be found from information given. Divergent thinkers are best dealing with problems which could have several equally acceptable answers. Guildford’s categories represent two very different styles to problem solving. The convergent thinker is better suited to closed problems and the divergent thinker to an open approach. This has a correspondence with the work of Parlett [13] and his ‘syllabus bound’ and ‘syllabus free’ learners. The personality traits of those who favoured courses which were syllabus bound and convergent thinker were the same and those who preferred courses which were syllabus free and the divergent thinker were the same. Syllabus bound learners liked structure and did not like the freedom to organise their own study whereas the syllabus free learners enjoyed being in control of their own learning. This either/or approach can be open to criticism as the majority of students are not at one end of the continuum or the other, but rather somewhere in the middle.
Honey and Mumford[14]identified individuals as being either ‘activists’, ‘reflectors’, ‘theorists’ or ‘pragmatists’. They devised a learning style questionnaire and used this to discover preferred learning styles. Honey and Mumford’s Learning Style Questionnaire was given to 200 open learning workshop students to complete to determine whether there was a dominance of a particular learning style in the open learning workshops. The results were analysed in the first place to see which category had the highest number of positive responses. The highest scores for each student indicated that 60 percent of students were reflectors. 30 percent were pragmatists but only 5 percent were activists and 5 percent were theorists. Activists and theorists were well under represented in the highest score achieved.
Activists learn best when there are new experiences, excitement and a frequent change of activity. They enjoy the here and now and adopt trial and error methods without thinking or reflecting on what they are doing as they are dominated by immediate experience. As a result they will not learn so well in situations where the role is ‘passive’ ie they have to listen, read and watch. Many open learning activities do involve a passive role and in order for activists to be encouraged to attend the Workshop it is necessary to make the experience more exciting and vary the nature of the activities. Theorists prefer situations which have a clear purpose and are structured. They like to have set plans, targets and organised content. They do not like activities which are unstructured. Open learning, unlike traditional programmes, is not structured and therefore, in order for a theorist to benefit from an open learning programme, the facilitator would need to determine a structured action plan for the learner. Pragmatists were fairly well represented in the open learning workshops. They are unhappy if the learning is not immediately relevant to their needs or there are no clear guidelines. They are not so concerned with structure but rather with content and obtaining practical benefit from the learning. They see it as a means to an end. Reflectors were very well represented in the workshop. They like listening, observing, reading, researching and reviewing. This can be in a structured or unstructured environment. They are open to new experiences and can be very flexible. They are well suited to open learning workshops.
The results indicated that those learners with learning styles most suited to open learning were in fact the ones attending the workshops. This does mean that open learning workshops can themselves be seen to be a barrier for those whose learning style is not suited. However, action can be taken to encourage learners to work on their weaker style and thus allow greater participation.
Results of the telephone survey conducted between September 1994 and January 1995
Two hundred educational establishments - colleges of further education, sixth form colleges, community colleges, adult education centres in the north west of England and two hundred in the south east of England were involved in a telephone survey to determine the extent of open learning and open learning workshops in these two regions.
In the first place institutions were asked whether they had open learning. If the answer was no they were asked for reasons why. There were only 20 percent of institutions in the north west of England which did not have any form of open learning and 23 percent in the south east. The main reasons given for not having any form of open learning were the size of institution with no room for expansion, funds not available for setting up workshops, for purchasing materials or paying staff and a lack of interest.
In 1991 when the survey was first carried out it was found that there were only 38 percent of centres in the north west offering workshop facilities compared with 66 percent now and the south east had only 26 percent compared with 72 percent now. Almost all of the four hundred centres reported that with incorporation and the funding implications of the FEFC this has meant that institutions are now using open learning workshops (particularly for communications and maths skills) as a way of obtaining increased funding.
Access
Open learning workshops are either run as open access, on a bookable basis or as a combination of the two. Open access was only available at 51 percent of institutions in the south east but 89 percent in the north west. Centres in the south east maintained that open access would be difficult to manage as there would be problems of administration, additional funding required for administrative/support, difficulty in estimating number, limited resources which were needed for the more profitable full-time students. They were wary of problems that could arise if too many students arrived at the same time, or if too many students sought attention at the same time. Institutions in the south east preferred to exercise greater control on the number of students attending the workshops and to know exactly when and how many students were going to turn up for each workshop session. This detracted from the sense of ‘openness’.
Retention/success rates
Comparisons on retention and success rates between students on full-time, part-time or open learning programmes are not accurately recorded. Many institutions gave ‘rough’ figures but they did not give a true representation of what was happening. The dropout rate for traditional part-time/evening students was frequently put at between 25 and 30 percent and for some evening programmes, 50 percent. The drop out rate for open learning workshops was put at 2-5 percent.
When monitoring examinations results, students on traditional programmes take their examinations at the end of the programme on which they are enrolled and if they do not achieve, they are part of the ‘failure’ statistics, whereas an open learning student could take as long as they like to study for a qualification and are invariably only entered when they have a very good chance of achieving.
Conclusion
I believe that open learning workshops have a place in today’s society. Research is appropriate at this time when there is much emphasis placed on economies rather than educational value and research will lead to a much greater understanding of open learning workshops and their role in providing adults with the flexibility that is needed access to ‘life-long learning’. There is no doubt that open learning workshops are allowing many adults opportunities that they would not have been able to have.