Academic Bildung in Net-based Higher Education

Moving beyond learning

Trine Fossland, Helle Mathiasen, Mariann Solberg

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• Print ISBN: 9781138809338
• eBook ISBN: 9781317610991
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

The explosive emergence of net-based learning in higher education brings with it new possibilities and constraints in teaching and learning environments.This edited collection considers how the concept of Academic Bildung - a term suggesting a personal educational process beyond actual educational learning - can be applied to net-based higher education. The book is drawing on Scandinavian research to address the topic from both a theoretical and practical standpoint.Chapters explore the facilitation of online courses and argue how and why universities should involve dimensions of Academic Bildung on both a strategic and technological pedagogical content level.

The book is structured in three parts: Part I frames the current state of net-based learning and introduces Bildung as a concept; Part II contains a set of four case studies in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, also including a fifth study that looks at Scandinavian approaches to teaching and learning in comparison with data from the USA, the UK, Australia and Canada; Part III provides a synthesis of theories and cases to examine whether a Scandinavian orientation can be discerned. Contributions suggest that in order to address one of the fundamental functions of higher education, the ability to produce new knowledge, the Academic Bildung of the students has to be in focus.

Grounded in theoretical and empirical discussion, this book will appeal to researchers and academics in the field of higher education as well as personnel who work with teaching and learning with technology, and academics interested in the question of Academic Bildung.

Part I

Framing the book

1 Moving beyond learning in net-based higher education?

Trine Fossland

Net-based teaching and learning environments have changed the way higher education is approached. During the last decade net-based courses are no longer a core business only for universities with specialised distance education as a mission; they have been systematically integrated as an expanding pathway to higher education by predominately campus-based universities also. Universities worldwide have embraced technology as an essential solution to increase their global outreach and advance their competitiveness. At the same time, issues related to the later changes within higher education, such as new public management thinking, increased participation rates, and a greater diversity within the student population have been the subject of vigorous debate. Of particular concern is how these changes may challenge the quality of net-based education. Is there a reason for academic staff to be afraid of losing their responsibility for the students’ development, or can these new net-based frames open up unexplored landscapes? As an increasing number of today’s college and university students are enrolled in net-based courses, the facilitators’ role and the quality of their facilitation of knowledge, skills and competences within these courses have become of current interest. Learning is not enough. The academic orientation of the students must be addressed and advanced. We want to take a closer look at this facilitation, as we argue that it is more important than ever to ask how we educate, to take responsibility and facilitate the students as academics and to face the challenges found within net-based higher education.

In this chapter, we discuss whether net-based higher education needs to be rethought in order for the students to move beyond learning. We present some of the underlying premises to consider when focusing on the development of Academic Bildung in net-based education. Additionally, the core concepts “net-based education” and “Academic Bildung” are highlighted, to provide a framework for the book¹.

Is there a need to rethink net-based higher education?

The increased complexity and mobility within society has affected higher education. The need and desire for reaching new student groups, the mass commodification of higher education, and the requirement for more flexible and effective communication and collaboration methods have led to a widespread and increasing popularity of net-based higher education. Many terms have been used to describe net-based education and the use of digital learning resources and information and communication technology (ICT, or simply IT) within higher education. Net-based education may range from 100 per cent internet-based lessons, through a combination of net- and campus-based instruction, to almost 100 per cent campus-based delivery for some courses. As different net-based courses have emerged, there have been critical views of this type of education, as national surveys have demonstrated that digital learning resources and IT are mainly used to administrate and distribute learning content within higher education (Ørnes et al. 2011). The idea of net-based education as more democratic with new opportunities for widening participation has, according to many critics, developed at the expense of educational quality. Net-based education has been characterised by critical voices as an easier way to higher education, less regulated, with consequences that will undermine the core ideas connected to research, teaching and learning. Student diversity, and the perception of students not being as involved as before, have strengthened this negative impression, since these challenges did not exist one generation ago (Biggs and Tang 2011). At the same time there are now more extensive demands related to higher education in general, often expressed in terms of increased workloads and administration requirements, and the new public management mentality pervading higher education at the expense of research and teaching. Furthermore, students are expected to develop into responsible citizens equipped with work-related and generic skills, such as information literacy, ability to collaborate, communicate, be creative and innovative, and develop problem-solving skills. As large and diversified student groups pursue their studies in net-based environments, this prompts a need for facilitation that addresses these new challenges.

The idea that higher education is losing its credibility and position within society is not new. Researchers like Pelikan (1992) and Barnett (1992) warned against a development towards making higher education not sufficiently challenging. Jaraslav Pelikan (1992) claimed in his book, The idea of the university: A re-examination, that “[a] modern society is unthinkable without the university” and that “the university is in a state of crisis and is in danger of losing credibility” (p. 13). Pelikan discussed the university’s role in society, assessing its guiding principles, aims and practical functions. He demonstrated the inseparability of research and teaching on both intellectual and practical grounds, and argued that the core issues of the university – free inquiry, scholarly honesty, toleration of diverse beliefs, trust in rationality and public verifiability – must be practiced and taught by the university (op. cit.). These characteristic dimensions must also be seen as key values when it comes to developing and facilitating net-based course designs.

In his book, The beautiful risk of education, Biesta (2013) addressed the last two decades’ push towards standardising education in advanced capitalist societies, linking this to neoliberal accountability mechanisms and technologies, as he presented the term “learnification of education”. It is important to understand Biesta’s distinction between learning and education, and what he called “the new language of learning”, which he referred to as a discursive shift away from education to learning. Biesta earlier in 2006 discussed the problematic linkage between education and the economy, whereby “questions about the content and purpose of education became subject to the forces of the market instead of being the concern of professional judgment and democratic deliberation” (p. 31). The language, he argued, facilitates an economic understanding of the process of education (p. 24). This fosters ideas of a net-based education where all learning activities have to be closely aligned with the intended learning outcomes in each particular course. According to Ellis et al. (2009), the quality of student approaches to learning has been found to be closely associated with the quality of their learning outcomes. But, is it enough to fulfil the requirements of learning outcomes? Stephenson and Mantzs’ (2012) closer analysis of the focus on learning outcomes in higher education, indicated that much of what is considered under learning outcomes, key skills, and employability is about documentation and appearing to make a difference in limited and defined learning outcomes. They argued that there has been resistance to some of these new ideas, but few attempts to articulate an alternative conception (op. cit.).

Many indicators and pressure factors tell us that there is a need to rethink net-based education. New challenges, increased complexity and mobility within society highlight the importance of the facilitators’ approach to students’ development as academics. Becoming an academic can be expressed through Barnett’s (1997) notion of “critical being” which includes thinking, self-reflection and action, as “[c]ritical persons are more than just critical thinkers. They are able critically to engage with the world and with themselves as well as with knowledge” (ibid., p. 1). This can be seen as an approach to the world, to thinking and criticality that a university-educated person should aspire to. At the university, the students’ struggle to become critical beings has to be facilitated, stimulated and approached – it does not just happen in net-based studies. Becoming an academic necessitates facilitation within higher education that engages and addresses threshold concepts and ideas, and deals with “troublesome knowledge” (Meyer and Land 2003). The development of intellectual and ethical dimensions can be seen as one of the key goals of education that enables transformative learning. According to Bryson (2014) transformation is difficult, because it

requires movement out of comfort zones, taking risks and embracing uncertainly. Strong engagement is a prerequisite to that. The more advanced or sophisticated ways of knowing imply an open-mindedness, academic self-confidence, reflectivity and an ability to relate to others which infer that the individual both wishes to engage and is already engaged.

(p. 11)

Within net-based courses, the students need to be brought out of their comfort zones in order to be challenged and engaged. University education within a changing world needs to address real challenges and opportunities within society, both in relation to specific disciplines and to foster wider perspectives. To succeed with this mission, net-based education needs to move beyond the restricted achievement expressed in limited perspectives on “learning outcomes” and “constructive alignment” (Biggs 2011), which in the Bologna Process and the European Qualification Framework are proposed as the required knowledge, skills and competences that are to provide future societal needs, often referred to as twenty-first century skills. Kreber (2014, p. 7) argued that there is a growing tension between higher education’s intellectual, critical, theoretical and moral purposes, and those of a more practical and economic nature, oriented towards providing service to society. The question is whether there is a need for a special didactical approach to combine these interests, to confront the new challenges within net-based education. But first let us take a closer look into what these interests and qualifications can look like.

Twenty-first century skills in a world of super-complexity

In their article “Defining twenty-first century skills”, Binkley et al. (2012) argued that the shifts in advanced economies, the specialisation and expansion of knowledge, and the transformation of work and social relationships through information and communication technology have defined new skills that are important for coping with the demands and challenges of today’s society. Decentralised decision making, information sharing, teamwork, and demands for so-called innovative and creative thinking are seen as of increasing importance. Bingley argued that there is a need to replace past expectations of basic skills and knowledge with updated university standards for what students should be able to do. To encounter these challenges, he argued that universities must be transformed in ways that will enable students to acquire the “sophisticated thinking, flexible problem solving, collaboration and communication skills they will need to be successful in work and life” (p. 18). As a reaction to the pressures on today’s universities, the need to develop courses and/or programmes that encourage and educate students from different disciplines to be thoughtful, ethical, and confident global citizens and citizens of academia (Solberg 2011) seems inevitable in order to maintain the universities’ positions and the students’ reflexive relation to a complex and global society. In line with Binkley, universities need to create opportunities for students to grow and thrive in all aspects of their education, and this involves rethinking teaching and learning environments and available learning resources. Several generic qualifications are expected of the students to adjust to working life.

Binkley and colleagues (2012) provided a list of twenty-first century skills based on their analysis of twelve relevant frameworks drawn from a number of countries. The list serves as an example of how to approach assessment of twenty-first century skills. They expect that educators, as they consider their model, may need to make adaptations that fit their own context as they design assessments appropriate for their students.

Ways of thinking

1 Creativity and innovation

2 Critical thinking, problem-solving, decision making

3 Learning to learn, metacognition

Ways of working

1 Communication

2 Collaboration (teamwork)

Tools for working

1 Information ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Series page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Illustrations
• Contributors
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• Part I Framing the book
• Part II Case studies
• Part III Rethinking university education
• Index