1. The Federation of Lapland's Municipalities
(LKF)
Kiruna, Gällivare, Jokkmokk, Pajala
Approx. 55,000
residents
Over 60,000 km2

2. If we were an independent country...
•We would be as large as 60% of Iceland
•But we would have twice the geographical area of
Belgium!
Belgium's population density: approx. 340 residents
per km2.
Iceland's population density: approx. 3 residents per
km2.
(In the ice-free region, approx. 3.4 residents per km2.)
LKF's population density: approximately 0.9 residents per
km2.

3. 1. Our region – our circumstances
Distance education as a
2. Our mission
tool for creating
growth in northernmost
Sweden
3. Our experience of distance education
and mixed forms of teaching

6. Our industries :

9. 1. Our region – our circumstances
Distance education as a
2. Our mission
tool for creating
growth in northernmost
Sweden
3. Our experience of distance education
and mixed forms of teaching

10. Mission Cooperation
Mission Needs-driven Educational Programmes
- Distance-bridging solutions
- Cooperation with employers
- Adaptation to meet changing needs

11. The challenges:
Unemployment Labour shortage
1990s
Labour shortage Lack of people
Today

12. 1989-90 LKF established
1990- First higher education courses held
1999- Kraftfält Norr – cooperation within
new areas
2004- Cooperation for upper-secondary schools
and adult education…
2010- The present…

13. One municipal federation
with two administrations:
Independent administration
Lapplands lärcentra – direct
under the Upper-secondary
administration under the
School Committee from
governing council – from 1 July
1 January 2010
2010

14. Ongoing efforts to determine needs:
Needs of the private
sector
Common denominators in two
or more LKF municipalities
Public sector needs
= large enough groups
= feasible!
Demand from
individuals

15. •Cooperation – with one another
•Cooperation with employers – from start to goal
•Cooperation with the two northernmost
universities – a 21-year partnership

16. 1. Our region – our circumstances
Distance education as a
2. Our mission
tool for creating
growth in northernmost
Sweden
3. Our experience of distance education
and mixed forms of teaching

17. From the Lapland Model to web-based programmes:
Students travel to Teachers travel to Fewer meetings...
meetings meetings
Fewer physical
meetings…
?
M-star/Marratech
Learning platforms Learning platforms
FirstClass FirstClass
Video conferencing
Video conferencing Video conferencing
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

18. LKF lobbied for a balance between
Quality a meetings (preferably held at
learning/study centres) and the use
priority? of distance-bridging technology.
LKF increasingly needs to
LKF lobbied for fewer emphasise the importance of
meetings/trips and greater use of "live", physical meetings,
technology. subject guidance, group
Accessibility was prioritised studies.
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

19. What determines an appropriate "mix"?
The target group Knowledge objectives,
"nature of the subject"
External
circumstances

20. What determines an appropriate "mix"?
The target group:
-Study skills
-Work discipline
-Work experience
-Personal maturity
-Physical impairments
-Learning difficulties
-Language, reading ability
-Computer skills
-Etc., etc...

21. We have a number of tried-and-tested ingredients in our
"pantry"...
Physical gatherings, Adobe for small
group discussions, groups and for
local instruction guidance
Our learning
platforms
Contact with employers Video conferencing using
Workplace-based one-way or two-way
training, (LiA, VFU) communication
Traineeships, Project
work

22. LKF's evaluation of programmes at Study Centre '98-'99
•Students on de-centralised programmes from Luleå University of
Technology.
•Students at what was then the Nursing College in Boden
•"Distance groups" within the Adult Education Initiative (1997-2002)
•Teachers instructing within the related programmes
• A total of approx. 80 students and approx. 15 teachers asked to
provide feedback
Common to all of the programmes chosen were their three main components:
- Video conferencing - Written communication - Physical
Meetings
(FirstClass)

23. The purpose of the evaluation was to investigate
utilisation of the new technology.
The questions focused on sound and visual quality,
drop-outs and interruptions...
Did they receive sufficient technical support?
Did the students feel that teachers had sufficient knowledge of how the
technology could be used and vice versa?..?

24. The working hypothesis was that the quality-related
problems experienced during the programmes were
caused either by the technology itself, or by a lack of
knowledge about how it should be used.
The technical questions were weighed against the subject
Communication, group-size, teaching methods

25. A clear majority of all of the problems experienced were
not related to the technology itself.
Common problems experienced were
- A lack of information about the programme as a whole and the
timetable, not least of all prior to the
start date
- A lack of structure in the courses (and, in some cases, unprepared
teachers)
- Too little communication between transmissions and physical
meetings
What results would the same evaluation yield today?

26. Thoughts and Conclusions:
•The majority of what we do today falls under the category of "mixed forms
of teaching".
•The particular "mix" varies and "the recipe" has proven to be
decisive in students' success and goal-achievement.
•Functioning technology and technical support is incredibly important.
•Even more important than the technology itself is the context in which we
use it.

27. Most important of all are "old" pedagogical truths:
•Structure
•Clear information to students prior to and during the
programme
•Varied work methods
•Opportunities for dialogue/group •Connection to working life
dynamics/activity/laboratory work
•Teachers should be thoroughly familiar with
the subjects they teach
•Allow students to shape their education
•Early, "live" meeting if the programme
includes distance work

28. Additional thoughts and conclusions:
•When utilising new technology, it is important that our focus does not
centre entirely on that – there are no universal solutions!
•The biggest changes in ICT-use between 1998 and 2011
did not occur in the education sector, but within people's working lives and
leisure time.
•Today, we are preparing our students for a completely different reality than
we were 15 years ago...