Learner-centred education as a tool for enhancing adult learning in distance learning universities

Introduction

We are living in a world that is constantly changing, with complexity and uncertainty as its main characteristics. This has great potential, which means knowing can be shaped; it is flexible, resilient and responsive (Cormier, 2012). Taking up from there, what kind of educated learners do we need in a modern world? Rogers (1983, p. 104) nicely positioned that ‘the only man who is educated is the man who has learned how to learn; who has learned how to adapt and change; who has realized that no knowledge is secure and that only the process of seeking gives a basis for security’. Blaschke (2012, 2014) and others confirm that in the 21st-century, learners should have ‘a wide range of cognitive and metacognitive skills, such as creativity, self-directedness, innovativeness, and knowledge of how they learn’ (Blaschke, 2014, p. 1). Therefore, a reliance on process rather than upon static knowledge (Rogers, 1983, p. 104) is projected, and, as a consequence, a shift in our teaching and learning paradigm, especially in higher, adult and distance education (Blaschke, 2014; Hase & Kenyon, 2000).

‘New’ learner-centred education (LCE) approaches to teaching and learning are been proposed, such as: heutagogy (Blaschke, 2012; Canning & Callan, 2010; Hase & Kenyon, 2000; Heick, 2018) and rhizomatic learning (Cormier, 2012, n.d.; Harris, 2016; Mackness, Bell, & Funes, 2016), that might be seen as an extension of andragogy (Knowles, 1980), self-directed learning (Blaschke, 2012), problem-based learning (Freire, 1972) and transformative learning (Mezirow, 1997). The above theories place the human agency at the centre of the learning process rather than the teacher or the curriculum that needs to be flexible and able to shift as learning occurs (Blaschke & Hase, 2016, p. 27). Heutagogy, in particular, emphasizes the development of learner’s capability, self-reflection, metacognition, understanding of his/her own learning process, double-loop learning and nonlinear learning and teaching processes (Blaschke, 2012). The above theories, according to Schweisfurth (2013a, 2013b) and others (Anderson, 2010; Cochrane et al., 2012; Gerstein, 2013, Helmer, 2014, as cited in Blaschke & Hase, 2016), have gained some influence among practitioners and researchers in adult, distance and e-learning environments. Examples of using rhizomatic learning and heutagogy in distance learning include Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) (MacKness et al., 2016) and social media. Nonetheless, to what extent are LCE approaches to teaching and learning used in distance learning universities, where the institutions arrange in advance both external and internal programmes’ characteristics, in most cases without learners’ involvement, and in an even more controlled way than traditional universities (Keegan, 1996; Lionarakis, 2001; Peters, 1998; Yiayli, Yiaylis, & Koutsoumba, 2010)?

As stated in previous research (Gravani, 2015; Gravani 2018; Gravani & Karagiorgi, 2014; Christidou, Gravani & Hatzinikita, 2012), there is a conflict between adult learning principles and learner-centredness, the tenets upon which distance learning universities are intended to operate, and the highly prearranged curriculum implemented in practice. Characteristic examples of the above are: the Hellenic Open University (HOU) (Lionarakis, 2001; Yiayli et al., 2010) and the Open University of Cyprus (OUC) (Gravani, 2015) in which this research paper focuses. Both have their programmes designed and approved by the national quality assurance and accreditation agencies in higher education before their delivery.

Following this, Yiayli et al. (2010, p. 98), Gravani (2015) and others identify, for the Greek and Cypriot context, that a research study that explores the extent to which programmes in distance learning universities adopt practices that promote learner autonomy, self-determined learning and LCE, portrays these practices and learning processes, their frequency, the conditions under which they appear and the factors that hinder them, would be valuable. It could also be used as a basis for the implementation of LCE approaches in distance learning universities in the contexts under exploration and elsewhere. This is what the research presented aspires to do: to highlight the extent to which, and, the ways in which LCE approaches can enhance adult learning in distance learning universities, through the experiences and insights of adult learners and educators in two Greek-speaking distance universities: the OUC and the HOU. The research focuses on a neglected part of the educational terrain, the practice of adult learning and on how such practice relates to the context in which it is embedded. The ultimate purpose of this research, in an applied sense, is to inform the design, implementation and further development of distance learning programmes that support adult learning and empower adults through making them major agents in their learning.

Moreover, the research reported complements previous research (Gravani, 2015; Gravani & Karagiorgi, 2014) and seeks to answer to what extent and in what ways have LCE approaches been applied in adult learning in the distance learning universities under investigation, in which learning contexts, under what conditions and what restrictions or barriers they face. In doing so, this study respects adult learners’ and educators’ voice. Such ‘thick description’ from adult learners and from faculty too is rare. We seem to float somewhat above their direct experiences and thus miss much of the detail of what they are thinking, feeling and understanding.

In the following sections, the research framework and questions, the context and the methodological considerations of the study are analysed. Then the research findings and their interpretation is critically presented. In the last section of this paper, conclusions are discussed followed by the theoretical and practical implications of the research.

Research framework and questions

The key concepts guiding this study are a set of ideas that bind under the heading: LCE. It is an umbrella term that consists of the basis for a number of teaching and learning approaches that places the learner at the centre, such as: andragogy, self-directed learning, problem-based learning, self-determined learning, heutagogy and rhizomatic learning. Since it is beyond the purpose of this study to underline the differences among the above approaches, it adopts the term LCE as a working definition. This is seen as the approach ‘which gives learners and, and demands from them, a relatively high level of active control over the contents and processes of learning. What is learnt, and how, are therefore shaped by learners’ needs, capacities and interests’ (Schweisfurth, 2013b, p. 20). According to Schweisfurth (2013b), LCE approaches are located at one end of the educational practice continuum, with traditional and less-centred approaches at the other end. In this continuum, four elements are classified as comprising the LCE practice, namely: motivation, epistemology, techniques and relationships (Schweisfurth, 2013b). They are used in the present study as a heuristic to guide research questions, data collection and analysis, and are discussed below along with elements from the aforementioned LCE approaches.

A basic principle of LCE that links to learner’s central role in the educational practice is that the learner is self-motivated, autonomous and responsible for deciding what will be learned and how (Blaschke & Hase, 2016; Hase & Kenyon, 2013; Schweisfurth, 2013b). Learning is best achieved through internal motivation rather than external pressure (Gravani & Karagiorgi, 2014; Knowles, 1980), and, as adult learning theory designates, people tend to feel uncommitted to any decision or activity that they feel is imposed on them (Knowles, 1980). Heutagogy provides the framework for self-determined learning, which was developed as an extension of Knowles’ (1980) andragogical learning and Brookfield’s (1986) self-directed learning, with learning as an active and proactive process and learners serving as the major agent in their own learning (Hase & Kenyon, 2007, as cited in Blaschke, 2012).

As learning is self-determined, the path to learning is flexible and nonlinear; it is defined by the learner, from curriculum content to assessment, and not by the teacher (Blaschke & Hase, 2016). Schweisfurth (2013b, p. 12) calls the nature of knowledge epistemology and she sees this as a continuum. On one end of this continuum is the fixed knowledge and curriculum to be taught set by the organizers’ or educators’ of the programme; on the other end, knowledge is fluid and changes over time; thus the curriculum is flexible and rich with double-looped learning opportunities (Eberle & Childress, 2005). Blaschke and Hase (2016, p. 32) argue that curricula should be flexible and take into account learners’ questions and motivations and how thinking shifts, as a result of things they have learned.

Teachers, in order to be successful in designing learning activities in the classroom with learners, need to use suitable techniques, such as group work, independent inquiry, project- or problem-based learning and ‘scaffolding’ based on individual learners’ needs (Schweisfurth, 2013b). Dick (2013, p. 52, as cited in Blaschke & Hase, 2016, p. 31) identify three universal aspects: challenge, autonomy and support, meaning that teachers need to create a task that is challenging, achievable and worthwhile, while furnishing participants with as much autonomy as possible, and encouraging support based on strong and collaborative relationships.

Relationships between educators and learners in the course of a programme can vary, extending in a continuum from authoritarian to democratic (Schweisfurth, 2013b). They can affect the amount of control that learners do or do not have over the process of their learning. The learner and the educator should work in partnership as the learner negotiates what it is she or he will learn and how she or he will learn it (Blaschke & Hase, 2016). It is only then that communication, creativity and collaboration can thrive. The above resembles the andragogical notion of a climate of mutual respect, collaboration, mutual trust, supportiveness, openness, authenticity and pleasure that is conducive to adult learning (Gravani & John, 2005; Knowles, 1990).

From the above and in relation to the context under exploration, the main research questions developed are as follows:

To what extent are the distance learning units engaging to adult learners and are motivating them to learn?

Context of this study

The research reported took place in Cyprus and Greece, two countries which are characterized by a highly centralized education system amidst an era of economic crisis, and for Cyprus, an era of socio-cultural instability, due to the remaining unsolved Cypriot problem. ¹ Centralization is portrayed in every stage of education, from pre-primary to higher and adult education, and extends from matters of general policy to details of everyday classroom practices (Gravani & John, 2005). In both countries, education policy documents and existing policies on adult education or on education, in general, do not explicitly advocate LCE approaches, despite acknowledging that the adoption of pedagogical practices and models that would place the learner at the centre of the educational process would facilitate the education system in many ways. The above agrees with Schweisfurth (2013b) who claims that the countries with intense social, cultural, and economic instability are the most likely to face LCE implementation difficulties, despite the fact that LCE may be simultaneously viewed in these unstable contexts as a lifeboat.

From the above, it is palpable that the teaching and learning of adults in the two state distance learning universities in these contexts, the HOU ² and the OUC ³ is not independent of this broad educational context. As Yiayli et al. (2010) and Gravani (2015) identify for the HOU and OUC, respectively, the applauded autonomy of adult distance learners is limited by the learning system itself. Similarly, Lionarakis (2001) argues that the barriers to more learner-centred approaches to learning presented at the HOU relate to the teachers, students, and institutions and depict the socio-political trends and culture of our times. In both investigated contexts, there are inflexible laws and regulations underpinning the operation of the distance learning institutions. For instance, students cannot commence their studies at any time; there are strict deadlines for the submission of their assignments; set dates for the exams and face to face meetings, and so on.

This study focuses on these two universities and explores four thematic units delivered through blended learning by the School of Humanities and Social Sciences in each of the two institutions, respectively. Overall, eight thematic units (two postgraduate and two undergraduate) became the focus of this study. These were of the first units developed in each institution for the programmes in Hellenic Civilization (undergraduate) and Education Studies (postgraduate); had similar aims, structure and method of delivery, and were addressed to the same Greek-speaking audience.

Methodological considerations

In the above context, the extent to which and the ways in which LCE approaches have been applied in adult learning were investigated using the experiences and perceptions of the participants in the research. Such an examination indicates that the study is exploratory and focuses on how individuals understand and interpret a phenomenon. Therefore, it signals for a phenomenological approach, and, in particular, a hermeneutic phenomenological qualitative approach (Van Manen, 1984). The above also conforms to Schweisfurth (2013b) who argues that in many ways LCE method suggests an approach which is phenomenological rather than objectively framed. As at the core of phenomenology, which has different schools of thought, is a requirement for careful evocative description and detailed systematic analysis so that the essential themes of the phenomena can be made visible (Geertz, 1973); hermeneutic phenomenology, according to Creswell (2007), is not only the cautious description of the reality, but a hermeneutic, interpretative process. There are multiple ways of interpreting experiences available to each of us through interacting with others. It is the meaning of our experiences that constitutes reality (Greene, 1978), and reality, consequently, is ‘socially constructed’ (Berger & Luckmann, 1967). It is not fixed. It is constantly being defined by us and transformed as a result of the influences of the social life of which we are part (Bryman, 1988).

In this research, a case study approach with an interpretative framework was adopted. Here the focus is usually upon a small cohort investigated in an intensive manner. With regards to the choice of the participants for this study, an opportunistic sample was taken. Particularly, eight adult learners in each of the two universities examined – totalling 16 adult learners – and eight adult educators (tutors) were chosen – four in each of the two universities. For the purposes of clarity, learners and educators in the study are referred as L1, L2 …  and E1, E2, etc. In-depth semi-structured interviews were used for data collection. According to Punch (1998, p. 174–175), ‘a very good way of accessing people’s perceptions, meanings, definitions of situations and constructions of reality, is through the use of interviews’. In this study, participants were asked about the educational techniques used and the role of dialogue in teaching, relationships between learners and educators, learners’ motivation and learners’ role in deciding about the content of the units. Interviews were carried out over a two-month period, May to June 2011. It is worth mentioning that, even if data were collected some years ago, it is still valid to the contemporary context since there have been no major changes to both contexts over the last eight years. This is known to the researcher who has been familiar with both contexts, as she has conducted research and lectured in these. This gave her ease of access, the ability to overcome any problems relating to the establishment of a meaningful understanding and the attainment of confidence.

As with any research study, the present one was bound to encounter a number of ethical issues: the harm and benefits it may bring to its participants; whether informed consent has been gained regarding all steps of the research process; and guarantees of privacy and confidentiality (Kelman, 1982; Mason, 1996; Miles & Huberman, 1994). In conducting the study, the researcher knew most of those teaching and designing the modules in both institutions investigated. Given that these are antagonistic to each other and that the ultimate purpose of the research is for both parties to get useful feedback, the researcher had to be diplomatic during the data collection process and the findings presentation. Therefore, it is beyond the purpose of the study to compare or contrast the perspectives of the participants, learners and educators and the two distance learning universities. In this way, there is no danger of harm to the participants, and it can be estimated that both distance learning universities would derive some benefit from the research in designing distance learning programmes that promote adult learning. Additionally, informed consent was ensured in this study, as participants were informed well in advance about the aims of the research, the purpose and format of the interviews, topics discussed, interviews tape-recording, time and place and of the right to withdraw co-operation at any time. Finally, issues regarding disclosure, sensitivity and trust were firmly secured. Participants were promised privacy, confidentiality and anonymity. They were guaranteed that interview transcripts would be used by the researcher and not disclosed to others, and that any presentation of the findings would be anonymous. Moreover, all transcripts were handed back after the interview, allowing respondents to change aspects of the text which they felt misrepresented them in any way. This furnished appropriate conditions for respondent validation.

The analysis of the data was completed in the spirit of hermeneutics; understanding in a hermeneutics sense is a sort of open dialectic, as the whole research process can be regarded as a dynamic interplay between the researcher and the researched. Moreover, the application of hermeneutics reveals that interpretation is grounded in something we have and see in advance. The analysis went through the process of selecting, focusing, simplifying and transforming data that appeared in written-up transcription notes (data reduction); organization and gathering of information that permitted conclusion drawing and action (data display); and thematic interpretation (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In particular, the following stages relate closely to the logic used in the analysis: participants’ responses were indexed under the questions asked during the interviews; then indexed data were examined and themes, which appeared to be related to the four organizing concepts used as a heuristic, namely: motivation, epistemology, techniques and relationships were identified. Repeated patterns along with the most illustrative quotes were sited under the four concepts, according to the commonalities that they share. In what follows, research data are critically discussed under the four aforementioned axes.

Research findings and interpretation

LCE in adult learning in distance learning universities: How close are we?

This paper has introduced the debate about whether LCE approaches consist of a viable and promising strategy for enhancing adult learning in distance learning universities. It has explored the extent to which and the ways in which LCE approaches have been applied in the investigated contexts, under what conditions and what barriers they face by using as a guiding heuristic the following concepts: motivation, epistemology, techniques and relationships. In the light of the above, the practice of adult learning, in the context under exploration, has been explored and a number of issues have emerged.

The first relates to the motives that adult learners developed as a result of joining the universities’ distance learning courses. They ally to the first research question about the extent to which the courses are engaging to adults and motivating them to learn. The motives identified are: the knowledge-base of the discipline, recognized by 11 adult learners and six educators, and the discovery of new ways of learning and teaching, acknowledged by 13 adult learners and four educators in this study. The latter provides opportunities for learners to self-reflect on new knowledge gained and on the learning process (Blaschke & Hase, 2016); hence, the learner moves into a growth process defined by Canning and Callan (2010, p. 71) as ‘spirals of reflection’. Another motive is the flexibility of the distance learning method that came up from the interviews with 15 adult learners in the study, mainly women, since this allows them to combine professional and family obligations with work, and therefore improve their involvement in the learning process, something that is also emphasized by Hase and Kenyon (2007). Finally, the upgrading of their working status and improvement of their financial status is another important motive for the 12 adult learners and seven educators in the study. The adult learners who joined the two postgraduate courses were mainly secondary teachers, and a Master’s degree would help them to get promoted as well as grow their salary. The same applied for the five educators in the sample who considered the distance educator role as a source of extra revenue, while for the three educators, who were at the beginning of their career, this role was a good entering point to the academy.

The second theme emerged links to the nature of the curriculum implemented in the units and the role of the educator. This is associated to the extent to which the curriculum is relevant to learners’ experiences and perceived future needs. According to the comments made by almost all (15) the adult learners in the study, most of the aspects of the curriculum were prearranged and it was not meant to include any learner-centred dimension. This is, of course, expected in a centralised context where university programmes need to be designed and approved by the national agencies for quality assurance in higher education before their delivery. The above, obviously, infer the diffusion of knowledge from the educator to the learner. Nonetheless, according to the data, there was space for some negotiation and room for needs identification, in the case of the six educators who ‘open up’ small spaces for the implementation of LCE approaches to teaching and learning. In these cases, according to Blaschke (2017), learning takes a non-linear path, and it is a collaborative endeavour decided upon the student and the instructor. The latter supports the learning process and guides the student along a path of inquiry needed (Blaschke, 2017).

All of this is connected, of course, to the question about the educational techniques used in the programmes. Data have shown that dialogue, learner-directed questions and participatory techniques were used in the sessions and they were significantly valued by all the participants (16 adult learners and eight educators), when implemented, engaging educators and learners in a democratic relationship (Freire, 1972). Research into heutagogy has shown that the discussion that results from learner-directed questions can improve critical thinking, reflection and learners’ ability to question ideas; supports the development of independent ideas and self-confidence; promotes democracy of learning and social justice; and better prepares learners for the complexities of the workforce (Ashton & Elliot, 2008; Blaschke, 2014; Canning & Callan, 2010; Hase & Kenyon, 2014, as cited in Blaschke, 2017).

In this study, when the learning process did not take place through creative and meaningful dialogue between the two parts, this was due to the: lack of time and preparation on behalf of the learners, learners’ personal learning style (they wanted the authoritarian teacher), fear of exposure and of making mistakes and the lack of appropriate infrastructure. A paradox worth emphasizing is that although some of the adult learners in the study acknowledged the importance of dialogue and inquiry-based learning, they seemed to find the traditional forms of teaching, based on lecturing, more comfortable and convenient and possibly more consistent with their previous experiences as students. Similarly, as Schweisfurth (2013b, p. 118) identifies for classes with overseas students in the UK, the main barrier to the implementation of LCE in these classes is students’ adjustment to a learning environment that is more active and dialogic.

Also part of the discussion here is the atmosphere of the distance learning units and the extent to which they reflected mutual respect between adult learners and their educators. According to the experiences of 13 adult learners and six educators, there was good communication with exchange of ideas and mutual respect, and learners felt comfortable to speak. Educators were supportive and inspiring, even if two of them acknowledged the difficulty of trying to keep a balance in their relationship with learners between being supporters and evaluators simultaneously. Barriers to the development of more profound relationships were the: physical distance among the participants, learners’ personality and family and professional obligations.

Based on the above manifestations of LCE, one can conclude that it is implemented in the distance learning units explored, however, partially and unintentionally, due to a number of barriers and restrictions mentioned above. This agrees with Harden, Sowden, and Dunn’s (1984) view that LCE approaches are often implemented without being fully understood. Nonetheless, in concluding this paper, it would be unfair to judge the implementation of LCE approaches in the investigated contexts entirely in negative terms. Certainly, the analysis has revealed that LCE has not been practiced fully in the programmes explored, but it echoes simultaneously some positive messages about shifting the discussion to the good practices, and looking for positive stories of LCE implementation (Schweisfurth, 2013b), rather than focusing on the divergences between the LCE principles and the practices implemented.

The good practices and positive stories of LCE implementation, in the courses explored, have been facilitated through the atmosphere of mutual respect and cooperation between adult learners and educators; the use of dialogue in teaching and learning; the motives that adults developed and; adult learners’ engagement with the lessons (when this happened). Certainly, LCE practices could be further supported, if a more holistic learner-centred approach framework was adopted in the distance learning courses, such as heutagogy (Blaschke, 2012; Canning & Callan, 2010; Hase & Kenyon, 2000; Heick, 2018) or even rhizomatic learning (Cormier, 2012, n.d.; Harris, 2016; Mackness et al., 2016). The latter, though, is radical and applies often to MOOCs, as it implies little structure, to guide learning, and encourages participants to adopt an unrestricted and creative inquiry. However, for the above to happen, in the formal context of a distance learning university, there should be negotiation among the interested parties, policy makers, principals, educators and learners and changes in the macro, meso and micro level, so that a new modus operandi is adopted for the distance learning universities, in the contexts explored and elsewhere. This demands, as Schweisfurth (2013a, p. 5) nicely claims a policy and practice context that is flexible, open and coherent in itself, well-resourced on the human front, and in which there is a serious number of ‘players’ already familiar with the demands, joys and practices of LCE.