learning together creates a shared mind that...

AIMA Journal of Management & Research, May 2016, Volume 10 Issue 2/4, ISSN 0974 – 497 Copy right© 2016

AJMR-AIMA

Article No. 9

LEARNING TOGETHER CREATES A ‘SHARED MIND’

THAT COMBINES DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND

ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO SOLVE PROBLEMS

KP Kanchana Assistant Professor, IMS Noida

Abstract: Lifelong learning is not a new concept. As early as 1972, the Faure Report recognized that

education was no longer the privilege of an elite, or a matter for only one age group. Instead, it should be both

universal and lifelong (Dave, 1976). The Delors Report of 1996 saw learning throughout life as the „heartbeat‟ of a

society and envisaged a learning society in which everyone can learn according to his or her individual needs and

interests, anywhere and anytime in an unrestricted, flexible and constructive way. International education

organisations have continued to endorse the critical role that lifelong learning plays in individual empowerment, in

social and economic development and the reduction of poverty, and in moving societies towards viable and

sustainable futures.

But in recent years institutions and universities are under pressure to ensure greatly increased enrolments of young,

full-time undergraduates, while part-time enrolments have remained comparatively low or have even decreased. In

this scenario, the strain on faculty capacity and institutional resources has made the continuation of the parallel

system of undergraduate provision increasingly unsustainable for staff, for the academy and for students, and a

growing number of part-time offerings have closed. Hence an alternative model of access to higher education

undergraduate qualifications for working students is urgently needed at institutions and universities.

The final Flexible Learning Pathfinders report (Outram, 2011) had already noted that definitions of flexible learning

tended to “vary and are often too general or nebulous”. The Higher Education Association devised their own

definition and framed it within the notion of three “main dimensions” of flexible learning:

Pace – This encapsulates such issues as accelerated and decelerated programmes; part-time learning;

recognition of prior learning (i.e. APEL); and associated use of credit frameworks.

Place – Although this is mainly concerned with work-based learning (WBL), it can include the role of

private providers of higher education; Further Education (FE) provision; and recognition that technology-

enabled learning (TEL) can enable flexibility across national and international boundaries.

Mode of Learning – This is concerned with the role of learning technologies in enhancing flexibility and

enriching the student experience. It also encapsulates distance learning (DL), blended learning (BL) as well

as synchronous and asynchronous modes of learning.

Keywords: Shared mind, flexible learning , flexible pedagogies, ontological NQF, Tel

Lifelong learning is not a new concept. As early as 1972, theFaure Report recognized that

education was no longer the privilege of an elite, or a matter foronly one age group. Instead, it

should be both universal and lifelong (Dave, 1976). TheDelors Report of 1996 saw learning

throughout life as the „heartbeat‟ of a society andenvisaged a learning society in which everyone

can learn according to his or her individualneeds and interests, anywhere and anytime in an

unrestricted, flexible and constructive way.International education organisations have continued

to endorse the critical role that lifelonglearning plays in individual empowerment, in social and


AJMR-AIMA

economic development and thereduction of poverty, and in moving societies towards viable and

sustainable futures. The paradigm shift to lifelong learning as the master concept for education

and training systems - away from a „front-end loading‟ understanding of education, where the

major provision is for the young - has been uneven (Torres, 2004; Preece, 2009; Walters,

2006; Yang and Valdés-Cotera, 2011).

But in recent years institutions and universities are under pressureto ensure greatly increased

enrolments of young, full-time undergraduates, while part-timeenrolments have remained

comparatively low or have even decreased. In this scenario, thestrain on faculty capacity and

institutional resources has made the continuation of the parallelsystem of undergraduate

provision increasingly unsustainable for staff, for the academy andfor students, and a growing

number of part-time offerings have closed. Hence an alternativemodel of access to higher

education undergraduate qualifications for working students isurgently needed at institutions and

universities.

The same can be seen in the United Kingdom (UK), where numbers of part-timeenrolments are

said to have declined „dramatically‟ in the past few years. Alongside this the„traditional division

between full-time and part-time learning is increasingly becoming lessdistinct‟ (McLinden, 013:

6), and learners are looking for more flexible ways of studyingthat fit with their work, family and

other commitments. Similarly, Pollard, Newton andHillage (2012) point out that full-time

students are increasingly working part-time; workingand non-working students are seeking

accelerated, decelerated and other flexible studyoptions; and their studies at higher levels are

more likely to be work-related. They argue thatthe more flexible options there are the less valid

are the distinctions between part-time andfull-time students or education (Pollard et al., 2012:

268). In other words, students should bedefined by their enrolment on a course, not by whether

they are „distant learners‟ or „oncampus‟ (Kinuthia, 2014).

Meaning of Flexible Pedagogies The final Flexible Learning Pathfinders report (Outram, 2011) had already noted that definitions

of flexible learning tended to “vary and are often too general or nebulous”. The Higher

Education Association devised their own definition and framed it within the notion of three

“main dimensions” of flexible learning:

Pace – This encapsulates such issues as accelerated and decelerated programmes; part-

time learning; recognition of prior learning (i.e. APEL); and associated use of credit

frameworks.

Place – Although this is mainly concerned with work-based learning (WBL), it can

include the role of private providers of higher education; Further Education (FE)

provision; and recognition that technology-enabled learning (TEL) can enable flexibility

across national and international boundaries.

Mode of Learning – This is concerned with the role of learning technologies in

enhancing flexibility and enriching the student experience. It also encapsulates distance

learning (DL), blended learning (BL) as well as synchronous and asynchronous modes of

learning.


AJMR-AIMA

The summit report (Tallantyre, 2011) acknowledged that the three “main dimensions” of flexible

learning were informed by the need to ensure that learning was “responsive to the requirements

and choices of an increasingly diverse and demanding body of learners” and were “driven by the

requirements and preferences of learners or sponsors of learning (e.g. employers)”.

Furthermore, complementing the three “main dimensions” of flexible learning are three “levels

of flexibility” (Gordon, 2014). These are a mix of philosophical and practical perspectives, and

have been articulated in the following way:

ontological – the flexibility of the students themselves, such as how flexible they are to

deal with different learning approaches as well as the wider context around them that

affect their studies and their future development;

pedagogical – theories and delivery of learning in terms of the flexibility of the teaching,

its approaches and modes; and

systems – how institutional structures and processes allow for flexibility in teaching

(pedagogy) and learning (ontology).

Similarly these “levels” can be viewed as both opportunities and challenges to HEIs who want to

adopt a flexible provision approach. If there is too little flexibility then the systems that are in

place are unable to be responsive. On the other hand, too much flexibility could run the risk of

lowering standards, thus creating a paradox (De Leeuw & Volberda, 1996:134). Barnett (2014)

proposes 15 “conditions of flexibility” by which institutions are able to construct a flexibility

analysis and evaluation as a means to check the “educational soundness” of their flexible

provision projects. He calls for a “steady gaze” upon the “conditions” to act as a catalyst towards

new thinking, new practices and new approaches in response to an uncertain and complex world.

De Boer & Collis (2005), on the other hand, offer 19 dimensions of flexibility in course design

grouped around five main categories that would facilitate such flexibility:

1. Time

2. Content

3. Access / Entry Requirements

4. Instructional Approach / Design (Pedagogy)

5. Modes of Delivery

This was a piece of work that would be followed up much later by Tucker & Morris (2011).

Furthermore, through a Foucauldian lens, Garrick & Usher (2000) argue that there is a much

“wider sense” of flexible learning, whereby there is a “hidden curriculum” where “what is learnt

is flexibility itself – a set of values and attitudes which stress adaptability, continual modification

and an acceptance of fluidity and uncertainty as a permanent condition of subjectivity” (ibid.,

2000, para. 36, italics mine), something that is permeating its way right through the Academy

itself.

Flexibility being such a fluid and indeed inchoate and elusive concept, with rather loose

attachments to specific settings, it can be – and is – called up to meet many if not all of the

alleged shortcomings in and challenges facing higher education. (Barnett, 2014:32)

The three “main dimensions” of flexible learning that the HEA are adopting are nothing new; as

Barnett (2014) recounts, the University of London, in 1858, offered degrees to any (male)


AJMR-AIMA

student regardless of where they were in the world. Moreover, “flexibility”, within the literature,

has been a theme for inquiry and investigation for over 20 years (Barnett, 2014) and has often

featured in literature relating to blended learning, distance learning, online learning, the “flipped

classroom” and open learning. So how is flexible learning distinctive from these other modes of

delivery? Or, is it the case that flexible learning is a convenient “umbrella term” (Garrick &

Usher, 2000; Tucker & Morris, 2011) in which to position these other modes of delivery on to a

continuum? It is a question that Kirkpatrick (1997) ponders over and tries to answer, but given

the term‟s fluid and nebulous nature, it is hard to pin down. So much so, scholars have rigorously

argued for more research to be undertaken in trying to understand what “flexible” means across

different disciplinary contexts (Kickert, 1984; De Leeuw & Volberda, 1996; Saleh, Mark &

Jordan, 2009).

…it is not the most intellectual of the species that survives; it is not the strongest that survives;

but the species that survives is the one that is able best to adapt and adjust to the changing

environment in which it finds itself. (ibid., 1963:4)

The above quote from Megginson offers us a glimpse to one of the characteristics that come into

play that form the basis of the theoretical and practical considerations used in attempting to

demarcate the concept of flexibility. These “characteristics” (Kickert, 1984) include:

Uncertainty – reacting and responding to uncertain and volatile future environmental

developments;

Control – as a form of meta-control;

Variety – an increase in variety, speed, and the amount of responses;

Capacity – increasing control capacity.

These flexibilities can create sites of inflexibility, as Willems notes with flexible learning

provisions. Whilst it can offer opportunities to create pace, place and modes of delivery, it also

becomes “increasingly tethered to equipment, places and schedules” (Willems, 2005:430).

Moreover, any discussion around flexible learning is usually synonymous with it being mediated

through information and communication technologies (ICT) to the detriment of any other

flexible provision solution not dependent on technology (Kirkpatrick, 1997); something claim to

be cognizant of and about.

It was reported for users (both tutors and learners) to fully accept and adopt technology with

learning and teaching, the following conditions had to be met (Mirriahi, Vaid & Burns, 2015:9):

the technology should facilitate easy access to information;

the technology should enhance the learning experience by allowing instructors to design

activities that increase student engagement or help to meet the learning outcomes of the

course; and

the technology should lessen the workload of the instructors by reducing administrative

tasks.

The above conditions paralleled Davis‟ (1989) Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) principles

of perceived usefulness and ease of use.

At Kirkpatrick‟s institution in Australia, the drivers for adopting flexible learning emerged from

the following situations: to increase efficiencies (linked to that are notions of performativity and

“doing more for less”); generating a competitive edge (attracting particular student groups and

creating courses for “niche markets”); equity and access (enacting lifelong learning and student-


AJMR-AIMA

centred learning); and flexible delivery (mostly mediated through ICT and TEL) (Kirkpatrick,

1997). The concerns of Kirkpatrick‟s colleague was that flexible learning was neither grounded

with any meaningful pedagogical considerations or frameworks, nor did the institution see fit to

include the student voice in such enterprises. As Willem (2005) highlighted:

1. the term “flexible” cannot be applied to all non-face-to-face, off-campus, online, or out-

of-hours educational practices and products;

2. students need to be made fully aware of all of the requisites of flexible learning options

available to them;

3. consideration should be given to the learning contexts of students, especially in relation

to delivery media;

4. a broad cross-section of students should be consulted in the developments of available

flexible learning options; and

5. flexible provision does not necessarily equate with effective learning.

…it is rather gratuitous to propose the magic word „flexibility‟ as a solution to various problems,

as the concept appears to be quite unclear, to put it mildly.(Kickert, 1984:28)

Policy context and definitions of flexibility in higher education

The need for greater flexibility and diversity of learning provision has been variously arguedat

national policy level in South Africa (e.g. Department of Education, 1997; RSA,

2013;Department of Higher Education and Training [DHET], 2014), emphasising the continuum

oflearning possibilities from distance through to contact learning in higher education

residentialinstitutions. In particular, the White Paper for Post-School Education and Training

(RSA,2013) advocates for much greater responsiveness and flexibility to cater for a very

widevariety of possible student needs and current realities, „which take into account their

varyinglife and work contexts, rather than requiring them to attend daily classes at fixed times

andcentral venues‟ (RSA, 2013: 48). It acknowledges the role that educational technology can

The focus is on undergraduate degrees because this is the core business of most universities and

because postgraduate,diploma and certificate courses are often offered flexibly on the

assumption that the learners areworking.

Significant investment in developingdedicated distance education programmes is already being

made by some traditionally„residential‟ South African universities (DHET, 2014), while many

are exploring blendedlearning options. In addition, the Council on Higher Education (CHE) has

proposed aflexible, four-year model for reforming the undergraduate curriculum (CHE, 2013).

Understandings and definitions of flexible learning and teaching

While South African higher education policy documents talk of flexible learning in terms

ofdistance and blended learning, it seems as if there is no commonly accepted meaningglobally;

rather, flexibility is a wide range of responses to different situations, to differentneeds,

underpinned by different discourses. Therefore, „flexibility‟ needs to be clearlydefined and

articulated institutionally, or it can lead to division, multiple contestingdiscourses and the

duplication of effort and resources (Kirkpatrick and Jakupec, 1997;Johnston, 1997). For

example, Van Der Linden (2014) argues that the meaning and purposeof „blended learning‟ need

to be interrogated to prevent misinterpretation and to ensure that itis transformative for learning

and teaching design, institutionally.


AJMR-AIMA

Universal design for learning (UDL) takes an even broader and firmly inclusiveapproach to

flexibility. Usually associated with accommodating disabilities, universal designis not only about

ensuring inclusive learning spaces for all students, with or without learningdisabilities, but also

about flexible learning activities to accommodate a diversity of studentsand their equally diverse

learning needs and knowledge backgrounds. UDL allows forpersonalised learning, following the

principles of: multiple representations of knowledge fora range of different learning styles and

for a variety of different assessment methods, in orderto develop resourceful, knowledgeable

learners; multiple means of action and expression,including building capacity for managing

learning, in order to develop strategic, goal-directedlearners; and multiple means of engagement

and options for self-regulation, so as to developpurposeful, motivated learners (CAST, 2011).

These principles foreground pedagogy andcurriculum.

Dimensions of flexible learning and teaching

There are many more dimensions of flexible learning and teaching than can be dealt withhere

that would need to be considered for a university to adopt a holistic stance to the issue.For

example, admissions criteria, such RPL and CAT are studies in their own right, and sowill not be

addressed. Suffice to say that many universities in South Africa are implementingRPL in one

form or another as access into undergraduate or postgraduate qualifications, whileCAT as credit

for prior learning or for transferability of learning between and acrossinstitutions and the

National Qualifications Framework (NQF) is under scrutiny. Flexiblesupport systems and

services, as within the ambit of universities‟ student affairs portfolios,will similarly not be

discussed here, although they play essential roles in effective, flexiblelearning and teaching

provision.

The realities of working students need to be engaged with critically by universities asthere are

inherent tensions between the motivations of universities and of workplacesregarding flexibility,

among other issues. As the majority of full- and part-time students inSouth Africa are working or

needing to work for economic reasons, the dimensions offlexible learning and teaching which

can assist working students to succeed in their studiesare an important but complex issue which

we touch on below.

A further critical dimension which we address is the use of technology to enableflexible learning

and teaching and the pedagogical implications that arise from this. The keypoint is that the

pervasiveness of technology means that all learners are or will become„online learners‟ to some

degree. Therefore we need to understand how technologicaldevelopments are enabling changes

in pedagogy, and how these in turn affect the way inwhich universities operate (Contact North).

Working Adult Students

The difficulties that working adults have in accessing higher education have been

welldocumented (Buchler, Castle, Osman, and Walters, 2007; Division for Lifelong

Learning,2010). However, Allais (2014) argues that their difficulties are unsurprising as the

worlds ofwork and education have very different logics. In her chapter on education/labour

marketrelationships, she provides a penetrating analysis of the different logics at play which help

tocontextualise the difficulties of achieving success across labour markets and education.

Shechallenges simplistic understandings of these relationships where education is so


AJMR-AIMA

often„blamed‟; for example, for being non-responsive to the needs of the economy. She

quotesFreidson‟s three „ideal types‟ or logics of labour market organisations; „free

market‟,„bureaucratically controlled division of labour‟, and „occupationally controlled division

oflabour‟. Each provides very different options for relationships between labour markets

andeducation and training. The important point she is making is that the nature of the

labourmarket for particular qualifications will determine what is possible in terms of

relationshipsbetween universities, workplaces, occupations and professions. As perhaps

illustrative ofAllais‟ (2014) point, many faculties at universities offer continuing professional

developmentcourses, or professional qualifications in the form of certificates, diplomas, or

fullqualifications to working adults, particularly at postgraduate level, in a variety of

flexibleforms, for specific professions or occupations.

Kettle (2013), in her report on employer engagement and work-based learning in UK

higher education, suggests that, although there is a continuum of inter-related elements for

work-related learning, there are primarily two categories of engagement: work-based learning

for learners to enhance their learning from the workplace, which could involve individual

learning contracts, action research and problem-based learning; and experiential, work-

education.

For the latter, this could include real-world projects, worksimulations, internships and employer

mentoring schemes (Kettle, 2013). However, there area number of inherent tensions in such

engagements, between different forms of knowledge;competing agendas; practical arrangements

for learners and workplaces; and the autonomy ofthe university, of the employer, and of the

learner. It is a challenge to accommodate theinterests of all three players equally or even

sufficiently through flexible pedagogies.Therefore Kettle (2013: 31) suggests opening

communication to invite the perspectives of theuniversity, student and employer while

acknowledging compromises and limitations.Discussions, she suggests, should centre on

learning and teaching, but policies, proceduresand business models – both of employers and

universities - must enable such educationalalliances.

Abrahams‟ (2014) study which obtains the perspectives of working students at UWC,describes

„transitional maelstroms‟ of students, which illustrate the various „barriers‟ theyexperience.

„Situational barriers‟ arise from the individual‟s life situation, and include issuessuch as work

commitments, domestic responsibilities, as well as problems of child care,finance and transport;

„institutional barriers‟ include physical location, entry requirements,timetabling problems, as

well as practices and procedures which hinder participation; and„dispositional barriers‟ are

attributed to factors such as self-esteem, past educationalexperiences, values, attitudes and

beliefs about learning. In his study, Abrahams shows thatthe relationships between students and

their employers are very mixed, with some employersbeing very supportive and others not being

supportive at all. In some instances, education andtraining policies may be in place in workplaces

but individual managers may obstruct theprogress of working students; other policies, for

example restricting the use of computers forstudy, can have major implications for the ability of

working students to succeed in theirstudies.

As alluded to above, developing flexible learning and teaching strategies for workingadult

students needs to take into account the education/labour market relationships whichvary in


AJMR-AIMA

relation to the different labour market organisations. The strategies need to recognize the

different logics of different workplaces and universities and the complex lifecircumstances of the

working students. There cannot be a „one size fits all‟ approach but, asKettle (2013) argues,

systematic communications will be required between workplaces anduniversities which enable a

truly flexible pedagogy to support working students. Put anotherway, it will require the building

of „common knowledge‟ (Edwards, 2014) - as elaboratedlater in this article - across different

workplaces and the university.

Technology-enhanced learning

Although flexible learning and teaching is much more than using technology, such aslearning

management systems, the internet, a personal computer and mobile technologies,these

technologies do afford great opportunities for flexibility. There are a multitude of termsfor

learning and teaching using technology: e-learning, online learning, technology-

enhancedlearning, technology-enabled learning, and so on. In this article the term

technologyenhancedlearning is used.Technology plays an essential role for students to succeed in

the local and globaleconomy and in providing quality flexible learning and teaching

opportunities. Technologyenhancedlearning can mitigate the attendance requirements of full-

time study, enablingstudents to learn in their own time and place and at their own pace; it enables

easier deliveryof materials from lecturers to students and vice versa; and it connects learners to

people andresources that can support their educational needs online (Lai and Chong, 2007), such

as openeducation resources (OERs) (Boer, 2014). Technology allows universities to extend

theirtraditional campus-based services to distant (off-campus) and online modes, and has

formedthe basis of distance education for many years. Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCS)

arepromoted as the answer to flexibility in education, enabling thousands of learners access

tolearning in new ways, but there are many concerns about pedagogy and sometimes hiddencosts

to learners, and course completion rates tend to be low (Gordon, 2014).

McLoughlin and Lee argue that today‟s students „want an active learning experiencethat is

social, participatory and supported by rich media‟ (2010: 28), which is possiblethrough the

continual expansion of Web 2.0 social networking tools. The use of these toolsand technologies

can, providing appropriate pedagogies are guiding the learning process,promote learner agency,

increase students‟ control over the learning process, and facilitate thedevelopment of graduate

attributes and flexible graduates (McLoughlin and Lee, 2010). Also,emerging technologies can

allow for authentic learning experiences, providing complexity inthe learning process that

prepares learners for the challenges of professional practice aftergraduation (Bozalek, Gachago,

Alexander, Watters, Wood, Ivala and Herrington, 2013).

The Flexible Learning Institute (FLI) at Charles Sturt University distinguishesbetween blended

learning, which provides all learners with the same set of resources, andpersonalised learning

which allows for flexibility and adaptability of the content – includingof assessment - and its

sequencing and pacing, according to learners‟ individual desires andneeds, as in UDL. Forms of

blended learning are increasingly being implemented in SouthAfrican universities, but it will be

some time before personalised learning approaches arewidely adopted.

Barnett strikes a cautionary note when he argues that flexibility is „not an absolutegood‟ (2014:7)

and that there may be unintended consequences. For example, access todigital devices and


AJMR-AIMA

technologies and the individual skills and dispositions of users must betaken into account when

designing learning activities, so as not to lead to digital exclusion ofthose already marginalised.

This is particularly pertinent in Africa where access to theinternet may pose problems or where

wifi coverage is poor, and for learners who do not haveready access to these technologies or who

cannot afford the costs of connectivity (Kinuthia,2014). Therefore the limits of flexibility in

different contexts need to be recognised andcareful monitoring is necessary to ensure quality

flexible learning and teaching.

Pedagogical implications for FLTP

As suggested by the definitions of flexible learning presented here, and by the briefdiscussion of

technology-enhanced learning, it is clear that pedagogy is central to the use oftechnology in

education. The issue is that technology should never drive flexible learning andteaching: its

function is to enable learning and teaching (Contact North), and the focus of thedesign process

should be on how to best merge pedagogy with appropriate technology(Kinuthia,

2014).Proponents of good technology-enhanced learning often suggest a mixed or

blendedpedagogical approach, where conventional methods of instruction such as face-to-

facelectures and tutorials, seminars, small-group discussions, etc., are complemented by

digitalmethods (Laurillard, 2008: 143). But these digital methods need to engage

learners,transforming contact sessions into active learning opportunities, effecting a paradigm

shiftfrom a traditional teacher-centred to a student-centred learning environment. In effective

learning (Gordon, 2014; Macharia and Pelser, 2012: 2-3); or as Boer (2014) argues,a shift from

learning as acquisition using „chalk and talk‟, to learning as participation usingtechnology-

integrated pedagogies.

It is widely accepted that student engagement is essential for meaningful learning totake place

(Dereshiwsky and Moan, 2000; Kahu, Stephens, Leach and Zepke, 2013; amongothers) and that

it is an important predictor of retention and success in higher education.Edwards (2014) argues

that learning activities need to be specifically designed to helpstudents engage with knowledge

that is „culturally powerful‟, to become productive membersof society. At the heart of Edwards‟

approach is Zimmerman‟s (2001) notion of the self-regulatinglearner – „positioning students as

agentically in control of their own learning‟, forwhich an appropriately supportive learning

environment and the appropriate learning toolsare essential.

Emerging and Web 2.0 technologies can offer such learning opportunities but anonline learning

and teaching environment requires a completely new educational approach(Green et al., 2013)

and the emergence of „new‟ pedagogies (Contact North). In Africa, theuse of mobile technology

such as smartphones has greatly outstripped the use of laptops andpersonal computers (Boer,

2014) and as educators we need to consider aligning ourpedagogies with the emerging

technologies and media that our students have access to andare familiar with, such as social

media. Social media-enabled learning causes boundariesbetween formal and informal learning to

become blurred (Boer, 2014), disrupts theestablished knowledge hierarchies that define higher

education, and challenges normativeassumptions about curriculum design and assessment. The

interactive and collaborativeaspects of social media-enabled learning increasingly shift the

position of the learner – ratherthan the content or the institution - to the centre of learning,

demanding a curriculum designprocess that is learner-centred and collaborative (Green et al.,

2013). But, because of the openand distributive nature of social media, educators need to monitor


AJMR-AIMA

and control the quality ofinteraction in the learning process while at the same time developing

greater levels ofresponsibility and self-regulation in learners (Boer, 2014). The agency of the

learner, or„learner-centredness‟, becomes a significant aspect not only of effective technology-

enhancedlearning, but also of any flexible modes of provision that engage the learner effectively.

The use of technologies in flexible learning and teaching therefore needs to becarefully

considered and pedagogically informed in order to promote active engagement inlearning.

However, it is said that the organisational emphasis on research credentials, ratherthan teaching,

means that efforts to implement effective pedagogies may be neglected

(Johnson, Adams Becker, Estrada and Freeman, 2014: 24).

Flexible learning and teaching: implementation and organisational change

Burge, Gibson and Gibson (2011) caution against an uncritical stance to flexible learning,saying

that we need to pre-empt any institutional changes by questioning who is going tobenefit most:

the students, the academic staff, the academy, or employers? Moreover, thebenefits of flexible

learning and the „allure‟ of emerging technologies in achieving moreflexibility must not cause us

to lose sight of the impact of such changes and how they willneed to be managed. Nevertheless,

as Bozalek, Ng‟ambi and Gachago (2011) point out, theconsequences of universities not

engaging with technology-enhanced learning are that thegap between those who are exploring

these modes and those who are not will continue togrow; students will become increasingly

disenchanted with higher education and disengagedfrom learning; assessment of non-visible

skills will be compromised; and opportunities forpreparing appropriate graduates attributes will

be lost.Barnett (2014) argues that flexibility needs to occur at different levels of theeducational

system: at sector level, at institutional level and in the learning process -pedagogical flexibility.

At sector level, flexibility can be exhibited directly such as throughsystemic mechanisms for

credit accumulation and transfer, or indirectly such as throughestablishing enabling conditions

for institutions to develop flexibility. Barnett suggests fifteenconditions for flexibility, „to

safeguard educational integrity‟ (2014: 9) and to evaluateflexibility, but that these conditions are

common to and should inform all good learning andteaching practices.

Barnett (2014: 60) further argues that flexibility may vary not only within and acrossdepartments

and disciplines in universities, but also across professional fields. Indepartments, this may be less

about epistemological differences than about the internaleducational cultures of departments

which have developed over time; what Edwards andThompson (2013: 99) might call

„organisational narratives‟. These differences may make itvery difficult to attempt to orchestrate

moves towards greater flexibility from the centre.Bozalek et al. (2011) claim that although

emerging technologies are being taken up bystudents and academics for learning and teaching,

institutional policy-makers may be muchslower in understanding their potential and engaging

with them. As a consequence,administrative policies may constrain or obstruct the adoption of

emerging technologies forlearning and teaching.

Green et al. (2013: 26) propose that because higher education is a complex systemconsisting of

„four inter-dependent sub-systems: the teacher sub-system, learner sub-system,delivery sub-

system and administrative sub-system‟, flexible approaches to learning andteaching require

profound shifts in the way that the entire university views, engages with anddevelops

knowledge.Shifting engagement with knowledge work in higher education requires theactive


AJMR-AIMA

collaboration, not only of academic staff across disciplinary boundaries,but also instructional

designers, educational technologists and students. It alsorequires those involved in the

institutional management and administration totake a risk in creating the opportunities for

innovation not only to emerge, butalso to be sustained and diffused throughout the sector (Green

et al., 2013: 23).

This echoes Outram‟s assertion that flexible learning cannot take place within an

inflexibleinfrastructure (2009: 7). Similarly, Barnett points out that university structures and

systemsneed to be integrated at multiple levels, and that „the development of highly complex

andinteractive systems that have to withstand severe tests of their integrity and robustness‟(2014:

59) are needed to be able to support institutional responsiveness. He asserts that thereneeds to be

articulation of institutional leadership at all levels, from the bottom to the top, butexpresses his

doubts as to whether there is currently „an adequate understanding of thecomplexities of such

management and leadership challenges‟ (2014: 59).Johnston (1997) similarly suggests that both

top-down (centralised) and bottom-up(decentralised) change strategies are necessary, but adds

that every person is a change agentand the best organisations learn from the external

environment as well as from their owninternal staff. Overall, Johnston advocates for a change

process that can shift pockets ofenthusiasm of flexible learning and teaching towards a coherent,

institutionalised outcome.

Building ‘common knowledge’

Given that flexible learning and teaching means so many different things and is challengingthe

dominant approaches to teaching and learning in South Africa, a common understandingof what

it means institutionally needs to be developed and embraced. At a theoretical level,we find

Edwards‟ (2011) notion of building „common knowledge‟ useful as it speaks to thefact that

bringing about change in institutions demands not only the transformation of surfacebehaviours,

but also of the underlying philosophical tenets, or the „motives‟, on which theyare built. This

requires deep and sustained dialogue.Edwards introduces the concepts of common knowledge

together with relationalexpertise, and relational agency. Very briefly, relational expertise is

about acquiring aprofessional sensitivity to others when working jointly with them on common

work-relatedproblems towards mutually agreed outcomes. Developing the skill of relational

expertisedemands a capacity to work collaboratively and for each participating practitioner

toarticulate what matters for them in their contexts, while understanding and taking thestandpoint

of others and recognising what matters for them. Relational expertise can thereforebe seen as an

additional expertise to disciplinary and specific professional expertise and is aprerequisite for

relational agency.

As Edwards (2011: 34) argues, in the process of developing relational expertise,where

collaborators engage in negotiating enhanced interpretations of a complex problem, a„discursive

meeting of minds that give rise to common knowledge‟ occurs. In other words,collaborators

decide on the collective motive (what matters for all) of the activity. It is at thisstage that it

becomes possible to build knowledge that will be held in common by allcollaborators. Hence

common knowledge constitutes the „motives‟ – the „what matters‟ – foreach party and is

respected by the collaborators. It is elicited by employing relationalexpertise and then operates as

a resource which mediates collaboration on complex problems.As Edwards (2010) explains, this

shared knowledge of what matters for the other arises fromnew ways of understanding and acting


AJMR-AIMA

which develop over time.Relational agency, on the other hand, is the capacity that is exercised

whencollaborators need to take the action together, i.e. it is the exercise of relational expertise

andcommon knowledge as practitioners jointly respond to the object of activity, such

asdeveloping a flexible learning and teaching programme. Both relational expertise and

coreprofessional knowledge are necessary when working relationally. In brief, relational

agencyenables an outward looking disposition when liaising with others on complex problems

and itis a capacity that can be learnt (Edwards, 2010). The concepts of relational

expertise,relational agency, and building common knowledge have been used by various scholars

indifferent contexts in different parts of the world to confront complex problems, includingacross

professional and knowledge boundaries.

Given that flexible learning and teaching is a complex problem involving the fourinter-dependent

sub-systems of the academy (Green et al., 2013), it will require committedcollaboration across

all systems and sectors within the institution in order to come to acommon understanding of

flexible learning and teaching which is inclusive of a diversity ofstudents, among them working

students. It will also need collaboration to build „commonknowledge‟ between certain sectors of

the university and particular employers. We wouldargue that only if this occurs will there be a

chance for implementing a flexible learning andteaching provision framework that can supersede

the parallel binary system, which enablesaccess and success for working students.

In addition, embedding flexible learning and teaching institutionally will need whatEdwards

refers to as „resourceful leadership‟ (Edwards, 2014). She argues that at a time ofausterity, when

material resources are stripped away and workforces are drastically reduced,as is the case in

many universities, professional development of the remaining workforcebecomes vital to ensure

their engagement with the long term purposes of the organisation.When these reductions are

occurring at the same time as a fundamental change is required,then leadership must be able to

recognise, enhance and give purpose to the capability ofcolleagues at every level of the systems

they lead.

There is a key link to the development of „common knowledge‟ in her argument.Developing and

moving „common knowledge‟ horizontally is, she states, much easier thanmoving it upstream, or

vertically. The creative leadership that is required must listen, tap intoand harvest the knowledge

within innovations that are occurring at every level and assist withtheir movement upstream. We

argue that for flexible learning and teaching to becomeinstitutionalised in ways which will

include a diversity of working and non-working students,changes needs to impact every level of

the institution, including the bottom, middle and thetop decision-making structures. We concur

with Johnston (1997) that both centralised anddecentralised change strategies are necessary; the

best organisations learn from the externalenvironment as well as from their own internal staff,

and every member of staff is a changeagent. Resourceful leadership is required to facilitate this

occurrence.

Conditions of flexibility: securing a more responsive higher education system is the culmination

of a series of reports which have considered flexible learning from a range of perspectives. Each

provides a flavour of flexibility from its own context and includes consideration of the

pedagogies that contribute towards and enhance it. In this report, Professor Ron Barnett,


AJMR-AIMA

Emeritus Professor at the Institute of Education, London, draws many of the threads together and

offers a nuanced critical analysis of what flexibility may – and may not – mean, and the

conditions under which a greater measure of flexibility is likely to flourish within, and benefit,

the UK higher education (HE) system.

As this report invites us to recognise, different ways of thinking about flexible learning reflect

the influence of sometimes complementary, and sometimes competing, drivers and value

orientations. It is tempting to focus primarily on questions of flexibility of systems and

structures, and these aspects of flexible learning are important – but it is very appropriate that a

major report such as this, published by the Higher Education Academy (HEA), the UK‟s leading

body on learning and teaching, should principally highlight the intended outcome of flexible

pedagogies: flexible graduates. Graduates who are able to engage with the uncertainties,

complexities and demands of a rapidly changing world – some might even say a „flexi world‟ –

actively and constructively, from a position of what Professor Barnett identifies as epistemic

flexibility. The report calls for serious attention to be paid to radical, imaginative educational

innovation and experiment in order that HE providers do justice to the faith their students put in

them in preparing them for living and working in such a world and for shaping its future.

Fifteen conditions of flexibility are proposed; „conditions‟, here, referring both to the measures

that need to be in place in order for flexibility to take root in an appropriate way, as well as to

those that might lead to a greater responsiveness within the sector. The report emphasises that

they are, at heart, conditions of a bona fide higher education regardless of where, when, how and

at what pace this takes place. A ‟steady gaze‟ on them – as advocated by Professor Barnett – will

allow them to act as a springboard to propel new thinking and new practices for an emerging

new age. The reports underpinning this one each offer valuable contributions to this new

thinking. New pedagogical ideasputs forward a rationale for six pedagogical approaches that aim

to allow HE not only to move into a new era but also to determine and influence its

characteristics. Technology-enhanced learninghighlights some of the technological innovations

that will facilitate an increasingly personalised learner experience. Part-time learners and

learningemphasises the challenges faced by those students who in many ways require the

greatest degree of flexibility in the HE experience and offers a pathway and an audit intended to

assist HE providers to facilitate this. Employer engagement and work-based learningexplores

the relationship between HE providers and employers and considers the forms of flexibility that

characterise this relationship and how it might be enhanced. Accompanying all of these is a

report on credit transfer which highlights the importance of having a robust system of credit

accumulation in place not only in the UK but also throughout Europe and potentially world-wide

that will allow student mobility.

Opportunity, Choice and Excellence in Higher Education emphasises that each of those three

elements is key to the achievement of its aims as UK HE forges its path in the 21st century.

Flexible learning underpins all of them, and the HEA is delighted both to contribute to debate

and to offer suggestions about how concrete and practical development might be accomplished.

Conditions of flexibility contains recommendations directed at different levels within the sector.

They are challenging and will require the „steady gaze‟ the report calls for, but institutions,

sector bodies, researchers and students are well placed to step up to the plate and begin making

them a reality.


AJMR-AIMA

There is a huge educational challenge lurking here, for there may be an unwitting temptation to

remain within systems and technical modes of thinking and action. In speaking of students

becoming more flexible, what has fundamentally to be included is a sense of students as persons,

not merely as handlers of (changing) knowledge or as the (adaptable) possessors of skills (even

„complexity skills‟). Rather, what is called for is a sense of students developing as the bearers of

certain kinds of dispositions and qualities (Barnett 2007) that, together, are likely to enable

graduates to be oriented towards the world by a spirit of flexibility. If the world is presenting

graduates with all kinds of unpredictable situations, ideas, conflicts, value predicaments and so

on and so forth, any amount of knowledge and skills is not going to be sufficient for an adequate

response. What is necessary is that graduates be flexible people able and willing to respond to a

world of uncertainty and personal challenge.

These considerations are given added point by the challenges and the opportunities being opened

by digital technologies, especially with „second-life‟ personas (Warburton 2009; Savin-Baden

2013) and the re-presentation of educational tasks in the form of games. Opening here are

profound issues of the identity of the student and of the relationship of the student to „the real

world‟ (and, more formally, the matter of subjectivity in cyberspace, a matter that Slavoj Zizek

among others has recently been tackling (Pelletier 2005).

Accordingly, in addressing the matter of flexibility in higher education, this report will hold in

view – perhaps uneasily at times – both the spaces of systems and structures and also those of

personal qualities and dispositions, for flexibility needs surely to be evident in both territories.

And these two sets of considerations – systems flexibility and personal flexibility – may at times

be in conflict with each other.

Higher education and the world of work In societies characterized by increasing dependency on a dynamic economy marked by high-

level cognitive powers (a shorthand for which is that of „cognitive capitalism‟; Boutang 2011),

the relationships between higher education and the world of work change apace. Two

movements are in evidence.

1). Employers come increasingly to look to employees to possess not merely high-level technical

skills but also a wide range of human qualities and dispositions connected with interaction,

criticality, resilience, integrity and engagement, as well as the capacities to cope with

complexity, uncertainty and newness. Questions arise, therefore, as to the potential for flexible

pedagogies to be able to help in students acquiring such demanding qualities and capabilities,

especially where those pedagogies sponsor segregated learners taking short-term units of study,

attuned perhaps to the interests of a particular occupation or even the interests of a single

employer.

2). Employers and employees are keeping an eye on the continuing development of capabilities

through the span of the working life. Such a perspective is given added momentum by fluid

labour markets and fast-moving patterns of work, in which individuals may hold more than one

part-time position and move successively from one kind of work setting to another. In such a

milieu, employers are increasingly going to want to see their employees build on their existing

skill set. At the same time, employees in any event will be wanting to advance their


AJMR-AIMA

qualifications and skills so as continually to improve their position in competitive labour

markets.

Prima facie, these interests may seem to coincide but, at a deep level, they may diverge. [EE]

Employers may be looking for sector-specific skills and aptitudes while employees may be

looking to develop capabilities that will carry them not only through work across their whole

careers but even for capabilities for life.

It can be hypothesised that employer and employees desire for even more flexible provision of

learning opportunities which will develop at the level of higher education, such that learning can

be achieved outside of formal frames of (a particular) location, (a tight) timeframe during which

learning should be accomplished, and mode (advantage being taken of modern technologies).

In all of this, some employers will look to work in partnership with higher education institutions.

While this is not new (sandwich courses having been established for 60 years), such

developments are likely to issue in new patterns of connectivity, and new patterns of

responsibilities, between employers and higher education institutions.

When we talk of new technologies, Computer-based technologies have been in use for some

time. It is the global scope of technologies that is new, together with their capacity to permit and

indeed encourage communication (lecturer to student, student to lecturer and student to student,

and student to students, plural), their multimodality (with a single text or act of communication

being susceptible to exposition in several modes, including sound and vision; Kress and

Leeuwen 2001), and their capacities to connect with databases (in universities, libraries,

museums and government and other agencies) and extending to users their powers of self-

authorship. Such technologies – together with the mobility they afford – potentially put learning

power in the hands of the student such that students can be more in command of what they might

learn, how they might acquire such learning, and from which sources they might acquire

information, data and materials, and be themselves to a large extent the authors of their own

learning.

Taken together, these are formidable changes and arguably herald a new stage not only in

learning arrangements in higher education but in the pedagogical relationship between teacher

and taught. We may be now heading towards a new era of auto-didacticism, in which students

become much more responsible for their own learning and in which students are becoming

embryonic researchers in their own right. (This latter move – towards student-as-researcher – is

any case being deliberately promoted by some universities).

A possible unintended consequence of such a recipient and solipsistic learning situation is there

may arise a propensity for students to find difficulty in engaging in dialogue with others, either

with their tutors or with other students (Demetriadis and Pombortsis 2007).

It follows from these reflections that the matter of flexibility raises matters of regulation, quality

and standards: are there to be limits to flexibility? Is it to be countenanced only under specific

conditions? Might flexibility be regulated in such a way that it retains and indeed embraces and

extends its potential for students‟ learning and wider development?


AJMR-AIMA

Technologies are not in themselves forms of flexibility but they are indications of – and sites of –

potential flexibility. Technologies extend potentialities for flexibility. For one writer, indeed,

they herald the coming of „the edgeless university‟ (Bradwell 2009). To use a modish term,

technologies bring affordances for flexibility: they afford opportunities for flexibility not easily

otherwise available or, indeed, not otherwise available at all.

A reason that technologies have become so associated with flexibility – sometimes as if they

were almost synonymous – is that technologies can offer substantial extensions of flexibility, in

time, in space, and in the modes of learning.

In the process, technologies as an instrument of greater flexibility have the potential radically to

disrupt – and valuably so – established patterns not just of teaching and of learning but, en

passant, of the pedagogical relationship. However, especially through the most modern digital

technologies, the link between the provider (the teacher) and the recipient (the student) may be

unduly weakened.

The resulting disjunction between the teacher and the taught places more control and autonomy

in the student‟s way. In principle, the potential exists – and is increasingly realised – for the

materials, resources and messages to be asynchronous with the student‟s appropriation of those

facilities. The fault line that this asynchronicity sets up in the pedagogical relationship has both

benefits and – possibly – disbenefits.

Its benefits are often said to be that it enables each student to attend to their studies at times of

their choosing and in places of their choosing. While true, there is an even larger story here,

namely that behind those evident features of the technological landscape now opening are

considerations not only of access to higher education (and of a possible right to the experience of

higher education) but also of a student‟s liberty. The learning environment opened by the new

technologies is one of enhanced liberty for students as such. In turn, so the reasoning might run,

students are likely to feel a higher sense of ownership of their learning and that learning – as a

result – is likely to be more authentic. For some, such outcomes are especially happy here, since

part of the promise of a genuine higher education is that it is an education in which students give

increasingly of themselves and so come ultimately to form – and even to re-form – themselves.

It is hardly surprising, then, that a feature of the present moment in UK higher education – as we

have noted – is increasing talk of a co-curriculum and students as co-designers of their learning

for the latest technologies are especially well equipped to facilitate such a development.

However, that weakening of the immediate link between teacher and taught may also bring in its

wake some difficulties.

A looser pedagogical relationship has four immediate consequences.

- the student is obliged to make learning choices. In a technologically-led environment,

choice is central, the student may have to choose when to study, how often to study, in

what mode to access the resources, in which mode to respond to them, how to make

contact with tutors and peer students, and in what form the assignments might be

produced and submitted.


AJMR-AIMA

- the student will be embarked on a rapidly rising curve of learning about learning,

learning about the technological platforms, the protocols, the procedures and so on that

make possible his/her full participation on the course. Processes of „metacognition‟ may

also come into play too, students being prompted to reflect on their own cognitive

orientation and their learning preferences and so come to know themselves better as

learners.

- there may well be a large degree of what might be termed „pedagogical solitude‟, in

which students have to depend to a significant extent on their own resources and be

willing to pursue their programme with a relatively high level of personal independence.

- students may enjoy a much reduced opportunity – if indeed it exists at all – for face-to-

face interaction with their tutors and lecturers. Claims are being made for the emergence

and development of technologically-based substitutes but careful research is needed to

ascertain the extent to which they offer an equivalent student experience.

Each of these four consequences acts as a source of potential anxiety and disquiet, yet also

potentially offers educational benefits.

It is hardly surprising then that in keeping with increased flexible pedagogies we are witnessing

– and not just in the UK – increasing levels of non-completion. (Non-completion is a complex

matter and is a topic of global concern and study and it has multiple causes. The point here is

simply that a large reliance on a technologically-driven environment has a propensity to

compound a student‟s existing anxieties and difficulties, at least, or especially, in

the early stages of a programme of studies). It is hardly surprising, too, therefore, that it seems

that students who prosper in such an environment are often older students who have the personal

resources to sustain themselves emotionally and psychologically (and practically) and that such

an environment can raise particular difficulties for younger students on first degree courses.

Certainly, several of these consequences can be reduced – with more student-student interaction,

better and more timely feedback to students and so forth, and explicit guidance to students. But it

remains the case that the more such consequences are present in any one pedagogical

environment, so we may conjecture that a high non-completion rate is likely to be

proportionately more evident. There is a further feature at work here. As noted (105), higher

education is moving increasingly into a pedagogical setting characterised by multimodality. Such

an environment is characterised not only by the presence of several media in the student

experience but by the presence of several such media in any one student text. The student can

make truth claims through a variety of modes in the one argument. Again, student choice is

heightened here as the student makes judgements about the range and the manner of the presence

of and the relationships between the different media being drawn upon to form the total text in

question.

This multimodality opens the student‟s cognitive options, a matter that can have profoundly

liberating and transforming effects for the student can open and enter new cognitive worlds for

themselves. It could, though, for some students present a somewhat daunting prospect. It is

apparent from this overview that digital technologies can help the provision of higher education

not just to be more flexible but to offer educational benefits. However, the judgement overall

must be that digital technologies are not always optimised for effective learning (Laurillard et al


AJMR-AIMA

2013). This is perhaps not entirely surprising since it is likely that, especially where technology

is being deployed to meet system and cost agendas, and where there is an undue emphasis on the

structural aspects of innovation (perhaps with rigid deadlines and regulations that allow learners

few opportunities to flex according to their own needs and

Moves towards greater flexibility are rarely without implications for the relationships between

academics and institutions. Where greater flexibility arises spontaneously from efforts of the

academics – in their structuring of the curriculum (perhaps with a local business) or in their

teaching approaches – such academics may sense that they are realising for themselves a new

measure of pedagogical freedom (that was probably always there within the institution but

seldom fully exploited). Where greater flexibility is primarily the result of initiatives and led or

prompted by senior managers – such as the introduction of a new institution-wide credit

accumulation system or procedure for assessing entrants‟ prior experiential learning or new

digital platform for storing and making available course materials or the videoing of „star‟

lectures – there may be a sense of a loss of power and autonomy on the part of academics. The

framing of much of the student experience is here being ceded by academics to other staff and

their powers directly to engage with students may be being lessened. Any such sense of a loss of

control and engagement on the part of academics may be accompanied by the evident presence

of new staff positions – of curriculum managers, systems designers, platform coordinators and so

forth – which enjoy a hybrid situation between the academic sphere and management.

Not surprisingly, moves to greater flexibility that are driven entirely as top-down initiatives

usually find difficulty in making headway (cf Stensaker et al 2007). These are important matters

– essentially matters of academic identity – and are not perhaps fully addressed in the current

debate (though see McInnis 2010). rucial to the student‟s well-being and success lies the

pedagogical relationship between teachers and students, and so maintaining the felt engagement

of academics – in any institutionally-led moves towards greater flexibility – is surely a necessary

condition in ensuring the integrity of new arrangements.

Twelve forms of institutional flexibility

1-to receive credit of some kind for their prior learning and/or experience (so requiring

flexibility in the making of admissions‟ judgements);

2- during the course of their studies, to vary and even to switch the disciplines and/or

professional fields of their studies;

3- to have some optionality over the pattern of their studies (some students may wish to have

physical access to the library during the night; others may wish to have digital access to the

pedagogical resources associated with their programme of study);

4- to have a degree of choice over the modalities in which they present their assignment (in

combinations of text, sound and vision, in three-dimensionality, in performance);

5-to have some epistemological control over their programme of studies (some students prefer to

study theoretical aspects of phenomena; others prefer to study practical aspects);

6-to adopt a learning strategy best suited to their own learning style (whether, for instance,

starting with concrete instances or discrete facts warranting a surface-level approach but


AJMR-AIMA

broadening into a deep and synoptic understanding or starting with a deep grasp of general

principles and filling in the interstices over time);

7-to have choice as to the level of interactivity of their own approach to their studies (some

students thrive on interaction with others; other students much prefer, at least initially, to work

things out in their own way);

8-to change the mode of their registration – as between full-time and part-time;

9-to interrupt their studies;

10-to acquire credits and be able to leave mid-way with a portfolio of credits;

11-to provide for students to choose or to influence the way – and potentially time and frequency

– in which they will be assessed;

12-to allow students to alter the contents of their programme so as to heighten their professional

or personal relevance (which might even allow students room to switch their main subject of

study completely).

Leading and managing flexibility

It is apparent that the management of flexibility in general and the development of

technologically-based innovations cannot sensibly be understood purely as technical exercises.

Neither moves towards greater flexibility nor the deployment of technologies are neutral (cf

Clegg, S., Hudson, A. and Steel, J. 2003). Expanding an institution‟s flexibility profile calls not

just for systems investment but calls attention also to an institution‟s values, ethos and priorities.

(Especially but not only in research-intensive institutions), managerial attention will need to be

paid to pedagogical reward structures such that academics are encouraged to invest of

themselves in the development and redesign of curricula and pedagogies. (cf Tucker, R. and

Morris, G. 2011.)

Even so, attention will also need to be paid to institutional investment in systems as such, notably

in digital platforms and in relevant administrative support systems (for instance, in recording the

developing profile of each student‟s attainments) while also being sensitive to the educational

possibilities (in the development of students-as-persons) that enhanced flexibility may bring. As

noted, too, the management of flexibility calls for multiple levels of an institution‟s functioning

to be integrated, not least in staff at the sharp end forming their own engagement with projects as

they unfold. These simple observations point to the development of highly complex and

interactive systems that have to withstand severe tests of their integrity and robustness. It is

doubtful if we have at the present time an adequate understanding of the complexities of such

management and leadership challenges (cf Salmon 2005). Further matters arise, too, regarding

the proper extent of curriculum management at the institutional level. For instance, a modular

system may appear at institutional level to offer pedagogical and managerial flexibilities but, in

its operation at departmental or programme level, may actually confront students with

unintended barriers to cross-disciplinary border crossings.

A corollary of this observation is that – as was observed in the seminar that considered a draft of

this report – students in the same institution may find themselves in situations bearing quite

different levels of flexibility. Flexibility may vary across departments, disciplines, professional

fields and individual lecturers. Attempts, therefore, tightly to orchestrate from the centre moves

towards greater flexibility will be fraught with difficulty. There is, after all, a likelihood that, in a


AJMR-AIMA

multi-faculty institution, departments will vary in the degree to which they „buy into‟ flexibility.

In this sense, institutions may be little more than a collection of sub-institutions with their own

flexibility cultures. This is not a matter of differences across science and the humanities: it may

well be that departments that are (epistemologically) adjacent to each other may have developed

over time quite different orientations towards flexibility; and these different orientations may not

be immediately apparent but may be deeply part of the internal educational cultures of

departments. Pedagogical flexibility cannot be dependent solely on the perspicacity and skills of

an institution‟s senior managers. To the contrary, much will depend on the insight of those at the

sharp end of the student experience themselves to be vigilant and to be exerting initiative in

bringing forward innovations in response to changing conditions.

Clearly, issues arise here both of an institution‟s structures and systems: are they such as to

provide for an institutional responsiveness? Issues arise, too, of an institution‟s leadership at all

levels: is it sufficiently articulated such that there are proper connections between teachers of

students and an institution‟s senior leaders and managers?

There is a fundamental distinction to be made between two ideas of pedagogical flexibility; and

really they form two clusters of meanings. There is a cluster of meanings concerned with the

immediate experience being extended to the student in his/her curricula and teaching: to what

extent do the curricula and teaching practices offer the student forms of flexibility? We may term

this a learner flexibility. Embedded here are rather intangible aspects such as the pedagogical

relationship: to what extent is it sufficiently open such that students feel able to enter into it on

their own terms? For example, do students have some say in the number of times and the time of

the day and the manner in which they might approach the tutor?

There is, though, a vitally different sense of flexibility here, namely the extent to which the

student is enabled, through his or her educational experience, to develop a measure of flexibility

in the way he or she encounters and engages with the world. For example, does the student feel

comfortable in speaking up in the classroom setting? Is space accorded to students to express

their own point of view? Can a student follow through in any depth on issues that concern them?

Is notice taken of the student‟s wider experiences?

Conditions of flexibility

In the wake of these considerations, we may essay a set of conditions of flexibility. In moving

towards greater flexibility in higher education, and to safeguard educational integrity of

offerings, and, no matter what kind of flexibility might be being contemplated, consideration

might be given to certain desiderata, namely that programmes might:

1. lead to a qualification that contributes to major awards (such as degrees or their equivalent);

2. offer all students access to suitable materials and appropriate cognitive and practical

experiences;

3. offer academic interaction with other students;

4. offer access to tutors, in real-time interaction;

5. offer prompt and informative (formative) feedback from tutors;

6. offer access to other academic services (such as counselling, academic and careers advice);

7. offer financial services (appropriate to the cost to students in financing their studies);


AJMR-AIMA

8. enable students to offer feedback on their total experience;

9. provide a pedagogical openness;

10. be academically and educationally structured;

11. offer ladder(s) of progression;

12. be suitably robust and reliable (with built-in safeguards appropriate to the risk);

13. be cost-effective;

14. have sufficient structure so as to enable student completion to be a likely outcome;

15. contain sufficient challenge that students are likely to be cognitively and experientially

stretched and to be informed by a spirit of criticality appropriate to each stage of a programme of

studies (so as fully to realise the promise of a higher education).

It may be said that there is nothing special about these 15 „conditions‟ for they apply to

traditional programmes just as much as to instances of „flexible‟ provision. They are conditions

of a bona fide higher education. Exactly so: there is no reason, prima facie, why flexible

provision should be let off the hook of satisfying the general conditions as to what counts as a

genuine higher education.

Six new pedagogical ideas that has come up are The review process identified the following „new pedagogical ideas‟ for the future of an

increasingly „flexible‟ HE which offer new pathways for graduate attributes or capabilities:

1-learner empowerment – actively involving students in learning development and processes of

„co-creation‟ that challenge learning relationships and the power frames that underpin them, as

part of the revitalisation of the academic project itself;

2- future-facing education – refocusing learning towards engagement and change processes that

help people to consider prospects and hopes for the future across the globe and to anticipate,

rethink and work towards alternative and preferred future scenarios;

3- decolonising education – deconstructing dominant pedagogical frames that promote only

Western worldviews, to create experiences that extend inter-cultural understanding in the HE

system and the ability to think and work using globally-sensitive frames and methods;

4- transformative capabilities – creating an educational focus beyond an emphasis solely on

knowledge and understanding, towards agency and competence, using pedagogies guided by

engaged, „whole-person‟ and transformative approaches to learning;

5- crossing boundaries – taking an integrative and systemic approach to pedagogy in HE, to

generate inter-disciplinary, inter-professional and cross-sectoral learning, to maximise

collaboration and shared perspective, while tackling bias and differences of perspective;

6- social learning – developing cultures and environments for learning that harness the

emancipatory power of spaces and interactions outside the formal curriculum, particularly

through the use of new technologies and co-curricular activities.


AJMR-AIMA

This new terrain around flexible pedagogies connects several strands of education thinking and

practice, revealing the need for further scholarship and pedagogical guidance, to bring together

the conceptual, theoretical and empirical dimensions, as well as the implications for academic

practice.

Institutional implications The consultation process underlined certain issues in relation to embedding flexible pedagogies:

1- flexible learning has often been viewed mainly in terms of learning delivery, but in

pedagogical thinking and practice, flexibility can and should be considered as an attribute of both

learners and educators – and can also be understood as a characteristic of institutional education

strategies;

2- flexible pedagogies require joined-up and systemic approaches to enhancement at the

institutional level. The institution thus plays a vital role in initiating and/or supporting the

adoption of flexible pedagogies, through the interplay between learning and teaching strategies,

corporate plans and enhancement initiatives, and the experiences and positioning of educators;

3- given the emergent nature of these new pedagogical ideas, the work of sector agencies will be

important in helping to articulate the „big picture‟ and to support innovation in ways that will

promote flexible pedagogies as critical to institutional initiatives in flexible learning;

4- developments in IT appear to have dual (even contradictory) influence on pedagogical

innovation, at times enabling deep pedagogical change, but often deployed to fulfil other

purposes. Flexible learning initiatives that use IT to enable deeper pedagogical change have far

greater credibility with academic staff and therefore will achieve more traction for embedding at

the institutional level;

5- there is greatest support for institutional responses that ensure the contributions and concerns

of students and external HE stakeholders are reflected through the use of flexible pedagogies.

Drawing on their priorities for flexibility as a human capability, to inform programme

development, will ensure that the curriculum develops in ways that are real and relevant for

societies;

6- institutions hold the key to the pace of transition towards flexible pedagogies and to realising

their benefits for the quality of the student experience. Understanding how to bring innovation

for flexible pedagogy into internal academic systems and education priorities will be critical.

Rethinking flexibility and pedagogy Flexible learning has often been seen mainly in terms of the logistics and options for learning

delivery but in pedagogical thinking and practice, flexibility can and should be considered as an

attribute of both learners and educators – and can also be understood as a characteristic of

institutional education strategies. These components are dealt with in terms of pedagogical

interactions in Section 2 and in relation to institutional contexts in Section 3. To explore this

relationship between flexibility and pedagogy more deeply involves critical questions about the

direction of educational travel in the present HE landscape and attention to flexibility as


AJMR-AIMA

educational outcome. Rethinking pedagogy in terms of flexibility in this sense means

understanding how pedagogical approaches can enable people to develop flexibility of thinking

and action, to influence the scenarios they encounter in their life and work beyond HE.

This approach considers the future landscape for HE graduates, recognising that as the world

changes our pedagogies must also find new forms to help learners not just to react to current

trends or to repeat dominant patterns of thinking but to be capable of responding constructively

and pursuing alternatives. The assumption here is that there is an emergent pedagogic need for

different kinds of education in HE and that this will require the development of pedagogical

models different from those traditionally deployed in the sector. A similar link between

flexibility of offer and pedagogical need was suggested in the 2008 UK HE ‟Vision 20-20‟ report

on teaching and the student experience:

“What kind of curriculum will prepare graduates for an uncertain global future – a future in

which their capacity for commitment, agility and boldness will be tested to its limits?” (Ramsden

2008: 7)

Consultation input: Flexibility and pedagogy

Director of studies Senior lecturer Director of teaching

and learning

Professor

“It should be a

benchmark skill

across disciplines to

help students develop

that flexibility … not

just doing the same

thing differently, but

getting at the core

question of „what‟s

the different thing we

need to be doing‟

because the world has

changed, the mind of

students and the mind

of employers.”

“If you define flexible

pedagogy in the sense

of the outcomes - are

they really needed in

the world out there?

And if so, is it

fundamental or just

incremental? If it‟s a

fundamental shift,

then there‟s an

argument about

globalisation, IT, and

self-reflection: that‟s

the kind of person

who is needed now.

And then the

argument has to be

how does flexible

pedagogy support that

outcome – then you

have a more focused

definition to work

with.”

“If you don‟t want to

use students as

consumers as your

framing for all of this,

if you believe that

universities are all

about exploring ideas,

these days there is

quite often a

mismatch between

what we teach and

what we research –

our teaching has not

set off in the same

direction – and that is

the fundamental

question. If these are

the questions that we

want to put public

money for research

into, why aren‟t they

also the questions that

we want people to be

teaching?”

“There is a bigger

(and perennial)

argument here about

the purpose of

education. How can

emergent pedagogies

serve critical

reflexivity rather than

(just) the skills

debate? Is there

enough emphasis on

the dangers of

marketised

individualised

learning? So -

education for what?

Learning for what?

There is a danger that

flexible learning is

restricted to a debate

about effective means,

and very little about

ends.”

Growing edges: Identifying new pedagogical ideas

The section identifies important pedagogical challenges linked to the notion of „flexibility‟ and

presents them as six key „new pedagogical ideas‟ positioned at the leading edge of future HE


AJMR-AIMA

teaching and learning. They provide a „big picture‟ that attempts to forecast and anticipate the

emergent landscape for flexible pedagogy, with snapshots for each idea to show their

foundations, influences, trajectories, pedagogic concerns and leading practices.

Finding ‘new ideas’ for flexible pedagogy Developments in flexible learning have important implications for pedagogy, as HE responds to

emergent technologies, changing expectations of stakeholders and new financial and delivery

models. In this shifting education landscape, it is important to take perspective: not only to assess

current practices and immediate agendas, but with an eye to the „big picture‟ of the changed

educational response taking shape in this terrain. Viewing flexibility in terms of educational

outcomes or ambitions, these ideas have the potential to shape key attributes for HE graduates

and to inform future practice right across the HE curriculum. Indeed, much of their strategic

value is found in their potential for application across the curriculum in its widest senses,

including the designed curriculum, taught curriculum and received curriculum, as well as the

broader student experience that includes informal learning and the co-curricular activities offered

by HE institutions.

An initial task for this inquiry was to assess the ways in which any current pedagogical

approaches could be seen as entirely new given the existence of inter-linked themes,

springboards from earlier movements and divergent levels of embedding across different subject

areas. The review process recognised the creative tension between practices steeped in prior

education traditions and impulses from recent leading-edge experimentation, both of which

combine to create the new frontiers for flexible pedagogy. The six new pedagogical ideas

identified here were therefore selected on the basis of four key considerations:

1- they are geared towards the „bigger picture‟ and future strategic innovation in the curriculum,

aiming to avoid the constraints of current discourse and problematisations;

2- they are novel in the sense that they are not commonly practiced across HE, even where they

are based in earlier streams of education thinking and practice;

3- they demonstrate pedagogical concern with „flexibility‟ in their focus on enabling learners to

anticipate, prepare for and respond to conditions of complexity, uncertainty and change;

4- they aim to reposition education, by making use of democratic and inclusive learning practices

and drawing on pedagogies that can support change and innovation.

The review of policy documentation, scholarly literature and sector initiatives uncovered six

touchstones for teaching and learning that speak to the notion of flexibility as a pedagogical

priority, supporting people able to think, act and innovate across existing structures and in highly

unpredictable scenarios (Diagram 1). These themes underline how the capability to be flexible

applies across occupations and in an increasingly globalised arena, in which careers,

technologies and lifestyles are in continual flux. For each idea or theme, there are associated

policy discourses and initiatives which this report takes into account, while pointing to the

deeper pedagogical ambitions and educational motivations behind them.


AJMR-AIMA

Considering different forms of teaching, learning and assessment that can be enabled through

technology, some examples are:

1- team projects, group work and peer assessment;

2- balancing and utilising formative and summative assessments when using computer aided

assessment;

3- exploiting adaptive/flexi-level assessment through computer-based testing; this is described in

greater detail later but refers to assessment that alters depending on the learner‟s progress and

attainment within the test. Thus a test may ask more complex questions for students who seem to

be doing well;

4- applying new approaches to engage and motivate students – gamification of learning;

5- utilising technology to enhance learning and teaching – especially Web 2.0 technologies with

their focus on user-generated content and interaction between users, eg blogs, wikis and social

networking;

6- adopting e-submission and providing informative and timely feedback through the technology.

Related concepts and terminologies that reflect recent applications and developments in IT and

ICT applied to teaching and learning include:

- computer-based/-assisted/-aided learning/training: these forms of teaching emphasise the

use of a computer as the platform for delivery and may be intended to educate or train

depending on the focus of the material;

- courseware: a form of computer-based learning, typically learning materials delivered

through a computer;

- m-learning: a form of e-learning where the delivery platform is a mobile device – eg a

laptop, smartphone or tablet;

- virtual learning environments: portals to provide access to learning support, including

course information, communication (forums, messaging, announcements), course content

(lecture notes and sources), and assessment and feedback;

- immersive learning environments: models (typically 3D) where participants can explore

and learn in a simulated environment or virtual world;

- computer-based assessment/e-assessment: utilising computer technology to assess

students. These can incorporate multiple-choice testing, parsing of language or

comparison of symbolic (mathematical) expressions. They may be diagnostic, formative

or summative;

- open learning: sharing of learning resources through open licensing and agreements, eg

massive open online

Pedagogic concepts

The following reflect approaches to learning that are particularly relevant to e-learning, though

most are applicable to other forms of teaching too:


AJMR-AIMA

- personalised learning: tailoring the learning experience to an individual student‟s needs

and desires. This has the potential to match the mode and learning style to students, a key

feature of flexible pedagogies;

- support for synchronous and asynchronous activities, the former representing activities

done in real time with immediate interaction, the latter those done with a lag. From a

communications perspective, typically synchronous teaching and learning is a traditional

lecture or online webinar; asynchronous includes email communications;

- flexible learning: similar to personalised but with a greater focus on how the material

adapts to an individual‟s progress, and may include adaptive/flexi-level testing –

providing another form of flexibility especially relevant to pedagogy;

- gamification: the use of game techniques (especially game mechanics) to encourage and

motivate activities can be especially relevant to learning. Online worlds provide a virtual

environment for learning, with the game models of players logging in, playing and

interacting, making progress and then logging off matching some of the needs of flexible

learning. Thus gamification supports new pedagogic approaches that allow for flexibility;

- online learning: the use of Internet-based e-learning to deliver content supports the

anytime, anywhere characteristics that are key to many approaches to flexible learning;

- blended learning: a mix of physical/real-world interaction complemented by e-learning,

this hybrid is especially relevant to introducing elements of flexibility into traditional

courses.

The above list, though not exhaustive, indicates areas that can provide scalable and pragmatic

solutions, characteristics that are key to getting widespread adoption and implementation. While

some technology is already well established – such as the use of virtual learning environments to

deliver content – the adoption of other technologies, such as automatic testing, is frequently

patchy and viewed with suspicion. In this report we consider how e-learning approaches can be

used potentially to enhance the student experience of flexibility, as well as providing staff with

useful advice about how to utilise such approaches in a practical way, and what changes

institutions need to consider in their own processes and practices to enable such approaches.

We should also question whether technology offers anything new in terms of pedagogy and

learning: there are clearly new opportunities with tools to find and use sources and data; there are

new possibilities to interact with students at distant sites. However, the fundamental activities are

not altered – learning can be considered as accessing concepts and ideas, assimilating these

through practice and ultimately demonstrating mastery. What technology offers is scalability,

flexibility and new ways of learning. In a large cohort each student normally gets the same

lecture and the same assessment. With computer-supported and -mediated learning there are

opportunities to offer flexibility of pace, place and mode; for example, pacing can be controlled

by the student accessing material within a wider or more flexible window of availability than is

normally viable; the place of learning – accessing lecture presentations, notes and resources - can

be anywhere with Internet connections; progress can be monitored with individualised

assessments.

Opportunities and challenges with a flexible e-learning approach

When considering flexible pedagogies enabled through technology a number of issues arise.

These can be considered from the main stakeholders‟ perspectives, namely:


AJMR-AIMA

Learners: technology offers potential flexibilities in what is learned, how it is learned, and

where it is learned. It can provide numerous ways to access resources and information and to

interact with teaching staff and fellow learners. However, such flexibility can create potential

confusion, especially around deciding what, where and how to study; it can create information

overload – with too many resources to handle and too many references to follow; as the location

of learning becomes a choice – at the institution, at home, at work, or on the move – the learner

faces a new challenge of choosing a suitable location; understanding what to do and carrying out

the necessary work;

Teachers: technology allows teachers to plan for a range of different learners, to provide a wide

range of material tailored to different learning styles and contexts, with new media and

interactions becoming possible. However, difficulties for teachers then arise, such as: how to

identify, select and adopt pedagogic practices that benefit from e-learning that give flexibility

and enhance the discipline aims, and how to develop their own skills to utilise these;

For educational institutions: new opportunities include new types of learner and the potential

to share resources with other institutions. Barriers for organisations include: how to develop

quality processes and support systems to plan for and cope with flexible learning and the impact

on student behaviours and demands.

So issues to address when developing flexible pedagogies with e-learning become:

1. Flexible students: how well can students prepare for the nature of flexible e-learning,

especially when/if the focus of control moves from staff to student?

2. Flexible staff: to what extent can staff be aided in managing the wide array of technologies

and resources, and more importantly to develop approaches to teaching to utilise these

effectively?

3. Flexible institutions: how can institutions plan to cope with the variety and flexibility required

to support flexible e-learning?

The blended learning model: flexible delivery Blended learning aims to mix TEL with more traditional forms. The rise of virtual learning

environments (VLEs) as a ubiquitous platform for hosting and delivering support materials

means that for most students some minimal experience with blended learning is likely to already

be the norm. Where blended learning can be more effective is when some lecture or workshop

style activities are replaced with online material – whether media clip or other engaging content

– and this is developed through either traditional seminars or some form of computer-mediated

discussion or assessment. This flipped classroom style offers the benefit of being a more student-

focused approach to teaching and learning. In terms of flexibility, students must be able to access

equivalent content purely through the online material – a challenge to institutions where the

campus experience is a key part of the educational experience.

With the different approaches to blended learning a mechanism to think about is offering the

following, each being considered as a subset of the next:


AJMR-AIMA

- enhancements to traditional lecture courses through stand-alone online material – where

flexibility is provided in some modules within a programme;

- opportunities for part-time provision – the timetabling and staffing issues around evening

or weekend provision mean that a blended-learning approach, where material is delivered

electronically with a restricted requirement for real-time (and possibly on site)

interaction;

- distance learning – taking the part-time provision model but with the minimal amount of

real-time requirements. Distance learning – whether as part of blended delivery or as a

stand-alone module or programme has particular potential for parts of the UK with

geographically-isolated learners and the potential to allow institutions to share teaching

materials, and for learners to aggregate content from across a set of co-operating

institutions.

In the blended-learning approach considered above, typically all students would have access to

the same set of resources. One of the more exciting opportunities with technology is for content

to be personalised to the student – allowing for flexibility in content according to a student‟s

desire or need.

These approaches are gaining in ground – with the concept of flexible learning pathways,

personalised learning and flexi-level or adaptive testing (Lord, 1971). The key requirement here

is that material can be organised into a hierarchy of complexity, allowing students to choose

what they access at a certain level, but possibly with points where progress is assessed and there

is some kind of check in place to stop them accessing other material. This type of approach can

be considered as providing a flexible learning pathway. Managing such diverse pathways is not

usually tenable within a traditional teaching context – at least for large cohorts – but computer-

mediated learning offers mechanisms to manage this, with the software controlling the release or

not of material based on the progress (eg Wen et al 2012).

Flexible delivery is concerned with providing student choice in how and where to access learning

materials by offering a suitable range. Replacing a lecture with a media clip that must be

watched at a certain time does not provide much choice, although it is flexible in terms of

location. Providing a selection of materials that a student can choose from, particularly if those

materials reflect different learning styles, offers true flexibility but comes at an increasing staff

cost in terms of preparation. One solution is the exploitation of features and technologies such as

the semantic web. This involves an expansion of Internet technologies to include information

about the meaning and use of web content. Descriptive data of this web content enable machine-

understandable documents to identify material thus enabling the automatic collation of such

resources in the foreseeable future (Berners-Lee & James, 2001). The concept here is of

computer-mediated learning. Intelligent systems use descriptive (semantic) information to

provide individual learners with material tailored to their needs in terms of content, learning style

and potentially other facets of flexibility. Such technologies are not yet generally available, but

elements already exist, eg adaptive technologies. Frameworks and requirements are being

developed so it‟s highly likely that practicable solutions will be available within the next decade.


AJMR-AIMA

The assessment process is one way of controlling access to the next level of material, and

computer-generated and assessed tests provide an opportunity to allow flexibility in the timing

and content of tests. Flexi-level and adaptive tests offer a student-based assessment: depending

on the student‟s progress within a test, simpler or harder questions or assignments can be given.

Such testing is particularly applicable in certain disciplines, eg mathematics and computing,

where identifying a suitable hierarchy of material and automating assessment is often easier,

especially where symbolic or numeric evaluation means student answers can be parsed and

compared. In this context, parsing by the computer means that the content can be assessed

against model and preferred answers. With a symbolic statement, such as the expression

2x=4y+6, the expression can be compared to check that it means the same as equivalent

expressions like x=2y+3, or 4x-8y=6, etc. Such symbolic manipulation and parsing is supported

by numerous tools which can be integrated with VLEs to provide assessment facilities. Writing

free text has been problematic as the interpretation of natural language is more complex;

however, some of the new tools such as the EdX automatic essay evaluation system, provide the

means for these approaches to be developed for other disciplines.

Opening new markets and approaches

While distance learning is a well-established and supported model of teaching and learning,

types of provision can vary between different types of institution as well as between disciplines

within institutions. The flexibility offered by technology means it becomes easier for distance

provision to be offered by anyone with little need for specialist resources. Thus one form of new

market for many is true distance learning rather than the blended learning referred to earlier;

however, such provision still has the potential to be labour-intensive and it is not sufficient

simply to offer content without appropriate academic learning and pastoral support; the support

offered is the value added for an institution and is where the real longer-term benefits and costs

lie. In this way the technology - providing the (virtual) learning environment and tools for peer

supported and assessed work and tutor interaction - is providing flexibility to all the stakeholders

involved.

Flexible provision here allows for distance learning of credit-bearing content, be it entire

programmes, modules or sub-module level materials. The key requirement is for a mechanism

that allows for assessment and thereby allocation of credit. In the context of new markets this

could be a much more flexible credit aggregation scheme where students acquire small chunks of

credit rather than having to take full (and currently typical) 10, 15, 20, 30 or 40 credit modules.

The challenge for teachers and institutions in such a model is how to ensure cohesive and

coherent material that can be sensibly aggregated towards a larger qualification, assuming the

target is an award.

The dimensions of flexibility vary depending on what choices are available, and who has the

decision-making power: the institution, teacher or the student. For example, replacing physical

lectures with video recordings, narrated slides or other content limits the choice for students. As

they can no longer choose to go to a lecture their choices become merely where to consume the

provided materials. The decision on the most appropriate form of delivery may be best made by

the teacher, though institutions' policy decisions may limit their range of choice.


AJMR-AIMA

The role of quality and audit The adoption of new technology-enabled approaches to learning and assessment introduces

issues around quality and the auditing of activity. As a minimum, any technology should provide

for institutional requirements for second marking and of archiving of assessed work etc.

however, archiving a Wiki site or a Facebook discussion can be a challenge. Marking online may

not easily allow multiple staff to share marking and/or to allow the second marking process.

Another point to consider is whether the use of the alternative technology alters the learning

activity, and in particular its assessment, so much that the planned learning outcomes may not be

demonstrated to have been achieved.

Quality processes and checks, such as the external examiner process, also raise the question of

the extent to which some flexible approaches can be introduced. For example, to allow the use of

distinct forms of assessment some evidence would be needed to show that the forms of

assessment were of equivalent quality and required an equivalent workload. This may be through

stating that a certain module is assessed by a 4000-word essay or by a presentation. Assuming a

rapid speaking rate of 150 words per minute, that equates to a 26-minute presentation. In terms

of a Wiki, how many words should be present to indicate a similar workload? All three forms

have different levels of preparation and differing impacts on the assessment process, with

differing amounts of time to digest and mark each. While it may be stated that some piece of

work is equivalent to another, perhaps through word counts, validating this is another matter.

Conclusion

Flexible learning and teaching literature has no one stable definition of what it means; it is at best

a contested concept which is gainingtraction rapidly across the world. The argument has emerged

that flexible learning andteaching is not simply a mechanistic approach to flexibility, achieved by

inserting technologyinto existing face-to-face pedagogies and tweaking a few activities and

assessments: it is afundamental shift in thinking about learning and teaching in higher education.

It is essential,therefore, that universities come to common critical understandings of flexible

learning andteaching if it is to flourish within institutions. We have argued that developing

„commonknowledge‟ of flexible learning and teaching at the academy would mean bringing

togetherthe expertise of all four institutional „sub-systems‟ into dialogue with each other – of

teachingand learning specialists, of academics in the different knowledge fields and disciplines,

ofchampions of flexible pedagogical practices, of relevant administrators, of student

supportservices, of ICT experts, of institutional management and of institutional leadership.

Theprocess of building common knowledge would need to recognise relational expertise

whichenables creative conversations about „what matters‟ in and across disciplines and sectors.

Thesame commitment necessary to build common knowledge within the university itself

wouldbe required between particular workplaces and sections of the university, if working

studentsare to be supported by employers in their studies.

There would need to be generalacceptance that higher education must engage a diverse range of

students across theirlifespan, in order to meet the socio-economic needs and aspirations of the

country and thecontinent within a lifelong learning philosophy and approach. This would imply


AJMR-AIMA

that teachingand learning would need to change, and be responsive to varying conditions

andcircumstances of all students – accepting the reality of a diversity of students most of

whomare working and studying simultaneously, and are in fact „part-time‟. This would need

toinclude collaborative dialogue to develop „common knowledge‟ between universities

andspecific workplaces, respecting their different logics and the complex lives of

workingstudents.A strategy of bottom-up, middle-out and top-down change management is

requiredwithin the university which has „resourceful leadership‟ who enhance and give purpose

to thecapability of colleagues at every level of the systems they lead. „Flexible learning‟ is in

vogue. But what exactly is it, and what should those interested in or planning towards implementing it be

aware of.

Ensuring that learning outcomes are assessed by the assignments is one aspect of quality; the

challenge of to what extent different forms of assessment can be archived, compared and

reviewed is a different one with particular relevance to flexible pedagogies. With adaptive testing

there may be no samples of work to review. With team exercises, it can be more difficult to

evidence why one student did better than another.

learning together creates a shared mind that...

Documents