NVL - Distans Presentations

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

2. If we were an independent country...
•But we would have twice the geographical area of
Belgium!
•We would be as large as 60% of Iceland
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.
Belgium's population density: approx. 340 residents
per km2.

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

6. Our industries :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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,
group discussions,
local instruction
Video conferencing using
one-way or two-way
communication
Adobe for small
groups and for
guidance
Our learning
platforms
Contact with employers
Workplace-based
training, (LiA, VFU)
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 technical questions were weighed against the subject
Communication, group-size, teaching methods
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.

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:
•Clear information to students prior to and during the
programme
•Structure
•Varied work methods
•Opportunities for dialogue/group
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
•Connection to working life

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...