It seems that I got so far behind in the Designing for Flexible Learning course that I am finally getting around to Week 4 just as the course is heading into its last week.  I’ve just read the reading[1] and figured that if I really want to experience flexible learning, I should just keep going at my own pace.  After all, part of what Annand (2007) points to is that we need to provide flexibility for students[2].

The question that was posited for this ‘exercise’[3] was

• How can distance, correspondence and/or online learning create flexible learning opportunities in your context?

Wow.  That’s a big question.  Considering my PhD was partly related to this, I could theoretically write a dissertation on it.  Harking back to that effort, the whole premise of my thesis was that technologies, such as email, can provide added value to a learning situation.  The context of that study was a predominantly distance institution that provided a study guide, a minimalist web page and an email list.  While I didn’t focus specifically on ‘flexibility’ of learning[4], the underlying assumption was that technologies contribute to flexible learning environments and that an online environment (eg a discussion list) was inherently flexible.  One of my stated findings pointed towards the “potential utility of online learning as a highly accessible pedagogic practice”[5].

Turning my attention to my current context, I have realised this semester, that in an attempt to provide flexible learning opportunities for ‘students’[6], I seem to have overwhelmed myself with maintenance activities.  In some ways, I think I have become too flexible and allowing students too much leeway to get things done.  There seems to be a tradeoff between flexibility and accreditation.  The whole notion of accreditation is based on (in part) comparative achievement of a cohort.  If we are to maintain the accreditable outcomes for students, we must forfeit some flexibility.  Learning can (and does) happen anywhere, but accreditation comes with a cost.

So what kinds of flexibility am I providing for students?  I think there are a number of points in the undergrad (Business Informatics) course that point towards flexibility:

1. separation of skill competencies from critical competencies
2. linking of skills and critical competencies
3. collaborative processes and assessments (building on both skills and critical competencies)
4. a range of activities that are assessable (providing many opportunities for success) and
5. a detailed structure (and study guide) that links it all together.

While not all students achieve the high level of critical competencies that I’d like, nearly every student[7] increased their level at entry in skills, critical thinking or both.  I’ve often wondered how to base student learning on their entry level, but for accreditation requirements , we need to state the outcomes and measure against a theoretical set of criteria.

The requirements for the course are competencies in Technologies (knowing how to operate a computer via an online skills based system) and in library literacies (an online tutorial about our library), contribution to a collaborative information repository (a mini wiki in BlackBoard), a business analysis using basic functions of a spreadsheet plus writing a report and a presentation for it (but not giving the presentation).  There’s also a fifty percent exam (an accreditation requirement) in which we use the SOLO taxonomy to measure student achievement in two questions about business and topics from the course.

One of the problems I’m encountering from this course is that students who think they know a lot about computers believe the course will not teach them anything and they often fail to become critical users of technology.  Another problem is the desire of students for facts.  They do not like that I do not provide a ‘powerpoint’ presentation with lots of dot points that they can simply remember.  It seems, in some ways, that they do not desire ‘flexibility’.  However, upon reflection, these students are typically straight from school and have perhaps been programmed to accept the memorisation of facts as exhibiting ‘learning’.

I’m tempted next semester to introduce them to Bloom’s taxonomy as the underlying philosophy of the course[8], although I found a really interesting twist on Bloom on Flickr where the triangle was turned upside down.  I like this because it’s really where I’m focussing on in this course, on the so called ‘higher capabilities’.  It’s like I told students at the start of the course:

There are no facts here, just new ways of thinking.

I suppose, getting back to the question, my teaching becomes very much about flexible learning opportunities because the students in my course are so diverse that there needs to be opportunities for success for all of them.  That to, me, is truly flexible.

1. Annand, D, 2007, Re-organizing Universities for the Information Age, The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, Vol 8, No 3, http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/372/952 [↩]
2. I’m tempted to stop using the term ‘student‘ altogether in favour of ‘learner‘ as ‘student’ implies enrolment at an educational institution [↩]
3. I can’t really call it ‘week’ as the ‘week’ was in April and it’s now June [↩]
4. I just checked, I mentioned ‘flexible’ 4 times [↩]
5. To read the abstract (with a link to the dissertation in its entirety) go here [↩]
6. Okay, I’m a learner, but they are students.  I suppose that arises from what Annand highlights as one of the problematics of the current educational paradigm in universities – cohort based learning [↩]
7. The cohort size was just under 300, so that’s a pretty good achievement [↩]
8. Thanks to Barbara Dieu for reminding me of this, see http://www.wikieducator.org/ELT_Resources/visual_and_critical_literacy [↩]