An Essay on Flexible Learning - ONL161 PBL Group2

Early this year, Ernst and Young (UK) removed the degree entry requirement, citing there is "no evidence" success at university correlates with achievement in later life. “Academic qualifications will still be taken into account and remain an important consideration when assessing candidates, but will no longer act as a barrier to getting a foot in the door," said EY’s managing partner for talent. She further added: "Our own internal research of over 400 graduates found that screening students based on academic performance alone was too blunt an approach to recruitment.  It found no evidence that previous success in higher education correlated with future success in subsequent professional qualifications undertaken." (Sherriff, 2015)

Uberization is now an accepted verb. Uberization refers to a phenomenon, where a technology disrupts an industry and transforms it. There is much discussion currently on the uberization of education. Following in the footsteps of the transportation, hotel and restaurant industries, higher education is next in line to Uber-ize. Looking back on 2015, the much-expected MOOC revolution did not materialize, but is starting to gain a foothold now. However, the digital revolution shows no signs of slowing down.

What does the above mean for teaching and learning? Is flexible learning, mobile learning, MOOCs, etc. the front-runners for the disruption of how education is going to be  delivered and how students learn and teachers teach? Flexible learning promises to bring more of the population into teaching and learning. Education and learning is currently constrained with the “Economic” aspect of time and finance (costs), mobility, learner styles and readiness. This ONL161 course is a perfect example. It would be too expensive to travel, host people in physical spaces, demand their undivided attention and time and disrupt their lives if it was done in any other way.

1.  Clearing the Fog

We seem to be bombarded with concepts such as: Flexible learning, online learning, mobile learning vs mobile devices, M-Learning, e-learning, blended learning, MOOCs, hybrid learning, collaborative learning, connectivist learning, digital literacy, etc. Many concepts have been used to describe this cloud of change hanging over education. There is no standard definition for each of these terms and definitions; and agreement on what they actually are is evolving. Let us explore blended learning as one example. Tony Bates defines blended learning as any mix of face to face teaching and online learning on a continuum from face to face teaching with no technology to the all technology course that is fully online (Bates, 2015). Blended (or mixed) pedagogical approach implies the use of conventional methods of instruction such as face-to-face lectures and tutorials, seminars, small-group discussions and other digital methods (Jones, Walters, 2015).

A consensus is emerging that blended learning, a term that embraces various combinations of classroom presence and online study, will become the most common approach to teaching and learning in higher education. Does this consensus simply aim to safeguard the tradition of face to face teaching against an invasion of fully online learning or can blended learning raise higher education to new levels of effectiveness and quality (Daniel, 2015)?

Another example from our FISh discussions, we learnt that mobile learning is not equal to learning by mobile phones. That is something else. However mobile devices (like phones and i-pads) are tools that could be used when the learning is mobile in a geographical sense.

2.  Why is blended learning a good transitional strategy?

Blended courses are popular because they allow students and faculty to take advantage of much of the flexibility and convenience of an online course while retaining the benefits of face-to-face classroom experiences (UCF, 2010). Furthermore, the students and teachers feel more comfortable with a surrounding where they feel safe. It allows the students that cannot come to campus on a specific day to continue working. People have different ways to learn, some need to see, others to hear, etc., and this may be an effective way to give more students a possibility to use a form of teaching that gives them the highest possibility to get the most out of the courses.

As a reflection of our own experiences we found these points that can be used to address a variety of institutional, faculty, and student needs. Blended courses can be:

• part of a strategy to compensate for limited classroom space

• a way to think differently about encouraging faculty collaboration

• a method to infuse new engagement opportunities into established courses

• a way to provide a transitional opportunity between fully face-to-face and fully online instruction.

The above can be a possibility to use the conveniences of online learning combined with the social and instructional interactions that may not lend themselves to online delivery (e.g. lab sections or proctored assessments) (UCF, 2010)

These digital methods need to engage learners, transforming contact sessions into active learning opportunities, effecting a paradigm shift from a traditional teacher-centred to a student-centred learning environment for more effective learning (Gordon, 2014; Macharia and Pelser, 2012: 2-3 as cited by Jones, Walters, 2015). Garrison and Vaughan (2008) argue that blended learning is "the thoughtful fusion of face-to-face and online learning experiences" (p.5) such that the strengths of each mode are blended into an optimal learning experience. At most institutions, a blended course is synonymous with a hybrid course (Van der Linden, 2014). A quantity of face-to-face meetings and online activities might vary. Blended learning exists on a continuum with minimal online activities on one end and minimal face-to-face activities on the other end (Van der Linden, 2014).

Blended learning can result in significantly better learning than in a traditional classroom (Van der Linden, 2014). Two studies reviewed and summarized by Glazer (2011) include a meta-analysis of the U.S. Department of Education in 2009, and a study by Zhao and colleagues in 2005, concluded that students in blended learning courses performed significantly better than students in completely online courses or in face-to-face courses. One of the reasons thereof was that blended learning showed there was a better way to achieve optimal learning. The current learning context and environment demands showing evidence of student learning. This is one of the highest priorities facing educational institutions globally.

3.  How do you determine the degree of flexibility?

The second scenario in Topic 4 is about finding a right balance between flexibility and the necessity to structure learning activities. How far should "flexibility" be implemented? Are there any risks/disadvantages here? There should be an agreement as to what can one flex in a course. Here we can have flexibility in time (deadlines for delivery), space (in classroom, online, blend, and hybrid), content (students determine what they want to learn, similar to our ONL161 course), assessment (flex the way students want to demonstrate their learning), teaching mode (pbl, case study, practical based, constructivist, connectivist, etc).

The learning styles and learning maturity of students will ultimately determine the degree of flexibility. Certain tasks depend on the subject, discussions, what one is learning (content) and practical activities and these need to be done in the classroom. Flexibility can also be incorporated in the classroom where the space is fixed, but other factors are quite open. A key challenge is how to determine flexibility in practical based subjects like nursing, medicine, chemistry, science and engineering.  Flexibility can occur in these activities by adopting simulation and virtualisation to perform practicals, and these can assist before the real stuff is done.

It has also been found that students perform better in blended courses, and the electronic resources characteristic in the modality also offer other advantages. These advantages could entail that students perform more analytic to the material in the courses and in the same way get a better understanding of the education. Also, educators have the possibility to better understand how student learning works (US Dept. of Ed., 2010).

4.  When is flexibility not a good idea?

What are the challenges to providing more flexible learning in higher education? Some participants felt that students are not ready to learn flexibly, and prefer a traditional model of teaching through lectures and assessment through essays and exams. To make learning more flexible, more resources and supports must be in place.  However, there is weak evidence (regardless of how theoretically sound it is) suggesting its learning effectiveness.  There is also a seeming tension between learning effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (Chen, 2003). Another aspect is quality ratings and a risk of failure of benchmark statements.

Maarop’s review revealed that amongst the challenges faced by the instructors, are increased workload and time devotion, lack of pedagogical and technical skills to conduct the program and difficulty in finding the right blend between face-to-face and online learning. The review also discovered the importance of staff training, support and networking as strategies to help instructors deal with such issues (Maarop, 2016).

Creelmans video discusses the pros and cons of flexibility for students (or teachers) (Creelman, 2014). Flexibility can result in too much workload for a student and also has the danger of teachers “offloading” teaching to students. Flexibility depends on student responsibility, age and maturity level of the student and, most importantly, the level of technology adoption of both teachers and students. You have to know what you are doing when you use digital technologies. Frustration and failure can lead to non-use or resistance.

Can flexible learning take you off topic?  When the outcomes are not clear and the course or learning is not planned sufficiently, flexibility is not a good idea. If flexibility is to occur through digital tools and the web, then a poor internet connection, high bandwidth costs and no access to technology can be a stumbling block.  This is a major problem in certain parts of Africa and other developing nations where there is no electricity, electricity load shedding is common and there is no internet.

5.  Why does flexible learning need “some rules”? Is this not a paradox?

Creelman’s video on flexible learning summarises this point succinctly. A hundred percent flexibility may never be achieved. Time, costs and goals always place constraints. If a flexible course does not factor these in, it could result in disaster. Hence, rules are important to prevent chaos and at some point people need to be in the same place in terms of their learning. These checkpoints are inevitable if we are to track progress. For example, this ONL161 course has much flexibility built-in, but there are timelines, an activity tracker, due dates for presentation and criteria for the awarding of a certificate. Students can determine outcomes but we still have rules for deadlines, presentations and blog posts, posting in community, etc. all to advance our learning and to prevent chaos. In any learning activity there should be goals and course requirements, points of assessment, pre-requisites, etc. which validate the need for rules.

Why do students drop out of any course? Could it be due to over flexibility where the structure, outcomes and ways of learning are too unstructured which leads to confusion? Students have been schooled in traditional learning and change proves difficult.

6.  Should flexible learning involve collaboration or individual learning?

Individual learning in this ONL161 course involved reading published papers and reports, watching videos and finding information. Collaborative learning was demonstrated through synchronous methods i.e. seminars, discussions and asynchronous methods i.e. add content whenever to Google documents, add to presentations, comment, etc.  There was flexibility in deciding when and where to meet (Doodle) and how to meet (chat) which was not limited to a specific time / time zones. An interesting unintended learning took place for southerners when the clock change and daylight saving occurred. It had an interesting dynamic on our flexi-times.

Therefore, the ONL161 course is proof that flexible learning should include both - it is not a choice. Both ends contribute to learning and in flexibility there are many ways to participate, even if it is a collaborative course. One needs to also learn individually to contribute to collaborative learning.

By using both, it might be possible to identify students who need an early intervention, thus increasing retention. The online tools available in blended courses can also significantly enhance student engagement, ensuring that all students participate in course discussions and benefit from collaborative learning (US Dept of Ed., 2010).

In conclusion, as the fog clears and online learning, e-learning and blended learning take root; the flexibility of teaching and learning will become a reality. We can wait for the uberization of education or we can continue with these initiatives to cope with change when it happens. Nobody has answers and Dr Martha Cleveland Innes framed it accurately in her webinar in the ONL course when asked: “How does one move teachers and learners from traditional to flexible learning? Many do not want to change because assessments are not changing.” Assessment is a challenge in many aspects when designing for learning, but becomes a bigger issue when using non-"traditional" approaches like online or open network learning. She replied that nobody has answers to these difficult questions and everyone who is participating in these endeavours and following the drivers for change in post-secondary education are “trail blazing”.

The notion of a ‘traditional’ student is no longer valid, in all parts of the world. The majority of all students either work in the formal or informal sector; care for the old or the young; are parents and/or surrogate parents to siblings; live and learn with disability or chronic illness; are returning or interrupting students; and live and learn in formal or informal housing environments. This ‘non-traditional’ student life has become the norm (Schreiber and Moja, 2014). Education and learning has to step up to this challenge and blended and flexible learning may be the pathways.

Other commonalities in the literature about what constitutes flexible learning are: that it is about access and success in higher education; that it is founded on good pedagogy that puts the learner at the centre of learning (Alexander, 2010, Edwards, 2014 as cited by Jones, Walters ,2015); that it develops well-rounded, knowledgeable and capable graduates who can make a positive difference in the world (Edwards, 2014); that it is about developing graduates who are flexible in their thinking and can hold their own in a rapidly changing and uncertain world (Barnett, 2014 as cited by Jones, Walters, 2015).

REFERENCES:

1.      Jones, B., & Walters, S. (2015). Flexible learning and teaching: looking beyond the binary of full-time/part-time provision in South African higher education. Critical Studies in Teaching and Learning, 3(1), 61-84.

2.      Van Der Linden, K. (2014). ‘Blended learning as transformational institutional learning’. New Directions for Higher Education, Special Issue: Connecting learning across the institution, 165: 75–85, Spring. Online at: http://cgi.stanford.edu/~dept-ctl/cgi-bin/tomprof/enewsletter.php?msgno=1357

3.      Chen, D. (2003). Uncovering the Provisos behind Flexible Learning. Educational Technology & Society, 6(2), 25-30.

4.      Creelman, A. (2014). Video on Flexible learning. https://connect.sunet.se/p774ada7kpd/?launcher=false&fcsContent=true&pbMode=normal

5.      Bates, A. W. (2015).  Teaching in a Digital Age: Guidelines for Designing Teaching and Learning, http://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/ Accessed 2016-04-01

6.      Daniel, J. S. (2015) Making Sense of Blended Learning: Treasuring an Older Tradition or

Finding a Better Future? http://sirjohn.ca/wordpress/wpcontent/

uploads/2012/08/Blended-Learning-by-Sir-John-Daniel_English.pdf Accessed 2016-04-1

7.      Maarop, A. H., & Embi, M. A. (2016). Implementation of Blended Learning in Higher Learning Institutions: A Review of Literature. International Education Studies, 9(3), 41.

8.      UCF, 2010, https://blended.online.ucf.edu/about/benefits-of-blended-learning/ Accessed 2016-04-02

9.      Schreiber, B., & Moja, T. (2014). Co-curriculum: Integrated practice or at the fringes of university life?. In conference of the South African Federation of Student Affairs and Services, Durban, August.

10.  Edwards, A. (2014) ‘Designing tasks which engage learners with knowledge’. Forthcoming in Thompson, I. (ed.) Task Design, Subject Pedagogy and Student Engagement. London: Routledge.

11.  Sherriff L, 2015, http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/07/ernst-and-young-removes-degree-classification-entry-criteria_n_7932590.html Accessed 2016-03-31

12.  US Dept. of Ed., 2010, http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf Accessed 2016-04-02