E-mail comments to the Editor

Download the complete PDF of this issue

Editor’s Note: This is one of Dr. Guy Bensusan’s milestone articles that details the theory behind the successful “Bensusan Method” used in distance learning at Northern Arizona University.

A Design For Learning: The Escalator

Guy Bensusan

PART ONE:    INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

An escalator is a moving set of stairs.  Metaphorically, I picked this name for the twelve-step assignment stairway I use in my courses because ESCALATOR implies two things; one can be carried up by the mechanism or also exert an effort to climb.  In considering the analogy of being carried upward, each learning activity, experience and subsequent written report is based on what was done before while anticipating what is coming next.

This connection is consciously cultivated through all twelve steps; the very act of DOING each assignment lifts the learner level by level into higher planes of understanding.  If the learner chooses actively to climb, he or she can ascend to the top faster, with better connective understanding and greater personal satisfaction.

This year, 1997, the Escalator has clearly been a most central and meaningful portion of my teaching-to-learning strategy, which I call A DESIGN FOR LEARNING.  As a conscious system, it began in 1993, when the American Association on Higher Education gave us seven principles central to any transformation from a focus upon teaching and content to a design that emphasizes Learning:

1. Focus on individual-learning while providing constant feedback on progress
2. Offer study materials that appeal, stimulate, motivate and are relevant
3. Appeal to the technology consumer as well as non-technical learners
4. Provide rigor in successful progress from simple to hard concepts
5. Allow students enough time to progress, while continuing to move along
6. Emphasize problem-solving while providing solid learning preparation
7. Use a grading system which allows students to persevere without penalty

These coincided with my experimentation and learning in courses taught over NAU's young Interactive Instructional Television system that began in 1989.  But while these seven AAHE points helped my personal transformation from content-centered teaching into learning-centered teaching via multi-classroom television, they emphasized much more about WHAT should be done rather than HOW a teacher might develop plans and activities to implement the ideas.

Inspecting Learning Literature showed me a similar focus, while colleagues said what they needed was specific advice on techniques.  I began to concentrate on what learners needed to do to be able to advance on their own, while I remained more as a coach than an encyclopedia.  The process continues to develop, and is clearly not completed yet; it evolves with each new group of learners, with the arrival of new technologies, and from the many important lessons that learners show me.

The heart of this method is a blend of structures, procedures, activities and policies which forge a novice group of learners into a community which shares in a holistic, developmental process of learning.  Engaging in this means that a teacher needs to be willing to alter some key educational axioms, oppose traditions and the pedagogical creeds of some colleagues and administrators, exercise positive encouragement and patience with learners, and even resist some traditional institutional patterns, policies and paperwork.

A parallel situation exists with learners, since self-direction and making choices is contrary to their long years of conditioning.  Many are "dependent," unaware that their own learning is possible.  The ESCALATOR is also unfamiliar and an anxiety-producing process, especially if the learners already feel successful with lectures, tests, 4.0 averages, and are thus apprehensive about this new, different, and to them, untried process.

Many struggle when they must unlearn old habits and build new ones.  At first they agonize and worry, complaining as they go, but also working at it and helping each other along.  After three or four weeks, they suddenly gain those illuminating "AHA's," which come ever more frequently in the subsequent successes of achievement.

I think eight considerations are necessary in helping a teacher make the shift from traditional teacher-centered and content-centered teaching over to teaching that is centered on learning and learners.  These are not a linear structure of components but rather a collection of inter-connected patterns and policies:

1. A connected triad of learning-tool models
2. Multiple resources for seeking-securing information
3. Structured stairway of sequenced assignments
4. Constant collaborative writing, feedback and revision
5. Extended time for individual learning development
6. Time to soak, argue, simmer, assist and cooperate
7. Focus on individual growth, exit grading, and no curve
8. Teacher as a non-hovering coach, guide and co-inquirer

Clearly, each of these is different.  The first involves a triangle of learning models providing tools to take the learner beyond factual information and reaction into a variety of exploratory perspectives on whatever topic is under examination.  (These models are all in the textbook as well as on my home page:  http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/~hgb/drguy.html)

One model (Hexadigm) deals with six separate and interrelating considerations about how cultures change and grow over time.

Another model (Ladder) explores different rungs or levels of inquiry and comprehension intrinsic to the topic, including how it is structured, what its parts are, how it has meaning, who informs us about it, and how that may be evaluated.  Yet another model (Bias) reveals physical, mental, social, economic, academic, religious and conceptual filters which authors, informants, and we ourselves bring to the examination and assessment table.

The second consideration deals with course information.  By convention, this comes from a standard textbook, library resources, and classtime delivery of the professor's lectures, with students taking notes to study for a later test.  With the advent of photocopy-shops, web-sites for museums, experts and other resources, plus topic-oriented internet lists, e-mail to scholars, professors' home-pages, and the like, learners may now access information from many resources.

This learning network which links them, allows them to learn from and give help to each other.  The potential resource base (plus the responsibility for learning to evaluate the data) is vastly expanded, while their very existence opens the use of class time so that a professor may lead conversations inquiring into areas of meaning, interpretations, controversies and arguments for and against various positions.

The third consideration is the ESCALATOR:  a set of twelve questions learners must engage in sequence, respond to and discuss with other course members.  All learners are told to begin with what they already know or believe:  studying a cultural-change model, describing it and how its parts interact, applying it in an imagined description of a course topic they have each chosen, comparing notes, and refining the statements.  (These will be described in greater detail in PART THREE.)

The learners venture into phases of inquiry that rise in level of complexity each week, leading them to evaluate their sources of information, frame the topic in cultural context, compare types and reliability of information providers, examine external and intrinsic elements of bias visible in the authors and their writings, seek out the authors' mindsets and apparent purposes, and look into schools-of-thought that seem implicit in the authors' assumptions.  The final stage asks for a description and definition of how they now perceive their topic, and for a reflection on what was gained or not gained in the overall learning process.

The fourth feature is cooperation and collaboration.  Learners are peers; lateral sharing of information, asking questions and helping each other is a productive and palatable exchange.  Course information is available in several places as well as the text prepared by the teacher. Each relates the information to his or her selected topic, while also working with ideas and patterns from the course models.

As the learners post their writings into the computer conference, reading what each other has written, they begin to see what they may not have understood, overlooked or not processed well.  Improvement comes through recognizing that there are always more parts and perspectives which can be added. Learning in this way reinforces, sustains and endures.  There is no shame or discouragement; the emphasis is on growth, cultivating knowledge and building understanding.

As the learners read each others' work, a community is born, reflected in the television classroom interaction.  Hesitant at first, they gain confidence and begin to offer ideas with ease.  Cooperation becomes a helpful habit as they see how their respective topics are linked and arise from the same cultural base, sequences and conditions; it becomes natural for learners to contribute ideas, evidence and bibliographic citations. The more they help each other out-of-class on the computers, the more they seem willing to discuss with each other in-class.

The remaining four elements are more procedural than structural, though each is pertinent to the working-ease of the whole mechanism.  Allowing weeks for development is vital, because individual topic inquiry requires time and repetition.  Time to soak, argue, simmer and cooperate is important, because emphasis then goes beyond facts into higher levels of structures, ideas, context and meanings, all of which need to be defined, debated, consolidated and polished.

Going back to revisit what was previously thought and believed strengthens and expands the vision when revisitation is done from the higher rungs on the ladder.  Since learners pursue similar activities in developing their respective topics, a holistic synergy appears as they become aware of how their topics interweave, have similarity, and reflect comparable historico-cultural foundations.

Individual growth, exit grading and "no grade curve" are equally indispensable.  When we consider that the playing field is never level, the players always unequal, their acquisition rates and skills unalike, the procedures unfamiliar and demanding, and the goal one of fostering success in individual and group learning, it becomes obvious that GROWTH and DEVELOPMENT are paramount.  I encourage all learners to go beyond their previous positions toward additional, meaningful levels of understanding.

Success in small steps leads to success in bigger steps; many learners must overcome hindrances accumulated from previous failures and deficiencies.  Some do not know there are levels beyond facts, or that they are capable of learning.  By seeing and collaborating with peers who succeed, their own zeal for achievement is stimulated to the point of being willing to work hard for it.  Having all semester to improve earlier work promotes this, in part by minimizing anxiety and doubt produced by frequent tests over part of the content, graded by competitive scoring.

The "no-curve-for-grades-principle" is preeminent.  Since sharing, cooperation and collaboration are important, learners and their learning need cultivation.  Competitive classroom conditions do not reward cooperation, which is clearly an essential element of the future of work and home.  In the win-lose limitation schemes of curves and percentages, it is self-defeating to share ideas and information with someone who might thereby attain a higher score and diminish the grade of the helper!

With an emphasis upon individual development, everyone has a chance for the top grades; the reward opens up new options to so many who have previously been on the outside, excluded from the rewards of learning. Moreover, ever increasing- numbers of older learners, from thirty to eighty, open up even more the values of sharing experiences and perspectives.

When the professor does their thinking for them, students seem to memorize much, practice little and rarely engage in training new skills for future use.  It is far better to ask the kinds of questions which lead learners through linear loops and into lateral leaps and then around again to help them practice what they must do to enter a world of critical-creative thinking and problem-solving.

It is most worthwhile to their achievement when the professor works as co-learner and inquirer, is available to encourage and commiserate, smile and support, make suggestions, and most importantly, stay near, though out-of-the-way until asked.  Even then it is better to suggest alternative courses of action or thought from which the learners may examine and make choices, rather than to answer their questions in detail every time.

To offer an analogy from long-ago days as swimmer and swim coach, it would not have helped the swimmers for them to stand on the deck and watch me demonstrate the various strokes in the water.  MY swimming teaches ME and not them, just as MY lecturing powerfully reinforces the knowledge and connections in ME.  Nor would it have helped much had I stood on the deck with them to watch a lone swimmer perform while I narrated, though it might have been slightly more useful, since they would be focusing their attention on a lesson.

Each swimmer has to understand the task, but also must engage in the actual doing; they have to get into the water, get wet, immerse their faces and venture.  They must try, make mistakes, feel what they cannot see, and step-by-step, overcome their errors, fine-tune their body positions and strokes, and improve their mental and physical performance.  The analytical coaching emphasis helps them become aware of self, and consider what the self is doing in comparison to what needs to be done.

PART TWO:   THE ESCALATOR

During the school year of 1995-1996, many ideas from my experiences in both the traditional and the interactive television classroom came together into an integrated learning system under the title of "The Twelve Pillars of Learning."  Four aspects:  teacher as coach and co-learner, content acquisition through projects, stages and cooperation, growth through sequences of steps, and classroom discussion are central.

1. Course content is transferred outside of and before class
2. Questions denote and explore relationships to help guide learning
3. Visual models serve as tools to awaken ideas and connections
4. Class sessions unite content, questions and models in learning experiences
5. Weekly engagement is with individualized exercises and writing assignments
6. Each writing builds on the previous and ascends to the next level
7. Feedback comes weekly in class and from collaboration among class members
8. Semester portfolios build from writings, feedback and revisions
9. Development is from frequent revisiting, rethinking and stretching
10. Grading is on effort, persistence, frequency, evolution, enlightenment
11. Exit evaluation:  take the entire semester to improve without competition
12. Goals:  build many levels of knowledge, awareness, options & alternatives

In the spring of 1997, I expanded on point number six and developed the next structural tool.  I called this The Escalator, implying one could ride up the mechanism, plus climb voluntarily by one's own effort.  Originally a six-step writing and growth program, it was intended to serve as a central learning activity in all my Humanities courses.  As the original approach drew many questions, I divided each step, creating the current twelve-writings version which was published on three Internet distance learning lists this year, and is accepted by the United States Distance Learning Association for appearance this fall.

The Escalator (as used in my regional arts and culture courses) has the following twelve parts calculated to evoke growth in learning:

1.   IMAGINE

1. Cultural Model:  Describe and explain how this cultural model works
2. Imagined application:  Tell your chosen topic's story through the model

2.   VERIFY

1. Consult:  Compare yours with what others did: ideas, sub-parts, etc.
2. Verify:  Find data in many places (but NOT TOO MUCH or many!)

3.   FRAME

1. Ladder:  Explain this model and the several levels in general
2. Frame:  Apply those concepts specifically to your topic

4.   PROBE

1. Probe:  Examine Bias Model; compare/contrast your information sources
2. Refine:  Discuss authors' styles, words, tactics, slants, biases

5.   RECAST

1. Schools:  Show how some different schools might interpret your topic
2. Recast:  Invent a simulation dialogue applying some of these views

6.   RESOLVE

1. Resolve:  Describe how you see your topic at this point
2. Reflect:  Evaluate your growth, best successes, challenges remaining

These constitute one writing assignment per week:  meaning that all writing is completed by week thirteen.  This leaves two weeks for polishing and revising by the learners, while giving me time to read and evaluate growth at many levels:  content, timeliness, expression, critical thinking, lateral comparisons, ability to handle vocabulary and concepts, and similar features.

Completing the assignments diminishes end-of-semester pressures, and provides each learner with exercises, in depth, on each topic (we share the ideas in class and read the essays), accompanied by greater breadth gained from becoming familiar with so many varied subjects.

PART THREE:   CAUCUS

It is also clear that the Escalator is one-among-many devices which combine to help create the ever-more rapid spiral of learning which I see taking place in my courses.  The most recent and, I think, most-exceptionally valuable constituent is called CAUCUS, a virtual-conferencing program made available this semester by the Virtual Conference Center Director, Mauri Collins.  Her help in training me to use this new tool effectively has made the Escalator even more valuable than in previous semesters, due to the increase in collaborative interaction.

Escalator essays used to be turned in to class folders each week, to be read by learners of that location, and occasionally by others if FAXed. Now on CAUCUS every student has direct and instant access to everyone's essays, can comment at will, which may then be read by all participants. Doing this is much easier and faster than the old way, since writings from all over the state can be accessed from any web-browser and from all campus computer centers, even if a bit of cyber-anxiety is in the picture at the beginning.

The consequences of this broadened mix of techniques, ingredients and technologies have appeared immediately.  Based on my long-range observations (eight courses over two semesters and two summer sessions), I have observed an unusually accelerated and rapid progression of learners' capabilities and thinking due to weekly use of this new technology and its conjunction with the Escalator and our interactive television classroom discussions.  Supporting this awareness are not only the new students in my classes, but also the ones who have taken courses with me before, under the "old-system," and who can make comparisons from first-hand experience.

It is natural that claims of classroom success with new methods are suspect.  Genuine evidence needs to be provided and analytical/comparative studies need to made and published.  In past times, even as little as two years ago, the data was not easily accessible.  When the first study of my courses was made by Dr. Arnolda Hilgert in 1995-1996, she needed to use the files of typed essays and conduct her interviews over Interactive Television during class time (with me absent).  These were clearly not the best way to get total and open response from all learners.

The several current technologies afford a much more complete opportunity to enter into thorough inquiry.  Learners have made their personal permissions and email addresses available to a group of professors (under the direction of Dr. Brian Taylor) who are going to interview them individually and in groups.  Videotapes from every class session during the current semester have been archived for use in this project, allowing viewers to observe on tape the visible verbal growth shown by the learners through the semester.

Every learner work-file on CAUCUS contains twelve writings in response to the Escalator questions, along with the feedback from each learner who commented.  These are already indexed in the internal mechanisms of the system.  In other words, the combined technologies being used now provide a rather substantial amount of evidence for analysis by scholars.  One such venture is currently under the direction of Dr. Brian Taylor and involves professors from many nations.

On the anecdotal side of things, which is where we are at the time of this writing, student comments are invariably positive, even though there is a lot of good-humored grousing and satirical story-telling about the hard work of the course and the discomfort that accompanies self-examination and stretching.  The participants suggest that the increased asynchronous contact time with each other helps them come to know each other better, which makes it easier for them to respond to ideas and to make verbal contributions in class.

They say that the mutual feedback from each other opens their thinking even more than when it comes from the teacher, that the lack of a grade-curve promotes greater cooperation while lessening tension, and that they get many ideas from each other, which helps to expand and improve their overall comprehension, and diversify their viewpoints.

They also say:

• they like the chance to pursue their own thoughts while following the idea and spirit of the parameters of the Escalator
• they can expand upon the sense of growth which comes from interaction of listening to each other in class.  Their sense of knowing each other develops through the interaction between listening, reading and responding to each other
• that the posting frequency is helpful to growth and retention, that they cannot stop thinking about the debates they are having (which develops their argumentation), and often come to the next class with expanded ideas
• that when men and women in the course read and respond on issues which may be viewed diversely by each gender, they are more able to reflect upon ideas and points of view than in verbal conversation, and that this allows them to be more considerate and thorough in their synchronous discussions on interactive television
• that the ability to rethink and revise throughout the semester, and thereby improve knowledge, understanding at many levels, eliminates the tensions and counterproductivity of testing
• that revisiting several times on different dates, the ideas and challenges that have been talked about before (but doing it in retrospect), and considering other levels of perceptions, adds greatly to the sense of feeling competent about the topic
• that their frustration with contradictions and unanswered questions diminishes as they dialogue, define and sort out which of the many levels of comprehension have greater importance for them individually.

Many of these learners report that their personal academic confidence has risen greatly -- they feel secure they will succeed and can devote their energies to genuine work on the subject, even though they see they will not be "done" with learning by the end of the term.  Finally, a general statement by most is that they see the emphasis on critical thinking and application of principles as well as their practice with interactive computer conferencing as a useful, relevant and meaningful preparation for their future employment and personal lives.

The ongoing development of ideas, technologies and applicable systems, along with the ever-evolving audience of learners with whom we interact, plus the development in our own professorial thinking and practice suggest that a description of this type is merely a "work in progress," or an "update report from the scene."  Ten years ago I knew that the forthcoming semester would be the same as the current one, though with different students.  I do not have that sense anymore, since with each of the past four semesters, a significant portion of the course and HOW the learners participate is quite different.

It is elating to watch the flowering of abilities in so many young people:  their growth in consideration for each other in the debate over difficult and emotion-filled topics.  I am also aware of how extensive is the challenge for the professoriate.

I used to revise the textbook and instructions every semester, and I prided myself on being up-to-date.  Now we have moved to home-pages, and only need to rewrite and upload individual essays.  But I am also spending my time in a different way than ever before.  Previously my work came in three stages --- pre-course set-up, preparing presentations and/or discussions for classes each week, and the crunch of reading projects during finals' week.

Now I must set up computer conferencing programs and post the questions before the semester begins; I moderate discussion in class based upon what the learners bring up as the challenges or questions THEY encounter.  I no longer prepare anything specific (though I am always prepared with plans A, B and C), but rather, read the assigned chapter, read the CAUCUS entries, and go to class with the current steps of the Escalator in mind (as well as a hard-copy for the Pad Camera).  Each class session becomes an adventure as I moderate by letting them lead the way, yet questioning their comments, or offering alternatives to their assumptions, or posing further possibilities to their discussions, facilitating a constant surge of thought-provoking interaction from the learners.  I also refer frequently to the models, encouraging a wide array of voices and viewpoints.

I go into CAUCUS to read Escalator entries two or three times a day, and once on Saturdays and Sundays.  It is interesting to note that they come in at any and every hour of the day and night.  There is something going on all the time, and while I do not evaluate each item I read, I often will ask questions on CAUCUS or click onto an email for the student who seems to need help with ideas to choose from.  It is not like anything I have previously done.  No longer must learners wait for feedback --- it is there immediately, to propel the learning.  Perhaps forthcoming semesters will bring even more additions and dimensions.

There is a positive attitude in all of this, because I see it in the faces and eyes of the learners more than ever before.  They are excited --- they are working and helping each other.  I can truthfully say that what is happening in class is now at a much higher and more collaborative level.  I feel very good about it, and while I also know that newness carries a halo which wears off, I also see effort, concentration and growth coming from the vast majority.

I think their accomplishments come from being given useful tools, being asked to respond to relevant questions and construct their knowledge through dialogue and mutual assistance.  They have attainable goals, time for practice, and open opportunity to succeed at their own pace and learning metabolism, plus being involved with productive technology combinations that train them for an electronic future.  I believe this will continue to evolve and improve as we reach out and are responded to from all directions.

PART FOUR:    LOOKING AHEAD

Next year will bring yet another addition.  The live television broadcasts of our interactivity moderated by me will be archived and made available in a process called "VIDEO-STREAMING," which can be called up from the Web on a browser from students' homes or workplaces.  This delivery is being added to extend the outreach of courses offered at a particular time and day, thereby making it possible for learners who work or have other commitments to participate in the course.  Four years ago, this was begun by duplicating course videotapes and sending them each week to groups of learners who either did not have an on-line classroom, or were unavailable at the specific time the class was offered.

Success with those programs, plus the evolving electronics offers a step beyond where we are now.  Synergy flourishes as learners engage with each other through the systems and synchronicities, generating a powerful innovation for learning.  The ownership is shifting, with learners playing an ever-greater participatory role in shaping what happens.  And next year, learners will participate live on interactive television while others, previously out of NAUNet's reach, will come home from work and call up the video-streamed class-session tape on their computers.

Both groups, in other words, will have access to the same visual materials and discussions, one live and one taped.  They may watch these repeatedly, when and as needed, since the master tapes will be available at the sites and libraries, while the video-streamed programs on computers may be accessed on demand.  This self-propelled learning can use the course discussions and materials in whatever manners are most appropriate to their ways and times of learning.

Each learner will benefit from what might be called a "spiral of learning that comes from the sequence of synchronicities: induction-deduction-retroduction."

The Escalator, with its stairway of precepts, will serve as the central core for the learning, while CAUCUS will be the electronic repository and hub where both groups place their assignments and then interact with each other.  That is, they will have time for instant response to issues in live class dialogue over television, time for more reflective response in their writings on Caucus, and further time to access necessary information from the course home-page, and additional sources on the web, as well as from emailing each other for help, and using yet other interactive systems for small group work.

The learning operation will ascend accordingly, reaching out to include additional and diverse voices who will share their ideas and feedback on these arts and culture topics.  I will have more essays to read and comment on, and will also have to face up to the clear challenges of "when is too many."  But one possible solution to that is to train others (perhaps even the learners themselves?) to help in providing the feedback and questioning which I now do myself.  Certainly the institution must consider defining and formulating policies on loads, duties, evaluations and rewards.

Almost a half-century ago, I would daily enter a classroom, close the door, write vocabulary on the "blackboard" (which had not yet turned green and white - even though I have), step up to the rostrum and, after the bell finished ringing, make announcements and start reading my well-researched, carefully-prepared, typewritten lecture.  Nearly all of the faces before me were in their late 'teens or early twenties, but I rarely saw them, since only the tops of heads were visible when I would look up from my lecture notes.

Every three weeks I would give a test which was part objective and part short-answer plus one essay.  It would take all weekend to read them all, score them, log them in the gradebook, and turn them back the following Monday --- when everyone would look to each neighbor and ask, "wadjaget?"

The grade and the class standing appeared to be more important than learning.  When I would talk with students out of class about the subject matter, it was clear they knew a few facts, but little geography and fewer ideas --- if I wanted academic conversation, I needed to talk with campus colleagues and graduate students.

I remember that except for one or two, faces were white.  No matter how hard I worked on emphasizing ideas and connections in lecture, on providing meaningful examples, on designing clear tests, or how many times I gave pre-test reviews, the results were always the same.  A basic bell curve of winners and losers appeared every time.  Some were elated, some crestfallen, some dropped out.  There seemed to be no way to avoid that --- not then.

New developments for learning in ideas and infrastructures, as well as systems and accesses have surfaced rapidly during the past decade and I have been fortunate to be among early adopters.  As I engaged, I also learned, by watching the multi-camera videotapes of my class sessions, that the lectures which I worked to hard to create and deliver, were obviously not as enthralling to the audience which was sitting and taking notes as they were to me.  I could not ignore that.

I realized I had to go beyond the kind of teaching which I previously had done (rather well, I thought), and move toward a focus on learning.  It was a major shift in paradigms.  It was clear to me that while I had gained expertise in my field, had published original contributions, wrote well and delivered presentations which drew applause, that my mission as a teacher was less to provide information, and more to help learners take charge of their own learning by giving them tools and practice which would serve them and help them grow for the rest of their lives.

Ten years ago I started turning my class lectures into written essays, creating textbook (printed inexpensively and locally at a copy shop) for each of my courses.  I assigned chapters to be read before class.  To stimulate thought and practice in analysis, comparison and critical-creative thinking, I wrote statements and questions which focused on ideas and relationships.  I turned class into a discussion on the materials which had been read, and developed inquiry techniques which would allow us over time to become more productive and inclusive in expressing and comparing ideas and many levels.

I also saw a need to create visual displays to help give structure to course concepts and principles, keeping these models in front of the class continuously for instant reference and reinforcement, and later printing them on the back cover of the textbook.  I became a moderator of discussion, trying to find ways to build conversation:  whatever a learner stated was accepted as a point of view with potential validity, and explored for its implications, assumptions and possible application.

As we did this, classroom conversation grew and became more open, while those who offered ideas which seemed less productive often would modify them or express how their minds had changed on that point.  In my view, this was productive discovery and also useful as group learning practice, since it demonstrated the whole field of trial and error, followed by reflection, redirection and growth.

The transition was enjoyable, since I felt myself to be always on the outer edge of learning new ideas and methods, but it was not all that easy to put aside the lectures and classroom performances which had given me such good feelings from my creative accomplishments --- my sense of self was a powerful force that I had to contend, as was the strong professional conditioning which made me feel that only when I was "doing something for the students" was I fulfilling the requirement of being a professor.

However, I found alternatives which became integral to my new approach. I learned one could videotape or audiotape a presentation, and put it into the Media Center for learners to access.  They could also be duplicated for all statewide classroom sites and libraries.  That way I could do both: present and perform, and at the same time, do it in a way that would free class time so that we could talk about how the material had meaning. Instead of doing something for them, I was giving them the tools to help them learn to do something for themselves.

In conjunction with the library I developed a project which digitized and scanned many of my course visuals on to a server which could be accessed on the web.  Media Services duplicated the audiotapes which I had developed for the teaching of the musical portion of my courses, while help from Educational Systems Programming provided the expertise necessary to put course materials as well as essays about learning-development into my homepage, giving access to anyone who clicked into the NAU Web page.

We are light years beyond where we were when I really began to feel at home on interactive television, as recently as five years ago.  We are thinking now in terms of what learners must to do learn, how they must do the learning in ways which are most appropriate to them, and therefore considering what teachers must do in designing activities and sequences for learning to take place while not insisting that everyone do the same thing at the same time in lock-step.  It is not and has not been an easy shift, but it is one which is accomplishable when one becomes convinced that the results warrant the effort.

This is not just learning theory, however.  The material electronic devices which now inhabit our world, and create some anxieties in those of us who are older, have already transformed our young children who point and click "almost innately."  I envision a type of Pied Piper who has been at work, and we adults must take heed if we are to provide any type of useful leadership.  Based on an observation of how I learn new things, I am convinced that the new technologies make it possible through computers and the web for learners to tap into the sources which they need, and that they will do it from their homes at times which are convenient to them.

THIS factor, I believe, is the big switch we must face and cope with.  It used to be that "learning" occurred from eight and eight-fifty on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays for one course, and in a different time-slot for another, period.  Now, it happens at that time and also can and does occur anytime during the rest of the day and night, at the initiative of the learner.  What an opportunity this is for the teacher to establish a new program to "teach" less and assist learning more by organizing class conversations.  Thinking the subject through necessary structure and meaning stages allows the teacher greater latitude to establish the step-by-step exercises of dealing with the subjects at the pace and time of the learner.

The learner is more involved, has more invested, and goes farther: beyond the facts, experiencing the ideas, processes and levels of analysis, purposes and meaning.  This also means that in class discussion the teacher be sensitive to what the learners are saying and implying, and following those leads, and building the class discussion around their responses, while always commenting in ways which connect to and maneuver toward the longer-range course content goals.

In one way, of course, this learning seems more decentralized, and perhaps even chaotic, in comparison to the other mechanisms of strong control over assignments and dates for testing which have been in the hands of the teacher.  But actually, it works very well.  Learners who want to do the work do, while those not ready yet go away --- without the former penalties of flunking, and without filling the classroom with negativity. A new form of community self-management becomes apparent, and this is even more visible on CAUCUS where the learners get deeply involved with each others work, helping and pulling, encouraging each other, and asking for clarifications where they are needed.  They do this on their own time --- before class, after class, on the weekends.

There is greater depth in understanding and interest in the courses now than I have ever seen before, and while there are many reasons for this (more adults in the audience, more classroom interaction, diverse groups linked, useful and accessible technologies, and so on), I think it is also due in great part to the frequency, constancy and intensity with which learners may now engage.  Another aspect is that as teacher, I selected times to teach which were convenient for me, and which fit into the classroom or broadcast schedule.  Learners had to be able to meet those times.

Now the course is on interactive television and videotape.  Next year it will be on the Web.  Learners can access individual lessons at THEIR convenience, when THEY are ready, and they may peruse the materials for as long as they wish.  The Web and home pages are like a shopping mall where the learners may access what they want, and then go back in with their essays and their comments.  It is a type of learning which allows the learner to devote him or herself as THEY wish and have time for.  I may still be an "expert" in the subject, but I serve the clients as a guide and helper.  The emphasis is on the learner and the learning.

My joys of yesterday remain, but come now from the uncommon elation of knowing, experiencing and sharing in the weekly, growing wisdom and wit as written by the learners in their essays and their comments upon the work of others.

It also comes frequently from classroom sessions in which the exchange among the men and women of various ages and races examine thoughts and themes that amaze me.  I have always believed in the potential of humans to aspire and learn.  Now I see it daily.

It was there all along, but I had not organized in a way to tap into it, nor did I earlier have access to the tools and electronic procedures which would encourage it.  It is an exciting, hopeful and rewarding time to be in the classroom and afterwards to continue the discussion with computer conferencing --- watching and participating as it all comes together.  Not only are we traversing new ground, we are composing and drawing new maps.

TWO OR THREE ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS:    Since the courses I teach are videotaped, and assignments plus commentary from learners and from me are on CAUCUS, it is possible for interested teachers and scholars to contact me to arrange access to both.  In addition,  textbooks are available as illustrations of the kind of help that a professor can provide with what formerly might have been lectures during class time.

Secondly --- this "system" evolved over several years based upon the Distance Learning system which NAUNet created in Arizona, under the leadership of Vice-Provost Ed Groenhout and Television Services Director Paul Neuman.  Beginning in 1989 I worked in close proximity with both of them as their "faculty" person, becoming contracted in 1991 with distance learning to multiple sites as my only duty, year round.  I have now taught some 75 courses to multiple sites over this system, and have experimented with many alternative combinations of learning activities.

It becomes very clear that the Distance Learning Delivery System used by an institution is VERY important in the decision making about what methods and combinations might be used.  ANY DL system may be learner centered --- it is up to the teacher; some DL systems are more flexible than others.   NAUNet is the, or one of the, most flexible.

Bibliography

"The Bensusan Method," and others, Ed Journal October and November, 1995

"The Twelve Pillars of Learning," DEOS-L, AEDNET, H-TEACH, July 1, 1996; short version, "Total Learning Quality Management," Ed Journal, August, 1996.

"Lecture and Beyond," DEOS-L, AEDNET, H-TEACH, February 17, 1997; Ed Journal, March,1997.

"The Escalator,"  DEOS-L, AEDNET, H-TEACH, May 27, 1997.

About the Author

Dr. Guy Bensusan was a practitioner-scholar who continues to make significant contributions to the art and science of teaching and learning.  He was Professor of Humanities and Religious Studies and Senior Faculty Associate for Interactive Instructional Television at Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ, 86011. He made regular contributions to the USDLA Journal from 1995 to the time of his death in October 2001. His contributions continue be celebrated through unpublished and previously published articles in this Journal.