Topic and research question This paper examines the issue of didactical practice using a virtual learning environment (VLE) within the framework of Bateson’s model of levels of learning. It analyses the relation between the teaching practice of lecturers in an institution of Higher Education, the expected outcome of this practice and its actual outcome, seen through the eyes of the lecturers. Theoretical framework Our analysis is based on a model developed by Gregory Bateson (1972), which proposes to delineate five levels of learning ranging from 0 to IV. Learning 0 is characterized by the specificity of response and refers to learning that does not improve through trial and error. Learning I is what is commonly referred to as learning in everyday speech, including learning by rote and by repeated practice. Learning II refers to the changes that happen in the process of Learning I and can be comprehended as learning how to learn. Learning III is defined as a corrective change in the process of Learning II, and can be considered to be learning about learning. For the purpose of this paper, we do not touch upon Learning IV, which designates an evolutionary process that does not occur in any living organism. It is particularly relevant for this paper to note that Learning 0 and I refer essentially to individual learning, while Learning II and III generally involve the existence of a “community of learning” that support the process of learning development among individuals. Several studies on computers and learning have drawn on Bateson’s taxonomy (e.g., Star & Ruhleder, 1996, Harlow & Cummings, 2002), which has shown useful in helping to understand the implications of technology use in teaching and learning. In this study, we do not look for evidence of whether the VLE in itself affects the students’ actual levels of learning. Rather, we choose to focus on how teaching practices with a VLE may invite to different levels of learning.

Methodology This paper is based on a qualitative study in a Scandinavian institution of Higher Education. We purposely chose to keep the number of respondents relatively low (15 altogether), so as to be able to gather “rich” data for each of them, both directly via interviews and indirectly via diaries. The study uses thereby two main data sources: 1) a series of in-depth interviews (as advocated by e.g., Kvale, 1997) with lecturers from several of the institution’s faculties, and 2) a number of diaries/personal logs (as suggested in Strömquist, 1996, and exemplified in e.g., Czarmiawska, 1998) that those lecturers were asked to keep for a week, describing in details the teaching-related activities they performed with the VLE, for what purpose, and with what outcome.

Findings Our study reveals that lecturers use the VLE for various purposes, and each of them can be analysed from a “levels of learning” perspective. Teaching practices facilitating a move from Learning I to Learning II The VLE is reportedly used extensively to make teaching material available online before the lectures and seminars. The students that have made the effort to get acquainted with the material in advance may have acquired a better base for the formulation of relevant questions and the teacher may be able to discuss the material at a more advanced level. In other words, using VLEs may liberate time that otherwise would have been used for traditional lecturing and allow lecturers to concentrate on other learning activities, such as discussions about topics that are not explicitly part of the curriculum but that are relevant to gaining a broad understanding of the subject area . The availability of teaching material online before the classes may then participate in a change of focus in the learning processes, from Learning I-oriented activities (“dissemination” of information within one particular learning context) to Learning II-type activities (discussions and debates across learning contexts). The VLE is also used to facilitate the sharing of feedback on assignments, both from the course tutors and from fellow students. It is interesting to note that feedback provided by academics is often considered by students to be a “correction” of the assignment that they handed in, which may be corroborating Learning I processes. Feedback given by co-students, however, is not normally bestowed the status of “correction”, as the authority of peers is generally more easily questioned. This questioning process can be seen as an integral part of “learning to learn” (Learning II). From Learning II-intended structures to Learning I practices One very widespread motive for using the VLE is that is perceived by both students and lecturers as rendering the process of sharing course information more effective. In this case, the VLE can be seen as facilitating a certain type of Learning II, namely the search for relevant information about teaching arrangements and assignments. However, if taken to the extreme, the use of VLEs to rationalize the process of information sharing can also be seen as a promoting some kind of “regression” from Learning II to Learning I. In the extreme case where targeted information and summarized teaching material are channeled directly to the students, they may lose the opportunity to learn how to navigate their way through a mass of information (which typically pertains to Learning II and represents a useful skill in the process of acquiring new knowledge). Glimpses of Learning III In some faculties, students are encouraged to use the VLE to write questions to be answered by their fellow students as an exercise (formative assessment) and as part of the formal summative assessment. Answering test and examination questions mostly pertains to Learning I and II. Devising such questions for fellow students, however, can be seen as developing a different type of competence. Through the question writing process, the students are given an opportunity to reflect upon the complexity of academic problems, and participate more closely in the process of criteria development. This paradigm shift might be seen as a change in the system for sets of alternatives available in the learning process and brings in elements of Learning III (learning about learning). Conclusion This study reveals that the use of a VLE facilitates new learning practices and brings about a number of transformations in anticipated levels of learning. It is to be noted that not all the practices supported by the VLE participate to “raising” the level of learning. Some of them even seem to result in “lower” levels of learning. A deeper exploration of the nature and extent of the actual changes in learning processes brought about by VLEs could be an interesting basis for further investigation.