Social Inclusion, University Continuing Education and ICT
Introduction
In recent years expectations have been raised that the spread of more and more powerful Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) will contribute to a learning society and to social cohesion. The EU sees open and distance learning (ODL) as being a key to both to the creation of European competitiveness and to the enhancement of cohesion within the Community (MacKeogh, 1999). The role of higher education in this process is seen as being pivotal. In 1998 the Council of Europe Committee on Higher Education Research adopted a three-year project on ‘Lifelong Learning for Equity and Social Cohesion: a New Challenge to Higher Education’ and its workshop in 2000 dealt with the ‘Application of the new information and communication technologies (ICT) in lifelong learning’. Another publication Europe: an information society for all (CEC, 1999) promotes the creation of a digitally literate Europe, and stresses the need for this process to be socially inclusive to strengthen social cohesion. Policy makers mirror those ideas all over the world. Technology based learning is being enthusiastically promoted by the UK government as a new means of combating social exclusion. (Selwyn and Gorard, 1999a).
Both pessimistic and optimistic views have been expressed about the impact of ICT on social cohesion. The question posed is the extent to which the use of ICT can create new or strengthen existing communities, or lead to new forms of social exclusion. Pessimists highlight the potential of ICT to amplify existing divisions and create new forms of exclusion and marginalisation, dividing society into the information rich and the information poor, between people with easy access to the new technologies and those without access. (see for example King&Kraemer, 1995; Schiller, 1996). Optimists, on the other hand (Rheingold 1993; Wellmann 1997), highlight the chance ICT offers for users to interact regardless the time and space barriers, putting control over community activities back into the hand of the people, hence creating a feeling of belonging and social inclusion. To commentators of this persuasion the spread of ICT heralds a new form for increasing social capital (Ferlander and Timms, 1999)
The role of higher education
The extension of learning to all citizens is seen as being important for the society of the future, both in order to contribute to the international competitiveness of the European economy, and for the citizens to be able to participate fully in society. Existing educational institutions, including Universities, are envisaged as taking a central role in creating the wanted inclusive knowledge society. The role of university continuing education departments, charged with improving access and breaking down barriers to learning, is pivotal.
Due to its capability of supplying information to everybody, ICT is seen as a means of achieving this end. At the same time commentators have pointed out that access to information is not the same as learning (Laurilard, 1994). It is generally accepted that ICT has the potential of changing the way in which we learn, but whether this will contribute to an extension of learning across society or will yet further provide opportunities for those advantaged remains to be seen
.
To find out how to make the best use of the potential ICT has for teaching and social inclusion, it is necessary to evaluate current experiences, as otherwise the inevitable consequence will be the repetition of mistakes (Khvilon, 1997). An analysis of current practise in University Continuing Education will highlight for whom most courses are intended and if there is a focus on interactivity or access to information.
Survey of current ICT practice of University Continuing Education (UCE)
A questionnaire-based survey of computer-based UCE in European countries has been attempted, with questionnaires being sent out via various mailing lists and published on the EUCEN web-side. The questionnaire was aimed at individuals engaged in delivering ICT based courses for UCE in Europe. The initial response was disappointing, but after further prompting, taking the questionnaire to various conferences, 69 valid questionnaires were returned. These are the base for the analyses in the reminder of this report.
Access
As we said previously one of the aims of the European Commission is to widen participation. Two of our questions wee aimed at finding out what prerequisites were required and to what type of qualification, i.e. undergraduate or postgraduate etc, the course might lead.
Figure 1: Pre-requisites
Only 15% of the courses required no pre-requisites, while 19% required a degree as a pre-requisite, however in 29% of cases, a student could gain access to the course on the basis of prior experience. Overall, this means that learners with no experience at all will find only a limited number of courses open to them. One fifth of courses is open to graduates only. However, professional qualification or experiences are in the majority of cases sufficient to grant learners access, which is certainly a better chance for many to enter courses, than standard University entry requirements, like school leaving exam results. Nevertheless, the UCE courses still tend to exclude those who do not have a professional qualification, or are employed in lower skilled jobs, a group probably most likely to be at a disadvantage in the new emerging knowledge society. The contribution to the social inclusion of marginalised groups is, at best modest.
Qualifications
Next we looked into the qualification the courses would lead to. In line with the emphasis on previous experiences or professional qualifications as entry requirements the majority of courses are aimed at continuing professional development. This is followed by postgraduate qualifications, especially popular among respondents from the UK, where the aim of continuing professional qualification was given much less emphasis.
Figure 2a: Type of course
Figure 2b: Type of course UK respondent
Universities in the UK seem to be much happier giving learners a ‘traditional’ University degree than in other countries, i.e. accepting student without a degree to postgraduate courses. In other countries it is preferred to provide a certificate more closely related to the original professional qualification or experience. Compared to these two main types of courses, undergraduate courses by distance play only a minor role and courses designed for personal development or interest rather than qualification are insignificant. None of the respondents mentioned programmes specifically designed to build community in marginalised groups. We believe that a small number of Universities are involved in such activities, often via dedicated outreach services (e.g. University settlements in the UK), but, in general, this is an area in which other institutions, such as folkhögskolen or further education colleges, appear to play a more significant role than Universities.
Place of study
Another question investigated the place where students are expected to study: the results are shown in figure 3.
Figure 3: Place of Study
The majority of students are expected to work from home, while big numbers are also expected to study a their place of work, a smaller number is supposed to work from learning centres. This of course means that the large majority of people taking up study opportunities are expected to have access to a computer and/or Internet facilities at home and/or their place of work. Given the uneven access to IT technology this means that members of the middle classes are probably the target groups of this courses, as they tend to have more access to IT facilities, leaving currently excluded groups at an disadvantage, i.e. not realising the potential for a more inclusive society and social cohesion.
The nature of the course
The way in which course material is made available reflects the adoption of differing pedagogical needs. We focused on the way information is distributed and learning supported and what is taught in the courses. Figure 4 shows that web pages are the single most important means of distributing course material, followed by e-mails and computer conferencing. However handouts, books and face-to-face meetings are also still commonly used; video conferencing, the use of video or audio tapes, as well as phone and fax are less common. While web pages, books and handouts have to be seen as knowledge dissemination, e-mail, computer conferencing and face-to-face meetings obviously also have an interactive aspect, i.e. two way communication.
Figure 4: Course Material
Respondents were asked to rank a number of communication tools, the numbers presented in Figure 5 are averaged from a 1 – 7 ranking (1 = most used; 7 = least used). Emails are ranked as the most important means of communication, followed by a large margin by computer conferencing and personal contact and the traditional way of supplying distance courses: post.
Figure 5: Forms of Communication (average ranking)
Asked for particular forms of multimedia which are used to support learning, respondents quoted the use of graphics as being the single most important. JavaScript (and Java) are also mentioned frequently, probably reflecting attempts to create interactivity, animations, the use of video and sound are also mentioned several times.
Figure 6: Multimedia to support learning
Finally we enquired about the course content, trying to find out what learners were supposed to learn. In only one third of cases was the main aim knowledge of the specific domain; rather general study skills and IT skills were the focus of most courses.
Figure 7: Course Content
This might have to do with the fact that the technology is still relatively new and fast developing, so that many courses and Universities are still in some sort of experimental state. Rather than concentrating on domain knowledge the majority of courses experiment with the way users interact with the new technology, familiarising them with the new ways of communication and the skills needed to study in that sort of environment. It is to be expected that once this initial phase is over, more and more domain knowledge specific courses will be developed.
Conclusion
Although the pre-requisites for the distance courses offered by UCE departments do differ from those for ‘traditional’ University courses, they still have to be seen as excluding a large number of people with low qualifications and low skilled jobs. This is reinforced by the fact that learners are expected to learn mainly at home or in their place of work, with computer access (and Internet access as main means of content distribution) being unequally distributed. The question arises if this access should be the responsibility of the University alone, or if the move away from traditional entrance requirements can already be seen as a success, with other institutions being responsible for making the new entrance qualifications achievable for the majority of people. Some states have well defined access routes, while in others Universities have opted to work together with other institutions, for example accepting certain courses from other Institutions as fulfilled pre-requisite. Similarly some Universities will supply students with computer and Internet access from home, or have arranged cheaper rates with Internet providers for their students. So social inclusion or exclusion will not only depend on the actual course, but also the surrounding framework, which will require in depth analysis of selected cases in the reminder of the project.
Similarly, we have seen that some tools for interactivity are used in the courses currently on offer, in how much this presents new opportunities, or enhanced learning due to new technology, will have to be investigated on a case base, i.e. how much is the new technology utilised, or is just an old course put on the net. Little explicit recognition has yet been given to the ways in which the use of ICT can create learning communities.
Future Research
In order to pursue the aim of examining the impact of Information and Communication Technologies in University Continuing Education on social cohesion we will select a number of courses and institutions for in-depth case studies. This approach is designed to lead to an exchange of experiences, to the creation of an online community of practice and to help institutions to develop ‘good practise’ in the use of ICT for learning and social cohesion.
References
The extensive list of references which follows addresses many of the general issues involved in the use of ICT for teaching and learning and the impact of this on social cohesion.
Abercrombie, N, (1988). Dictionary of Sociology. London: Penguin Books
Anderson, S.E. (1992). Factors Associated with Usage of a Public Telecomputing System. Ed.D. Dissertation. Curry School of Education, University of Virginia. University Microfilms No: 932490.
Åström, J. (1998). Lokal digital demokr@ti. IT och Kommunerna : En översikt. Stockholm: Nordströms Tryckeri (Svenska Kommunförbundet).
Australian Local Government Association (1998). People and Community: Social Cohesion (Available at http://www.alga.com.au/pncsocoh.htm).
Baker, P. (1998). On-Line Resource Guide to Community Networks. (Available at http://ralph.gmu.edu/~pbaker/)
Baron M. (1996) From a Distance. Learning, v.25(2) pp80-82, Sept/Oct
Baym, N. K. (1995). The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated Communication. In Jones, S. G. (ed.), Cybersociety. Computer-Mediated Communication and Community. London: Sage.
Baym, N. K. (1997). Interpreting soap operas and creating community: Inside an electronic fan culture. In Kiesler, S. (ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 103-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beamish, A. (1995). Communities On-Line: Community-Based Computer Networks. Unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. (Available at http://alberti.mit.edu/arch/4.207/anneb/thesis/toc.html)
Bergham, J. (1995). Social exclusion in Europe: Policy context and analytical framework. In Room, G. (ed.), Beyond the Threshold: The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion (pp. 10-28). Bristol: the Policy Press
Bikson, T. and Panis, C. (1997). Computers and connectivity: Current trends. In Kiesler, S. (ed.), Culture of the Internet (pp. 103-20). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Blanchard, A. &. Horan, T. (1998). Virtual Communities and Social Capital. Social Science Computer Review, 16 (3): 293-307.