Towards Valuing Equally the Outcomes of Alternative Learning Systems

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

1. x~x      (x itself should be in relation)
2. 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

3. 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.

Education standard of Mongolia 2000, available in website: http://www.mecs.pmis.gov.mn

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.

Ogata & Yano 2003, quoted in website site: http://www-yano.is.tokushima-u.ac.jp/ogata/clue/

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