Yannis Karaliotas
May 2000

Teaching at a Distance: Improving Students’ Learning
Advances in the teaching/learning debate

Teaching at a distance is the cumulative act of designing, delivering and assessing within distance education programmes. In this paper, teaching and learning are seen as two interdependent functions of the process of knowledge construction in the learning environment.

Part 1 of the paper discusses ways in which teaching could promote learning as (a) the abstraction of meaning, and (b) an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of some personal reality, thus, influencing the modes of knowledge construction in the learning environment.

Part 2 focuses on the element of course design and the extent to which it can influence students’ experiences of learning.


Part 1 :

“We must ... transform roles and functions, and redefine our traditional assumptions and attitudes about student competence, ambitions, achievements and inducements. We must show students how to find (or rediscover) the satisfaction, value and outright fun of learning for the rest of their lives. Our prior procrastination does not mean we cannot face reality. Moving into the learning paradigm takes much consideration, reflection, planning and struggle, and while we encourage students to face up to their learning disabilities, we also must confront our own ‘teaching disabilities’." ( Guy Bensusan, 1997 )

To rejoin the artificially separated, naturally inseparable teaching and learning aspects of paideia, teachers are called upon to consider their students’ conceptions of learning and compare them to their own conceptions of teaching , so that effective learning-teaching strategies can be adopted which could assist both students and teachers in improving their practice.

Student’s conceptions of learning are seemingly born from within concrete learning experiences, which reflect institutional (systemic) codes of teaching-learning practice and shape the student’s orientation to education . In studying practice, conceptions of learning become study patterns which are utilised by the student when dealing with a specific learning task, and they are used in informing the student’s learning strategies . Consequently, those conceptions are determinative regarding the student’s adoption of particular approaches to learning ( Morgan, 1997 ).

According to phenomenography research, approaches to learning appear to be directly linked to the quality of learning outcomes ( Marton et al in Morgan, ibid. ) Two distinct approaches to learning - deep and surface, have been identified across a range of learning tasks. Students who engage in a learning task with the intention of understanding or seeking meaning are said to be adopting a deep approach, while those who engage in a task with the intention of memorising information are said to be adopting a surface approach. The effect of different approaches has been demonstrated by numerous studies relating outcomes of learning to approach adopted. Not surprisingly, surface approaches are associated with poor learning outcomes, while deep approaches are associated with higher quality learning outcomes ( Entwistle and Ramsden, 1983 – Watkins, 1983 ).

If we agree with the researchers and practitioners in the field of student learning that understanding of subjects (rather than memorising of formulae or textbook paragraphs) is of crucial importance to learning in higher education, then it is important to think about the kind of learning strategies that can be adopted to encourage this approach. Surface approaches cannot help students find coherence and reach full understanding of the content of their readings. If teaching is to help students improve their learning so that they can engage in a personally meaningful way, the development of students’ learning conceptions leading towards a deep approach should be sought. Deep learning is associated with analytical ‘destructuring’ of new learning material followed by critical ‘restructuring’ which relates the new material to the learner’s existing understanding ( Morgan, ibid., pp. 76-7 ).

In Roger Saljö’s study from Sweden, reported in Morgan (ibid.), students define learning among five concepts. They are:

  • an accumulation of information,
  • memorisation of facts,
  • learning a set of procedures to be used in practice,
  • abstraction of meaning and
  • an interpretative process aimed at the understanding of some personal reality

(pp. 62-3)

Each of these five students’ conceptions are seen to correspond to Dall’Alba’s (1991) categories of teachers’ conceptions of teaching practices:

  • presenting information,
  • transmitting information (from teacher to student),
  • illustrating the application of theory to practice / developing the capacity to be expert,
  • exploring ways of understanding from particular perspectives
  • bringing about conceptual change
    (pp. 294-5)

The emerging relations between the two sets of conceptions, which make up the teaching-learning dynamic in the learning environment, indicate ways in which students’ approaches to learning may be influenced ( Trigwell et al, 1998 & 1999 - Prosser & Trigwell 1999 ).

According to Ramsden (1992) students’ conceptions four and five are qualitatively different from the first three which imply a less complex view of what learning consists of, i.e. learning is something external to the learner. Conceptions four and five emphasise the internal or personal aspect of learning: learning is something that you do in order to understand the real world (Constructivist View of Mind), rather than something done by someone or something to the learner (Representational View of Mind).

It becomes evident that these latter two conceptions in each set of categories refer to constructivist notions of interactive learning , requiring dialectic transactions as a means of abstracting meaning and constructing knowledge, and reflection as a metacognitive activity leading to esoteric change ( Morgan, 1998 & Chambers, 1998 ).

In this context, the role of teaching would be to elicit dialectic transactions in the learning environment and beyond, and help motivate students to engage in, time consuming but highly productive, reflective practices. Hence, promoting the development of deep learning approaches at a distance would require practices which could support dialogue and provide opportunities for critical reflection.

Evans and Nation see dialogue “as the essential ingredient for ensuring that students engage actively with learning materials” and maintain that “ dialogue involves the idea that humans in communication are engaged actively in the making and exchange of meanings , it is not merely about the transmission of messages.” ( in Morgan, 1997 ).

In preparing text materials for presentation, dialogue can be introduced into the text through the use of multiple voices, or recorded discussions about key areas of course material. The course material of the MA in ODE programme is a good example of such practice which goes “beyond the idea of the teaching text as an authoritative monologue” and, thus, facilitates abstraction of meaning by drawing students into a dialogue which helps them “to interrogate the set books” ( Morgan, ibid. ).

However, as Marton and Booth (1997) advocate:

a capability for acting in a certain way reflects a capability to experiencing something in a certain way. The latter does not cause the former, but are logically intertwined. You cannot act other than in relation to the world as you experience it. (p. 111)

To ensure, then, that deconstruction and reconstruction take place when students interact with material, dialogue should be initiated and maintained in the delivery phase with the use of “study groups, tutorial groups, self-help networks etc) ( Morgan, ibid. ).

3 rd generation Distance Learning Environments utilising new technologies ( Nipper, 1989 ), which have been discussed elsewhere ( Karaliotas, 2000 ), offer opportunities for alternative teaching approaches. Computer mediated communication (CMC) enables teachers to initiate and maintain collaborative online environments which can support the building of learning communities and provide opportunities for teacher-student-student dialogue. The teacher’s role here is to tutor students at a distance, not by merely providing personal tutorial support, but by participating in the negotiation process of meaning as moderator, facilitator, mentor and peer ( Goodfellow, 1999 ), providing feedback ( Laurillard, 1993 ) and mindweaving conference discussions ( Feenberg, 1989 ).


Teaching and Learning Strategies in the Online Environment

Biggs and Telfer (1987) suggest that the following kinds of teaching foster deep approaches: an appropriate motivational context, a high degree of learning activity, interaction with others, both peers and teachers, and a well-structured knowledge base.

Laurillard (1993) discusses a number of key aspects of learning that can be used in any discussion about teaching strategies. These aspects are:

Apprehending Structure . Students construct meaning as they read, listen, act and reflect on the subject content. However, as Laurillard points out "Meaning is given through structure" (p51) and it is therefore essential that students are able to interpret the structure of any discourse before they can construct the meaning that is so crucial to understanding. Students adopting the surface approach mentioned earlier would fail to do this, as they focus on memorising a number of phrases and points for later reproduction.

Integrating Parts . Students need to be able to integrate the signs of knowledge such as language, symbols, diagrams with what is signified by them.

Acting On The World . Students are encouraged to engage in some form of activity which, when integrated with other activities mentioned here, assist in understanding of content.

Using Feedback . Actions such as those mentioned above are futile for student learning, unless feedback on individual actions is available.

Reflecting On Goals-Action-Feedback . Learners interpret and understand reality as they make links between each of the above aspects by reflecting on the goals of learning, actions taken, and the results of those actions.


Utilising Hypertext/Hypermedia for Teaching-Learning

A major feature of the online environment is the potential to create links between text and other media not only within an individual document but also between documents residing on any computer in the world which has access to the Web. The challenge for teachers is to use the knowledge of learning together with an understanding of the features of the WWW, to design learning experiences which promote a deep approach to learning so that 'what' students learn is a deep understanding of the subject content, the ability to analyse and synthesise data and information, and the development of creative thinking and good communication skills.

A useful approach to the use of hypertext/hypermedia links on the Web towards facilitating abstraction of meaning and personal change is to encourage learners to become collaborators in playful CMC negotiation. Opportunities are provided for learners to participate in educational games (searching the Web, role playing, situational simulations) and contribute to the construction of collective deliverables by providing their own data in the form of commentaries, counter arguments, summaries or alternative links which are then also available for other learners to read/follow. Learners thus become aware of the variations in interpretation and construction of meaning among a range of people and construct an individual meaning as they review evidence, arguments and a range of structures. Thus by apprehending structure, integrating parts, acting on the world and using reflection in an appropriate motivational context, learners develop an individual interpretation of reality. This also encourages development of the desired qualities of a learner: the ability to analyse, to gather evidence and to synthesise.

An example of this strategy can be found is the series of collaborative activities in H802 “Applications of Information Technology in ODE” MA in ODE course, where learners become collaborative authors in a playfully meaningful way as they contribute their own individual interpretations, annotations and meaning construction on discerned aspects of the course material including issues raised by learners themselves, or on some of the commentaries provided by the discipline experts (tutors-faculty). Other, more holistically oriented, examples of this strategy are the Miksike Learning Environment [HREF 1] this year’s (2000) winner of The Stockholm Challenge Award, and the Australia Street Archive [HREF 2] ( Nash & Alexander, 1995 ).

Another approach, which can be found adopted in current projects run by the Knowledge Media Institute of the UKOU [HREF 3] , is to use a range of Internet services so that an integrated learning experience is provided. This approach was adopted and brilliantly implemented by the JASON project [HREF 4] . This project was founded by Robert Ballard, the discoverer of the RMS Titanic in response to thousands of enquiries about his discovery. The project provides "a curriculum which is specially developed to highlight the science, technology, engineering and social studies of an annual electronic field trip". Learners participate in these electronic field trips "mounted in a remote part of the world and broadcast in real-time, using state-of-the-art technology, to a network of educational, research and cultural institutions in the United States. The 1995 expedition took students on a voyage to the volcanoes, observatories and unique environments of Hawaii where they had an opportunity to work alongside scientists, engineers and technicians at the expedition site as they studied the effects of new species on the fragile environment, conducted experiments on volcanoes in an attempt to understand how the earth was formed and compared these volcanoes to those on Mars, Venus and Io. Students used the Internet to communicate with one another and with the experts as they discussed a variety of expedition issues. They were also able to operate robot mechanisms to take samples from active flowing lava and observe via computer the actual infrared imagery from a NSAS observatory facility. In the process of participating in this expedition, they learned about technology in its context of use, rather than as a separate subject isolated from actual use.

The learning strategies adopted here fit very well with Biggs and Telfer's comments about the importance of appropriate motivational contexts, a high degree of learning activity, interaction with others, both peers and teachers, and a well-structured knowledge base.

Laurillard's ideas about apprehending structure, integrating parts, action, feedback and reflection are well provided for in the Jason project as students collaborate with their peers as well as world experts in a variety of discipline areas. Through Internet, they are provided with an opportunity to act on the world (by operating robot mechanisms to take samples from active flowing lava), they receive feedback on those actions, and reflection is encouraged through the use of on-line journals. And, finally, this is a learning opportunity that would not be possible any other way!

As an underlying remark, it is essential to recognise that the successful implementation of teaching strategies like the ones referred to above cannot be a matter of technique, but rests heavily on the philosophy of (distance) education which informs decisions about techniques and technology. A philosophy “which recognizes students’ autonomy and strives for dialogue” (Evans & Nation, 1989a in Morgan, 1997, p. 84 ).


Part 2:

“Student learning is not accidental: it is the direct result of what has been designed, intentionally or unintentionally, by teachers, schools, curriculum developers and communities. Behind teaching and learning events are beliefs about learning which directly influence what students experience.” ( Wiburg, 1995 ).

In examining the extent to which students’ learning experiences at a distance are reasonably expected to be influenced by course design, there are certain initial observations that need to be made:

  • Course design as a fundamental element of teaching at a distance can influence students’ learning experiences not only through its choice of instructional design models, but also through its proposed use of educational technology in the distance environment. It should be worth noting here, once more, that those decisions stem from the cultural values and the underpinning philosophy of (distance) education held by faculty and institutions.
  • Designing distance learning programmes involves not only planning the ‘curriculum’ but also designing the ‘space’. Spatial attributes (lecture room, lab, library, campus) and the ‘ecology’ of the learning environment are taken for granted in the design of courses ‘within walls’. In contrast, the building of ‘ecosystems’ which could, physically or virtually, accommodate distance learning experiences has been a bare necessity in the design of distance learning programmes.
  • A continuing challenge for teachers is how to develop successful, independent and self-reliant learners. Students have a range of backgrounds and attitudes to learning and knowledge, but are not always aware of the need for good communication skills, critical thinking skills, and autonomy as learners.

Morgan (1995) has presented a model of student learning which shows how various parameters can affect learning outcomes. This model is depicted in Figure 1:

Fig. 1 – Morgan’s learning model which shows the need for affective support to DL students

In this part of the discussion, using the MA in ODE courses as an example, I will attempt to explore possible influences to students’ learning experiences deriving from course design and its particular choices in the areas of:

    • learning ‘ecosystem’/environment building
    • knowledge base construction
    • assessment of learning outcomes



The Case of H80X Course Design

Instructional systems in distance education are learner centred, which differentiates them from curriculum-centred and instructor-centred forms of education. Distance instructional systems should be designed to provide an opportunity for learners to participate in becoming aware of their own understanding of the knowledge domain they are interested in.

The MA in ODE courses [HREF 6] , offered by the Institute of Educational Technology, UK Open University, constitute an interesting and informative case of course design operating along these lines. This internationally available DE programme is taught and assessed through a combination of media which include the 'traditional' distance learning package and network communication technologies (e.g. e-mail, computer conferencing, the World Wide Web).


Course Ecosystem: The Online Campus and the Learning Community

Distance learning often implies student isolation. The DE learner’s study environment is usually confined to their immediate surroundings, namely home and/or work. In 3 rd generation DE settings, network technology has made possible the design of virtual learning environments which enable “human agency” (Giddens, 1984 cited in Morgan, 1997 ) and may foster and support the unfoldment of learning communities.

Learner-centred design approaches and appropriate utilisation of technology affordances are prerequisites for the building of a virtual ecosystem for learning. On the other hand, the extent to which it can influence students’ learning experiences depends not only on its ability to facilitate teaching-learning practices but also on how well can affectively support its community of learners.

The online campus of the MA in ODE community has the eBBS conferencing system as its host component, surrounded by course resource Web pages. Within this virtual campus, peers, colleagues, tutors, librarians and the course team are able to meet in the comfort of asynchronicity and built a sense of community. Here is where learners can:

“ ... [make] a number of very good friends, [meet] a broad range of very interesting colleagues, [learn] a lot and [become] very comfortable with many web technologies. There [are] also many moments of joy, happiness and enlightenment in learning in the global online classroom which H80X represents ... In short, my considered opinion after all this, is that learning in a wholly online environment is at least as good as a lot of face-to-face instruction as regards content, and it is infinitely MORE convenient for working people. We all know though, that the social side of learning is also very valuable. Here 'online' gets a bit trickier, the bottom line being that it is what we and our learner peers make it.” ( Chappel, 2000 ).

The core of H80X learners’ experiences seems to emanate from the eBBS peer discussions. The highly structured conferences where tutorial groups meet jostle with learner-led and free ranging Plenary discussions.

“I always liked the free discussion there [in Plenary] and I guess I learnt as much and maybe more about distance communication from colleagues and action in Plenary than in any of my tutorial groups.

Many a Plenary discussion concerned meta-course thoughts too. This is natural as it is also the place where people from all the different groups get together and this fact alone probably generated BIG thoughts, course overview. Putting our current H80X course under the microscope in Plenary, also had the natural and obvious advantage of providing a shared base for comparisons with our diverse personal implementations and instructional practice. We compared what were doing/or might do in our own jobs with decisions taken by the course team for our H80X course” ( Chappel, ibid. ).


Knowledge Base Construction – Learners Control Over Content

In "Conversation, Cognition and Learning" (1975), Pask offers a cybernetic and dialectic model for the construction of knowledge. It involves the interaction between two cognitive systems (e.g. a teacher and student). The two would engage in a dialogue over a given concept, recognising their differences in perception about the concept. After multiple iterations of this process, their differences would be reduced until agreement is reached between them. The residue of the interaction would then be archived into an "entailment mesh", a collection of shared concepts known as "public knowledge".

The critical method of learning according to conversation theory is "teachback" in which one person teaches another what they have learned. Pask identified two different types of learning strategies: serialists who progress through an entailment structure in a sequential fashion and holists who look for higher order relations.

The outcomes of the provision for the teachback method embedded in the H80X design are illustrated in the numerous threads in the H80X eBBS conferences. From the “Hyde Park Corner” of H801/97 ( Appendix 1 ) to the hundreds of Peer Resource Links and Academic Summaries in H802/98 & H804/99, to the over 600 (so far) content rich messages in David Hawkridge’s tutorial group forum (H801/2000), its major effect on students’ learning experiences in participating in the construction of knowledge base and having control over content is evident.



While students are accepting more control for their own learning, faculty members still control assessment and what is to be learned. Both faculty and institutions are challenged to consider outcomes versus components that make up a learning community (Lemke and Dressner, 1995 ).

Given that assessment is a powerful influence, it is not surprising that students who are oriented towards deep learning actually do spend time memorising and are often syllabus bound (and of course Marton showed that the approach taken is strongly influenced by the anticipated assessment). If it is possible for students to pass tests and examinations by adopting a purely surface approach, then we should be changing the content and methods of assessment.

H80X courses are assessed entirely by coursework. There are no examinations. The coursework consists chiefly of tutor-marked assignments (TMAs). Assignments are sent to the tutor who gives feedback in the form of detailed teaching comments on student’s work as well as a grade. Instead of an examination, each course has an extended piece of work (e.g. a project report) which is marked not just by the student’s tutor but also by another independent expert.

However, there is still room for improvement. In the words of the MA Programme Director Robin Mason (1999) :

"Current assessment procedures in higher education are long overdue for a rethink. They are particularly ill suited to the digital age in which using information is more important than remembering it, and where reusing material should be viewed as a skill to be encouraged, not as academic plagiarism to be despised"


"There are certainly educational benefits to be had from a re-thinking of assessment where online access is possible. We would welcome opportunities in the faculties to move towards more integrated, more learner-oriented and more collaborative tmas and even exams!"


Back to basics

Throughout history, instructional methods have mirrored the debate between the two philosophical paradigms that even today remain unresolved: Is the mind merely a tool for representing the real world, or does the mind produce its own reality?

Jonassen (1991) compares the two philosophical paradigms which parallel the two theories of thinking -objectivism and constructivism:

"In order to contrast their assumptions, the two theories are generally described as polar extremes on a continuum from externally mediated reality (objectivism) to internally mediated reality (constructivism)."

He argues that while it is true that behaviourist theory has given way to the cognitive sciences, instructional systems technology is still influenced by behaviourist assumptions. He explains:

"...[that] perhaps cognitive psychology has not provided enough of a paradigm shift; that behavioral and many cognitive instructional design processes are based on a restrictive set of philosophical assumptions that do not adequately conceptualize the mental states of the learner; and that perhaps a new philosophical paradigm shift is needed in IST."

Perhaps the new paradigm he seeks has already appeared somewhere other than psychology or philosophy. If we are thinking holistically, we can turn to other fields for our answer. As the cognitive revolution in learning psychology experienced its release from the 19th century constraints, we also see a revolution in the natural sciences that breaks the bonds of 19th century rigidity. In the fields of mathematics and physics there were three major scientific revolutions in the twentieth century: relativity, quantum theory and chaos theory.

In the article "What can we learn from Chaos Theory? An alternative approach to instructional systems design”, Yeongmahn You (1993) shows us how chaos theory can provide the necessary paradigm shift to accommodate constructivism. His article explains how using the principles of chaos theory can provide us with a completely new perspective in thinking about instructional design.

You says that according to Gleick (1987), Chaos is a science of process rather than a state of existence. It is a process of becoming as opposed to a condition of being. To understand the learning process as a dynamic system requires an alternate view of knowledge.

"Knowledge must be understood as a dynamic system, constantly changing and reshaping. Human learners do not passively follow a pre-programmed package or react to external stimulus in a dynamic view of knowledge. Rather, they follow unpredictable patterns which are discontinuous and complex." (pp. 23-4)

Except for certain types of technical or procedural tasks, behaviouristic principles decontextualise and oversimplify learning. We gravitate this way because we can not control all the multitudes of variables in the learning process. We ignore the ones we can't control the same way Descartes wanted to ignore the spiritual aspects of the mind. A major mental paradigm shift is needed to even acknowledge, let alone control, all these multitudes of variables. The constructivist perspective is heading in this direction in that it does not try to deny the existence of variables we can't control. We are heading back to relevant, contextual learning in a non-linear dynamic system, the way our tribal ancestors dealt with learning.


It is in fact a part of the function of education to help us escape—not from our own time, for we are bound by that--but from the intellectual and emotional limitations of our own time. – T. S. Eliot




Bensusan, G. (1997). Beyond Teaching: Twelve Pillars for Managing Learning. Online source: http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~hgb/beyond.html

Biggs, J.B. and Telfer, R. (1987). The Process of Learning, (Second Edition), Sydney: Prentice-Hall.

Chambers, E. (1998). Perspectives on Teaching and Learning. Block 2, Section 2. H801 Course material. The Open University.

Chappel, H. (2000). Inside the Virtual Campus ! - MA Tour. Online Source: http://iet.open.ac.uk/pp/r.goodfellow/MATour/IT000-Welcome.htm

Dall'Alba, G. (1991). Foreshadowing Conceptions of Teaching, in Ross, B. (ed.) Research and Development in Higher Education vol.13. Sydney, HERDSA.

Entwistle, N. and Ramsden, P. (1983). Understanding Student Learning, London: Croom Helm.

Feenberg, A. (1989). 'The Written Word: On The Theory and Practice of Computer Conferencing' in Mason, R.D. and Kaye, A.R. (eds.) Mindweave, Communication, Computers and Distance Education. Oxford: Pergamon

Goodfellow, R. (1999). Expert, Assessor, Co-Learner: conflicting roles and expanding workload for the online teacher. Presentation at CAL99 March 30 1999. Online source: http://www-iet.open.ac.uk/pp/r.goodfellow/cal99/cal99.html

Jonassen, D. (1991, September) Objectivism versus Constructivism: Do We Need a New Philosophical Paradigm? Educational Technology 31(9): 5-14

Karaliotas, I. (2000). Perceptions of 'Distance' in Education. MA in ODE Student Assignment. Online source: http://users.otenet.gr/~kar1125/distance.html

Laurillard, D. (1993). Rethinking University Teaching: a framework for the effective use of educational technology, Routledge: London.

Lemke, R. and Dressner, R. (1995). Asynchronous Learning Networks. Paper presented to Teaching Strategies for Distance Learning, 11th Annual Conference on Teaching and Learning, Madison, Wisconsin. 117-120.

Marton, F., & Booth, S. (1997). Learning and awareness. Mahwah, NJ: Erbaum.

Mason, R. (1998). Models of Online Courses. ALN Magazine Volume 2, Issue 2 - October 1998. Online source: http://www.aln.org/alnweb/magazine/vol2_issue2/Masonfinal.htm

Moore M.G. (1998). Introduction. In C.C. Gibson, ed. Distance learners in higher education: Institutional responses for quality outcomes. Madison, WI: Atwood Publishing.

Morgan, Alistair R. (1995). "Student learning and students' experiences." In: Lockwood, Fred (ed.) Open and distance learning today. London, Routledge, pp. 56-66.

Morgan, A. (1997). Improving Your Students’ Learning. London, Kogan Page.

Morgan, A. (1998). Learners’ Experiences of Learning. Block 2, Section 3. H801 Course material. The Open University.

Naidu, S. (1994). Applying learning and instructional strategies in open and distance learning. Distance Education. v. 15 n.1, 23-41.

Nipper, S. 1989. Third generation distance learning and computer conferencing. In Mindweave: Communication - http://www-icdl.open.ac.uk/mindweave/mindweave.html

Pask, G. (1975). Conversation, Cognition, and Learning. New York: Elsevier.

Prosser, M. & Trigwell, K. (1999). Understanding Learning and Teaching. The Experience in Higher Education. London: The Society for Research into Higher Education & Open University Press.

Ramsden, P. (1992). Learning to Teach in Higher Education, Routledge: London.

Rovio-Johansson, A. (1999). Being Good at Teaching: Exploring different ways of handling the same subject in Higher Education. (Goteborg Studies in Educational Sciences, 140). Goteborg, Sweden: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M. & Waterhouse, F. (1999). Relat ions between teachers´ approaches to teaching and students´ approaches to learning. Higher Education, 37, 57-70.

Trigwell, K., Prosser, M., Ramsden, P. & Martin, E. (1998). Improving student learning through a focus on the teaching context. In C. Rust (Ed.). Improving student learning. Improving students as learners. Oxford: The Oxford Centre for Staff and Learning Development.

Watkins, D.A. (1983). 'Depth of processing and the quality of learning outcomes', Instructional Science 12:49-58.

Wiburg, K. (1995). An Historical Perspective on Instructional Design: Is it Time to Exchange Skinner's Teaching Machine for Dewey's Toolbox? Online source: http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/wiburg.html

You, Y. (1993). What Can We Learn from Chaos Theory? An Alternative Approach to Instructional System Design. Educational Technology Research & Development 41(3): 17-32







1. “Hyde Park Corner” thread: message headers

#621 Hyde Park Corner 9/6/97, Tony

#625 Intro 9/6/97, Helenc

#633 Speakers and listeners 9/6/97, David

#685 Invitation 16/6/97, Helenc

#704 Speaking plainly in the Park 18/6/97, David

#709 well ... the summer of '68 was pretty good! 18/6/97, Simonr

#626 Hobby Horse Race 9/6/97, Helenc

#627 HH Entry: Process 9/6/97, Helenc

#636 heckle from the back of the crowd ... 9/6/97, Simonr

#639 Long Live the T-Model. 10/6/97, Helenc

#645 Heckler II 11/6/97, Rossv

#653 Magic moments 11/6/97, Helenc

#655 Chaos 11/6/97, Johnn

#641 HH Entry: Third Generation 11/6/97, Tony

#652 3 (?) 11/6/97, Helenc

#657 Transparent Technology 12/6/97, Stuartn

#660 you said it! 12/6/97, Rossv

#661 Recursive? ... see recursive ... 12/6/97, Simonr

#666 Boggling the mind ... 12/6/97, Johnn

#663 another fan 12/6/97, Helenc

#669 Mother Night 13/6/97, Stuartn

#686 celebration of reading 16/6/97, Helenc

#676 Vonnegut favs 16/6/97, Rossv

#705 Vonnegut 18/6/97, David

#947 How many of us? 30/7/97, Tonyd

#659 Indigenous Knowledge and Education 12/6/97, Simonr

#781 The oneness of humanity 27/6/97, Janicer

#804 are you thinking what I'm thinking.. 1/7/97, Helenc

#806 Nice one ... (smiles broadly) 1/7/97, Simonr

#823 poor man's mud 2/7/97, Helenc

#835 (smiles and replies) 2/7/97, Simonr

...3 message(s) below

#811 Really big smiles... 1/7/97, Johnn

#866 Unity, Oneness Meditation 5/7/97, Janicer

#873 Vale of Content 7/7/97, Helenc

#675 HH Entry: Constructivism 16/6/97, Rossv

#681 Congratulations, Ross 16/6/97, David

#684 high standards 16/6/97, Helenc

#718 Bacon & Eggs: Practical Epistemology 20/6/97, Helenc

#868 Truth/truth 6/7/97, Janicer

#872 consensus? 7/7/97, Helenc

#784 HH Entry: Constructivism 27/6/97, Janicer

#878 the real issues 8/7/97, Rossv

#879 the real issues 8/7/97, Rossv

#880 Sorry about the double posting 8/7/97, Rossv

#692 HH Entry : Value For Kids 17/6/97, Stuartn

#694 ask not tell 17/6/97, Helenc

#948 OLE OLE 30/7/97, Tonyd

#957 further challenges 5/8/97, Helenc

#1157 Exam time - the final activity? 22/10/97, Simonr

#1159 Thanks, Simon 22/10/97, David

#1160 Exam or course? 22/10/97, Jenniferg

#1162 rubric ... 22/10/97, Simonr

#1169 final activity, reflections on the ... 23/10/97, Simonr

#1173 Reflections 24/10/97, Williamm

#1175 spontaneous-sequential-timed self-expression 26/10/97, Helenc

#1176 formatting !!! 26/10/97, Helenc

#1177 heavens above ... 27/10/97, Simonr

#1178 Helen on the run! 27/10/97, David

#1179 Exam pm 27/10/97, Jenniferg

#640 On the participation to public affairs 10/6/97, Alexanderk

#654 mantra for lurkers 11/6/97, Helenc

#656 Lurkers ... or Browsers 11/6/97, Johnn

#664 the now nameless ones 12/6/97, Helenc

#667 Names ... 12/6/97, Johnn

#682 Voyagers 16/6/97, David

#688 Travellers? 16/6/97, Jenniferg

...7 message(s) below

#780 Those who choose to look only 27/6/97, Janicer

#833 Observer 2/7/97, David

#838 Observers become contributors? David's #833 2/7/97, Brianj

#840 Personal interactions 2/7/97, Johnn

#842 Crowded BBSs 3/7/97, David

...1 message(s) below

#857 what are we on about here 4/7/97, Helenc

#861 Replying properly 4/7/97, David

#874 also 7/7/97, Helenc

#687 The Ultimate Tricky Question 16/6/97, Helenc

#690 Activities 17/6/97, Rossv

#706 Agreeing with Ross 18/6/97, David

#721 More emphasis on the Block Forums 20/6/97, Anneh

#731 Remodelling the Block Forum 23/6/97, David

#696 DE'er Helen - Questioning values? 17/6/97, Johnn

#715 True critical reflection? 19/6/97, David

#745 a stroll in the park? 24/6/97, Helenc

#754 A stroll in the park 24/6/97, Anneh

#758 being agreeable 25/6/97, Helenc

#913 Computer Mediated Communication 22/7/97, Johnn

#917 Chaos again! 22/7/97, David

#922 Computers! What are they good for? 23/7/97, Anneh

#932 whether to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, 25/7/97, Simonr

#933 Article 25/7/97, Anneh

#936 time..again 27/7/97, Helenc

#961 Hi.... I'm back (just) 6/8/97, Johnn

#949 The Computer 30/7/97, Tonyd

#951 similarities ... also differences ... 31/7/97, Simonr

#952 Interesting Simon 31/7/97, Brianj

#953 terminal problems ... 31/7/97, Simonr

#973 Knees nokiaing 19/8/97, David

#975 David in the loo needing a Nokia in lieu 19/8/97, Brianj

#983 Uploading 22/8/97, David

#977 dependable or dependancy? 20/8/97, Johnn

#956 Luverly lies 5/8/97, Helenc

#1147 Compulsion 16/10/97, Brianj

#1153 Now that it's over .... 21/10/97, Johnn

#1155 Post Exam 21/10/97, Jenniferg

#1156 Post exam party 22/10/97, Williamm

#1164 virtual drinks 22/10/97, Janel

#1171 Coming 23/10/97, Brianj

eXTReMe Tracker