Over 60,000 km2

Approx. 55,000 residents

The Federation of Lapland's Municipalities (LKF) Kiruna, Gällivare, Jokkmokk, Pajala

If we were an independent country...

•But we would have twice the geographical area of Belgium!

•We would be as large as 60% of Iceland

Iceland's population density: approx. 3 residents per km2.

(In the ice-free region, approx. 3.4 residents per km2.)LKF's population density: approximately 0.9 residents per km2.

Belgium's population density: approx. 340 residents per km2.

1. Our region – our circumstances

2. Our mission

3. Our experience of distance education and mixed forms of teaching

Distance education as a tool for creating

growth in northernmost Sweden

Our industries :

1. Our region – our circumstances

2. Our mission

3. Our experience of distance education and mixed forms of teaching

Distance education as a tool for creating

growth in northernmost Sweden

Mission Cooperation

Mission Needs-driven Educational Programmes

- Distance-bridging solutions

- Cooperation with employers

- Adaptation to meet changing needs

Labour shortage Lack of people

Unemployment Labour shortage

1990s

Today

The challenges:

1989-90 LKF established

1990- First higher education courses held

1999- Kraftfält Norr – cooperation within new areas

2004- Cooperation for upper-secondary schools and adult education…

2010- The present…

Independent administration under the Upper-secondary School Committee from 1 January 2010

Lapplands lärcentra – direct administration under the governing council – from 1 July 2010

One municipal federation with two administrations:

Ongoing efforts to determine needs:

Needs of the private sector

Public sector needs

Demand from individuals

Common denominators in two or more LKF municipalities

= large enough groups

= feasible!

•Cooperation with employers – from start to goal

•Cooperation with the two northernmost universities – a 21-year partnership

•Cooperation – with one another

1. Our region – our circumstances

2. Our mission

3. Our experience of distance education and mixed forms of teaching

Distance education as a tool for creating

growth in northernmost Sweden

From the Lapland Model to web-based programmes:

Students travel to meetings

Teachers travel to meetings

Video conferencing

Learning platforms FirstClass

Video conferencing

M-star/MarratechLearning platformsFirstClassVideo conferencing

Fewer meetings...

Fewer physical meetings…

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

?

LKF lobbied for fewer meetings/trips and greater use of technology.

Accessibility was prioritised

LKF lobbied for a balance between meetings (preferably held at learning/study centres) and the use of distance-bridging technology.

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

LKF increasingly needs to emphasise the importance of "live", physical meetings, subject guidance, group studies.

Quality a priority?

What determines an appropriate "mix"?

The target group Knowledge objectives, "nature of the subject"

External circumstances

What determines an appropriate "mix"?

The target group:

-Study skills-Work discipline-Work experience-Personal maturity-Physical impairments-Learning difficulties-Language, reading ability-Computer skills

-Etc., etc...

We have a number of tried-and-tested ingredients in our "pantry"...

Physical gatherings, group discussions, local instruction

Video conferencing using one-way or two-way communication

Adobe for small groups and for guidance

Our learning platforms

Contact with employers Workplace-based training, (LiA, VFU) Traineeships, Project work

LKF's evaluation of programmes at Study Centre '98-'99

•Students on de-centralised programmes from Luleå University of Technology.

•Students at what was then the Nursing College in Boden

•"Distance groups" within the Adult Education Initiative (1997-2002)

•Teachers instructing within the related programmes

• A total of approx. 80 students and approx. 15 teachers asked to provide feedback

Common to all of the programmes chosen were their three main components:

- Video conferencing - Written communication - Physical Meetings

(FirstClass)

The purpose of the evaluation was to investigate utilisation of the new technology.

The questions focused on sound and visual quality, drop-outs and interruptions...

Did they receive sufficient technical support?

Did the students feel that teachers had sufficient knowledge of how the technology could be used and vice versa?..?

The technical questions were weighed against the subject

Communication, group-size, teaching methods

The working hypothesis was that the quality-related problems experienced during the programmes were caused either by the technology itself, or by a lack of knowledge about how it should be used.

A clear majority of all of the problems experienced were not related to the technology itself.

Common problems experienced were

- A lack of information about the programme as a whole and the timetable, not least of all prior to the start date- A lack of structure in the courses (and, in some cases, unprepared teachers)- Too little communication between transmissions and physical meetings

What results would the same evaluation yield today?

Thoughts and Conclusions:

•The majority of what we do today falls under the category of "mixed forms of teaching".

•The particular "mix" varies and "the recipe" has proven to be decisive in students' success and goal-achievement.

•Functioning technology and technical support is incredibly important.

•Even more important than the technology itself is the context in which we use it.

Most important of all are "old" pedagogical truths:

•Clear information to students prior to and during the programme

•Structure

•Varied work methods

•Opportunities for dialogue/group dynamics/activity/laboratory work

•Teachers should be thoroughly familiar with the subjects they teach

•Allow students to shape their education

•Early, "live" meeting if the programme includes distance work

•Connection to working life

Additional thoughts and conclusions:

•When utilising new technology, it is important that our focus does not centre entirely on that – there are no universal solutions!

•The biggest changes in ICT-use between 1998 and 2011

did not occur in the education sector, but within people's working lives and leisure time.

•Today, we are preparing our students for a completely different reality than we were 15 years ago...