Towards
Valuing Equally the Outcomes of Alternative Learning Systems:
Does
an Equivalent Relation Among Alternative Learning Systems Exist?
Introduction
The meaning of alternative
learning has enriched by the contributions of its diverse forms emerged in
different contexts. Within school contexts, terms such as open learning, open
school, open education, continuation learning, equivalent program, magnetic
learning, e-learning and u-learning tend to be used in parallel with formal
learning whereas beyond school contexts, other ones, namely, distance learning,
life-long learning, non-formal learning are likely to be utilized along with informal
learning. At the same time, the most
alternative learning is challenged by an officially-recognition needs and demands.
As a consequence, the challenges turn to questions of how alternative learning and
its outcomes are valued equally and whether any equivalence relation exists among
alternative learning systems.
In response to the questions
raised above, it is argued that alternative learning systems in public
education should be equally valued as long as any equivalent relation exists
among them. By the same token, it is reasonably proposed that learners’
expectations can function as an equivalent relation among alternative learning
systems. Hence, all possible alternative learning systems might be equally
valued in terms of the quality of learner’s expectations regardless of what
learning systems he or she is engaged in. It is a thesis that will be detailed
in this paper.
In
seeking premises for the thesis exposed above, this paper will respond to the
following questions:
Why
is alternative learning demanded?
What characterises alternative learning?
Alternative learning system and its
diversity
The challenges of alternative learning
system to educational policy
Towards determining an equivalent
relation among alternative learning systems
Why
is alternative learning demanded?
The
demands of alternative learning might be determined by at least twofold
dissatisfactions in traditional school’s behaviour. One is that traditional
schooling disregards learners’ individuality whilst focusing on the uniformity
of public education whereas another one is that the schools are conservative to
adjust to changes and innovations caused by the prosperity of science and
technology.
As
far as the first demand is concerned, it can be argued that by prioritizing the
learners’ individualities such as special individual needs, different learning
styles and differences of opportunities and capabilities, this demand can be advocated
by fundamental ideas and principles such human right, the principle of equal
opportunity and the principle of equal distribution. Referring to Young (2002,
cited in Langel & Sletten) it is emphasized that civil right movement
should be identified as one of modern underpinnings of alternative learning.
Moreover, it can be added that:
‘Traditional schools were ‘cold’, dehumanizing,
irrelevant institutions, largely indifferent to the humanity and the
‘personhood’ of those within them (Raywid 1981, cited in Langel & Sletten).
Thus,
it can be sensed out that the demands to respect learners’ individualities
might lead to generate alternative learning, namely, distance learning, open
learning, non-formal learning, in-formal learning.
With
regards to the second dissatisfaction related to school conservative behaviour,
Carnoy (2000, cited in Mifsud) contented that the schools were often too
conservative to take on technological challenges while information and
technology have been part in daily life, work, leisure and family. What is more,
Rochelle, J.M et al., (200O cited in Mifsud) remarked that schools were
isolated units, and however, computer technology could provide students with
tools whereby breaking the school artificial isolations. In addition, the study
of secondary schools and upper secondary in Norway that was intended to reveal
students experiences in what goes on within classroom, indicated that school
classrooms were boredom and regarded as meaningless (Grepperud (ed) 2000, cited
in Mifsud). Hence, it might be
sensitized out that the traditional schools were slow to reflect scientific and
technological changes. In turn, it leads to bring up alternative learning such
as e-learning, u-learning.
To
sum up, it can be notable that alternative learning is emanated from the twofold
dissatisfactions in traditional school behaviour. One is that traditional
learning tends to dismiss learners’ individuality whilst emphasizing the
uniformity of public education whereas the second one is caused by schools’
conservative traits to reflect the progressive ideas of science and technology
into its practice.
What
characterises alternative learning?
A
term, alternative learning has been used within and beyond schools. Within school
context, it is bounded up with terms such as alternative school, alternative
programme (Langel & Sletten 2002), alternative education (Nagata 2004) and
alternative education program (Tobin & Spraque1999) whereas beyond school,
it is combined with other terms including distance learning (Christopher 1989),
open learning (Lewis, R 1986), e-learning (Waterhouse 2005),
e-education (Ghaoui 2004), online learning (Shank 2007) and u-learning (Ogata & Yano 2003),
non-formal and in-formal learning (Colardyn & Bjornavold 2004). Thus, the
feature of alternative learning might not simply differed from that of the rest
of the associated terms. In fact, it should be recognized in the context
wherein it is bound up with associated terms.
As
far as the usage of alternative learning within school is concerned, it can be
ascertained that it was traditionally characterised by that of alternative
school that were featured by parent,
student, teacher choice; autonomy in learning and pace; non-competitive
evaluation; and child-centered approach (Langel & Sletten 2002, p.4). In
fact, the existence of open schooling influenced tremendously the creation of
public alternatives at all level of education, involving the following: school
without walls, school within school, multicultural school, continuing school,
learning centres, fundamental schools and magnet schools.
Referring
to Young (1990, cited in Langel & Sletten), it was known that schools
without walls emphasized community-based
learning wherein individuals within the community were prioritized to teach
students while schools within a school aims to establish large high schools in smaller communities
whereby individual groups were empowered to meet educational needs and
interests of students. Besides, multicultural schools was set up to integrate
culture and ethnicity into the curriculum whereas continuation schools was
designated as an option for the learners who were failed in regular education
system because of incidents such as dropout, pregnancy and failing grades. What
is more, learning centres was designed to meet particular student needs by
special resources such vocational education while fundamental schools favoured
back to basic approaches. Moreover, the magnet schools were responded to the
needs for racial integration whereby curriculum with special themes to attract
the diverse students of students were offered.
Taking
into account the attributes of the diverse alternatives within school context, Langel
& Sletten (2002, p.6) presented that the characteristics of alternative
schools are generally described as follows: maintaining a small size;
emphasizing one-one interaction between teachers and students; creating a
supportive environment; allowing opportunities for student success relevant to
the students’ future; allowing flexibilities in structure and emphasis on
student- decision making. Thus, it is sensitized out that alternative learning
within school context are likely to be more characterised by taking into
account learners’ individuality such as individual differences, particular
needs, interests, learners’ freedom and rights in a broad sense.
With
regards to alternative learning beyond traditional schools, its characteristics
might be bound up with challenges to changes along with innovations. Referentially
speaking, it is contented that two lasting consistencies have characterised
alternative learning from the start:
‘One
is that they have been designed to respond to a group that appears not to be
optimally served by regular program. The second is that they have represented
varying degrees of departure from standard school organization, programs and
environments (Raywid 1994, cited in Langel & Sletten)
Moreover,
anytime, anywhere learning often labelled as ubiquitous learning (u-learning)
or mobile learning that might embrace various alternative learning, namely
distance learning, open-learning and e-learning, present some features that differentiate the alternatives
from traditional learning As a matter of fact, the nature of ubiquitous learning
might bear the attributes including the following:
‘Permanency:
Learners never lose their work unless it is purposefully deleted. In addition,
all the learning processes are recorded continuously everyday.
Accessibility:
Learners have access to their documents, data, or videos from anywhere. That
information is provided based on their requests. Therefore, the learning
involved is self-directed.
Immediacy:
Wherever learners are, they can get any information immediately. Thus, learners
can solve problems quickly. Otherwise, the learner can record the questions and
look for the answer later.
Interactivity:
Learners can interact with experts, teachers, or peers in the form of
synchronies or asynchronous communication. Hence, the experts are more
reachable and the knowledge becomes more available.
Situating instructional activities:
The learning could be embedded in our daily life. The problems encountered as
well as the knowledge required are all presented in their natural and authentic
forms. This helps learners notice the features of problem situations that make
particular actions relevant.
Adaptability:
Learners can get the right information at the right place with the right way (Ogata & Yano 2003)’
Taken
together ideas discussed above, it can be argued that since alternative
learning is bound up with terms such as alternative school, alternative
education, u-learning including e-learning, open-learning, distance learning,
its characteristics are likely to be determined as essential parts in attributes
of the aforementioned terms. Stated differently, alternative learning might be
characterised by attributes that are valuing flexibility, accessibility,
adaptability, permanency, immediacy, interactivity, situational, non-competitive evaluation; and child-centered
approach and students’ differences and their particular interests, learners’
autonomy. However, further thorough examination will be needed to identify the
features of alternative learning.
Alternative
learning system and its diversity
As
was discussed in the preceding paragraph, alternative learning bears multiple
characteristics that embody various forms. Reviewing literature, it can be seen
that there have been diverse terms bearing different attributes that in turn
contributes to enriching the meaning of alternative learning. In fact, the alternative
forms of learning will be enumerated as follows: formal learning, non-formal
learning, informal learning, distance learning, open learning, e-learning and
u-learning. Since learning takes place in a certain system, it can be argued
that each form of alternative learning will bring in different learning
systems, namely formal learning system, non-formal education system, informal
education system, open learning system, distance learning system, e-learning
system, and u-learning system.
The
differences between the formal, non-formal and in-formal learning are
identified in the following definitions:
‘Formal learning
consists of learning that occurs within an organized and structured context
(formal education, in-company training), and that is designed as learning. It
may lead to a formal recognition (diploma, certificate). Formal learning is
intentional from the learner’s perspectives.
Non-formal learning
consists of learning embedded in planned activities that are not explicitly
designated as learning, but which contain an important learning element.
Non-formal learning is intentional from the learner’s point of view.
Informal learning is
defined as learning resulting from daily life activities related to work,
family, or leisure. It is often referred to as experiential learning and can to
a certain degree be understood as accidental learning. It is not structured in
terms of learning objectives, learning time and/or learning support. Typically,
it does not lead to certification.
Informal learning may be intentional (Cedefop 2000, cited in Colardyn, D &
Bjornavold, p.71)’
As
was defined above, such three forms of learning are distinguished from each
other by their objectives, structures thus implementing them and the degree of
their formal recognitions. Nevertheless, since they refer to as learning, it is
ascertained that such three forms of learning will occur in certain condition
resembling a system that has a structure and functions regardless of to what
extent such conditions are institutionalized. Hence, it would be reasonably
generalised that there will be three learning systems, namely formal learning
systems, non-formal learning systems and informal learning systems each of
which is corresponded to formal, non-formal and informal learning.
Apart
from formal, non-formal and informal learning systems, there might be other
learning systems wherein the rest of alternative learning is embedded in society
and occurred in practice. Referring to Waterhouse (2005), it is ascertained
that:
‘E-learning involves improving teaching and
learning using instructional strategies enhanced by technology, especially
computer technology (p.3)’
As
the author argues, it is mainly characterised by the attributes such as to
facilitate student-centered learning, anytime-anywhere learning (u-learning)
and student interaction with course content; to promote communication and
collaboration; to make course administration easier; to help track students’
time on task; to reduce the cost of delivering instruction; add a world
dimension to course (pp.10-15). By such different attributes, it requires to
set a new learning environment equipped with advanced technologies. This
environment will in turn be regarded as another learning system that might be
labelled as an e-learning system.
Likewise, it can be argued that open learning, distance learning and u-learning
lead to set up other learning systems that might be respectively called as distance learning system, open learning system.
Thus, a question aroused from the diversity of alternative learning systems is
whether those systems are equally valued in terms of educational policy,
particularly in output documentation or certification.
To
sum up, it can be noteworthy that just as the forms of alternative learning are
diverse, so are learning systems established differently. The enumeration of
alternative learning system will cover formal learning system, non-formal
learning system, informal learning system, e-learning system, distance learning
system, open learning system, and u-learning system. In turn, those alternative systems challenge
educators and policy makers when they judge outputs resulted from such
alternative learning systems. In turn, it prompts us to ask a question of whether
alternative systems are equivalent to each other in terms of educational
policy, especially the quality of education. Such questions will be detailed in
the rest of this writing.
The
challenges of alternative learning system to educational policy
In
the future, learners will be tremendously advantaged by various alternative
learning systems that emphasize flexibility, accessibility, adaptability,
permanency, immediacy, interactivity, situational, non-competitive evaluation;
and child-centered approach and students’ differences and their particular
interests and learners’ autonomy. However, those will challenge educators and
policy makers when they are subjected to judge the quality of the outcomes and
the outputs resulting from such alternative learning systems. Accordingly, this
paper will attempt to reveal any commonality that exists among the alternative
learning systems.
According
to Cheng & Tam (1997), the quality of education comprises the characters of
the set of elements in the inputs, processes, and outputs of education system
that provides relevant users with complete satisfaction services. Similarly, it
is arguable that the quality of outcomes and outputs of alternative learning
systems will be dependent upon its inputs, processes and outputs. As for
alternative learning systems, their inputs (subjects, environment and
resources) and processes (delivery technologies) are quite different from each
other. For instance, u-learning systems are characterized by technologies that facilitate
learning at anytime and any where. On the contrary, formal learning is featured
by service that is available at the fixed place (campus) and fixed time
(scheduled timetable). However, the outputs and outcomes in alternative
learning system can not be expected to be different, indeed, they ought to be
common in terms of the policy of general education. It is because in terms of
educational policy that is underpinned by basic principles such as the
principle of equal access for opportunity, the principle of opportunity for
participation and the principle of cost effectiveness (Skovsmose 1994, p.28), every learner will be committed to reach the
same expectations regardless of what learning system he or she favours. State
differently, in an official sense, learners’ expectations might be regarded as
one of commonalities among the alternative learning systems. This commonality
would be, in turn, regarded as an important indicator to value alternative
learning systems equally.
In
brief, alternative learning systems are mainly differentiated from each other
through learning inputs and technology or delivery of learning. However, the
quality of the outputs of alternative learning might be not differently
expected in terms of educational policy. Therefore, learner’s expectation will
be regarded as the commonness or the sameness of the alternative learning
systems. As a commonality among the alternative learning systems, it is highly
likely to be considered as an indicator to value them equally.
Towards
determining an equivalent relation among alternative learning systems
In
the future, we will witness various alternative learning systems whereby
advantaging learners differently and tremendously. At the same time, we will be
challenged by the problem of valuing equally the outputs of the alternative
learning systems. For instance, we will be committed to provide all learners
with official certifications regardless of what learning systems she or she are
engaged in. What is more, it will be needed to confirm that learners who should
be engaged in different learning systems will be equally qualified and
recognized. Hence, raising a question of how to ensure alternative learning
systems are equivalent to value each other, is worthwhile in terms of
educational policy. In turn, this question enables us to examine the existence
of any equivalent relation among the alternative learning systems.
Referring
to mathematics textbooks, it is known that any relation (denoted as ~) in X set
that satisfies these three properties is called as an equivalent relation in X
- x~x (x itself should be in relation)
- if
x~y, then y~x (symmetry)
In other words, if element A is in
relation with B, then B will be in relation with A
- if
x~y and y~z, then x~z (transitive)
In other words, if A is in
relation with B and B is in relation with C, then A is in relation with C (James F. G 1962)
The significance of an equivalent relation if
it exists in a given set is that all elements are grouped into equivalent
classes and any elements belonging to the same class are regarded as equivalent
in terms of the equivalent relation. In this sense, a concept of an equivalent
relation is often used to determine any criterion or an indicator that can
function to categorize variables or constructs of interest into groups.
Keeping
this idea in mind, let us try to determine some relations in all alternative
learning systems so that it can satisfy the properties of an equivalent
relation. As was discussed in the preceding
portion of this paper, the commonality among all alternative learning systems
is regarded as learner’s expectations in terms of educational policy. It means
that all alternative learning systems should be bound up with each other
through learner’s expectations. In practice, the learner’s expectations are
often stated and measured by standards. For instance, as for Mongolia, learners’
expectations for educational stages ranged from kindergarten to primary to
upper secondary school are stated in 100 standards of education (Education
standard of Mongolia 2000). Thus, alternative learning systems ought to take
into account the requirement standards of education so that learners engaged in
them can reach the standardized expectations. Hence, it is sensitized out that there exists
a relation named as ‘to satisfy standardized expectations of learners’ among
all possible alternative learning systems. Stated differently, all alternative
learning systems are likely to be bound up with the relation of standardized
expectations of learners. Now, let us
examine whether this relation satisfy the properties of an equivalent relation.
Any
alternative learning system itself is in the relation because it is established
whereby reaching learners the standardized expectations. As far as the second condition is concerned, it is
interpreted that if any two alternative learning systems each of which can
functions so that learners can reach standardized expectations are equally
valued in terms of educational policy. With regards to the third condition, it
was hermeneutically understood that any three alternative systems each of which
is in this relation, are equally valued in terms of meeting education
standards. Hence, it is hermeneutically proposed that a relation sounded as ‘to
satisfy standardized expectations of learners’ can function as an equivalent
relation among alternative learning systems.
In
brief, all alternative learning systems should be equally valued as long as
they can function so that learners engaging in such systems can reach the
standardized expectations. Using this criterion as an indicator when judging
them equally, policy makers will overcome many challenging issues triggered by
the needs of alternative learning and its diversity, namely, issues related
to certification, documentation and alternative
measurement emanated from the nature of alternative learning and its
challenging need to recognize officially and allocate state budget in terms of
equal valuing them. In other words,
policy makers will be benefitted from the equivalent relation determined among
a set of all alternative learning systems. However, its justification is needed
to examine thoroughly in further research.
Conclusion
Alternative
learning often comes to light because of the new demands in response to the
twofold dissatisfaction in traditional school behaviours. One is that
traditional learning disregard learners’ individuality whilst emphasizing the
uniformity of public education whereas other one is that schools behave too conservatively
when reflecting the progressive ideas of science and technology into its
practice.
Alternative
learning is generally characterised by emphasizing flexibility, accessibility,
adaptability, permanency, immediacy, interactivity, contextual and situational
instruction, non-competitive
evaluation; and child-centered approach and students’ differences and learners’
particular interests, learners’ autonomy. Nevertheless, alternative learning
emerges in many different forms such as formal learning, non-formal learning,
informal learning, distance learning, open learning, e-learning and u-learning.
Those diverse forms of alternative learning lead various alternative learning
systems enumerated as formal learning system, non-formal learning system,
informal learning system, e-learning system, distance learning system, open
learning system, and u-learning system.
Alternative
learning systems are mainly differentiated from each other through learning
inputs and technology or delivery of learning. However, the quality of the
outputs of alternative learning might be not differently expected in terms of
educational policy. Therefore, learner’s expectation will be regarded as the
commonness or the sameness of the alternative learning systems.
All
possible alternative learning systems should be equally valued as long as they
can function so that learners engaging in such systems can reach the
standardized expectations. Using this criterion as an indicator to judge
alternative learning systems and its outputs’ quality, policy makers will be
benefitted from it when solving many challenging issues emanated from the
nature of alternative learning and its diversity, namely, the issues related to
certification, documentation and alternative measurement emanated from the
nature of alternative learning as well as its challenges to recognize
officially and allocate state budget in terms of equal valuing them. However, the equivalency of the alternative
learning systems through the equivalent relation sounded as ‘learners
expectation’ and its justification are needed to examine thoroughly in further
research.
References
Cheng,
Y.C. & Tam, W.M 1997, ‘Multi-models of quality in education’, Quality Assurance in Education, vol.5,
no.1, pp.22-31.
Colardyn, D & Bjornavold, J 2004, ‘Validation of
formal, non-formal and informal learning: policy and practices in EU member
states’, European Journal of Education,
vol.39, no.1, 2004.
Christopher, D 1989, The evolution of
distance learning: Technology-Mediated Interactive Learning, The University of Houston, Texas, USA.
James F. G 1962, Sets, relations, and functions, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New
York
Langel, C,M & Sletten, S, J 2002, Alternative Education: A brief History and
research synthesis, prepared for Project Forum, National Association of
State Directors of Special Education, USA.
Lewis, R 1986, ‘What is open learning’, The Journal of Open and
Distance Learning,
vol. 1, no.2, 1986, pp. 5 – 10.
Mifsud, L 2002, ‘Alternative learning
arenas-pedagogical challenges to mobile learning technology in education’, Proceedings of the IEEE international
workshop on Wireless and Mobile Technologies in Education, IEEE.
Nagata, Y 2002, ‘Alternative Education: An international perspectives’, Flinders University Institute of
International Education Research Collection, no.15, Australia
Shank, P (ed.) 2007,The online learning, John Wiley&Sons, Inc, USA.
Skovsmose,
O 1994, Towards philosophy of critical
mathematics education, Klumer Academic Publisher, p.28.
Tobin, T & Spraque, J1999, ‘Alternative
education programs for at-risk youth:Issues, Best practices, and
Recommendations’, OSSCB bulletin,
vol.42, no.42, 1999, Oregon school study council.
Waterhouse,S 2005, The power of elearning, Pearson Education,Inc, USA
