Flexible Learning : Implications for Academic Practice

Denise Kirkpatrick

Viktor Jakupec

Kitty te Riele

University of Technology, Sydney

Introduction

In recent years there has been a marked increase in the reference to flexible learning in higher education. It is increasingly common to _see flexible learning represented as the convergence between open and distance learning and traditional education encompassing a wide range of practices. This loose definition is not particularly informative resulting in confusion about what flexible learning really is. There are currently multiple, competing discourses of flexible learning. Among the ways in which it is represented flexible learning may be taken to mean: learning with technology; increased access to education leading to greater equity; the means by which institutions can achieve the competitive edge; or a tool for increasing efficiency and accountability.

Factors supporting the growth of flexible learning

Flexible learning is not an isolated phenomenon but part of much broader changes affecting higher education. The emerging culture of postmodernism has led to increasing pressure for "choice, flexibility and diversity" (Hartley , 1995, p. 421) and the environment of economic change created by the culture of post-Fordist capitalism has encouraged the rise of flexible delivery and flexible learning. The growing impact of information technology and computer mediated communications both increases the pace of change and offers opportunities to address change. This applies equally to private and public organisations including higher education. The cumulative effect is the emergence of the "new economy" " distinguished from the old economy by a new set of competitive standards. In the old economy competitive success was based almost exclusively on the ability to improve productivity. In the new economy organisations and nations compete not only on their ability to improve productivity but on their ability to deliver quality, variety, customization, convenience and timeliness as well being replaced by flexible networks." (Carnevale, 1991, p. iii). Universities have read this to mean that if they are to survive and succeed, they must identify and maintain their competitive edge. Flexibility is required if increasing rapid and uncertain change is to be addressed.

The intrusion of managerialism into higher education has played a significant role in increasing the attention to the development of flexible learning. Managerial rationality accompanied by strategic planning has been encouraged by: national goals for higher education; changing patterns of enrolment; demand for increased access to higher education; the decline in funding levels per student and consequent need to generate income from other sources; and the emergence of market forces in higher education. The linking of higher education to national economic agendas has created a situation which has provided governments with the pretext to intervene in university affairs, redefining the role of the university in ways that to a large extent discard the notion of universities as liberal. autonomous institutions. Paradoxically, it has been partly the cost of financing equity and increased access to higher education that has resulted in the value of the modern university being restated in performative and economic terms.

The growing trend for universities to focus attention and energies on the development of flexible learning initiatives has been given impetus by a range of factors including the rapid advances in electronic communications technology that introduce flexibility in production, distribution and interactivity in education along with a consequent shift towards the globalisation of education. Commentators on information technologies argue that flexibility is the key to the survival of educational providers enabling them to respond to the needs of the ‘new’_ learner. They argue that consumers will drive the direction and demand for knowledge according to their perceived needs, with legitimation of knowledge becoming largely a factor of its demand. To exist in such a climate it is necessary to structure information in flexible ways (for example offering new and different courses, modules, updating information, providing just in time training).

This focus on alternative ways of delivering courses to students has also been encouraged by a recognition of the changing needs of students and industry. The ‘new economy’ referred to previously, demands continuous organisation and individual learning in order to respond to the pace and magnitude of change; the ability to learn will be critical for the success of the organisation. The development of the workforce is an economic imperative and if business is to be more knowledge based then higher education can play a vital role as a knowledge industry. Intellectual property can offer financial rewards through the sale of courses and materials produced within the university. It can also add to the productivity of knowledge by enabling learners to apply this knowledge in their own organisations, hence generating further knowledge for themselves and their employers. If universities don’t acknowledge the importance of productivity of knowledge and respond to this need by providing relevant courses in appropriate ways they run the risk of being seen as increasingly irrelevant. More importantly, there is a growing sense that ‘if universities don’t do it, then someone else will’ and more specifically ‘if we don’t do it, another university will’.

Flexible learning in one university

There are a wide variety of definitions of flexible learning in and beyond higher education, only some of which are given priority at any time. In this paper I attempt to identify the meanings of flexible learning which are being advocated and acted upon in one site of higher education.

Necessarily this represents a ‘snapshot’ of a particular stage in the introduction of flexible learning. A site of such contestation will be continually changing, the contested terrain shifting in response to a range of forces and actions. The growth of flexible learning in this university is the result of complex interplay of factors and events which opened up a space where knowledge of flexible learning was constructed. Here a loose assemblage of practices, techniques and policies converged. Flexible learning emerged as multi faceted and evolving rather than a unitary homogeneous phenomenon. While this paper presents the discourses that were dominant at the time it doesnot claim to represent all discourses. Investigation of the territory six months later may well show that other discourses have become privileged either along with, or marginalising, the existing dominant discourses. What follows are the interpretations of flexible learning by some staff. Law (1994) reminds us that to tell a story is also a way not to tell a story; it is a way of simultaneously creating and suppressing other stories. This is the story of the emergence of flexible learning as told by academic staff from a range of disciplines and a variety of appointment positions.

The Process

The University of Technology, Sydney _(UTS) is a multi campus metropolitan university with a clearly identified student clientele, largely part-time and adult students.It has a strong reputation for professional and vocational education with strong industry links and co-operative education programs. The university had not previously been involved in the provision of distance education but had recently entered into off-shore delivery of educational programs. In 1996 UTS identified flexible learning as one of its strategic initiatives describing it as ‘developing the university’s capacity to offer learning independent of space and time’ (UTS strategic plan, 1996). Subsequently, a number of documents relating to flexible learning were issued by the office of the Deputy Vice Chancellor offering a broad definition of flexible learning, as ‘learning which meets diverse learning needs within the contemporary social context’. Characteristics of flexible learning would include the ‘recognition of individual differences in learner characteristics and associated guidance and support; choice over time, site and pace of learning’. Later descriptions encompassed anything that increased student access to learning, and focused on course design and delivery:

Other related documents referred to the development of a ‘more flexible learning environment’.

Individual faculties, and academics within faculties were encouraged to construct their own meanings of the term. A central committee was established to plan support for flexible learning, and through a competitive process, funding was provided to support the establishment of teaching projects and administrative practices that would result in flexible learning. The openness of the term’s definition meant that decisions to fund particular projects rather than others provided some clues to which flexible learning discourses the university saw as legitimate.

The projects that were funded predominantly involved the use of information technology, including the establishment of websites, the introduction of computer mediated conferencing, and the development of multimedia or web based instruction. Not only did projects using information technology get a larger share of available funds, but they comprised the largest number of projects funded. Other successful projects were: those that developed distance education type materials and converted traditional face-to-face teaching to remote and independent learning packages; and the development of infrastructure to support the use of computer mediated conferencing.

_

The funding of these preliminary flexible learning projects was followed by a call to all faculties for funding bids for strategic initiatives projects. The projects which were successful were of a similar nature to those funded in the preliminary round of funding. Major public figures involved in these activities included senior academics from central units, including one with a strong interest and links to information technology.

Emerging Discourses in the Institution

Four clear representations of flexible learning emerged: Flexible learning as efficient practice; flexible learning as the means of gaining the competitive edge; flexible learning as achieving equity; and flexible delivery, particularly the use of information technologies.

Performativity is the principle of optimising performance by technical innovation, a "rhetorical practice which reifies efficiency" (Mourad, 1997, p. 31). This notion of performativity was clearly represented in the discourse of flexible learning as efficiency. The emphasis on the use of information technology in enabling flexible learning and the view that information technology will create a more efficient education system reflects Lyotard's claims about the impact of information processing on the transmission of acquired learning (1984). "The result. . . will be the mercantilisation of knowledge where knowledge will cease to be an end in itself." Increasing attention is being given to the input-output equation in accountability in higher education and flexibility is represented as the means of achieving greater efficiencies.

There were no explicit statements that flexible learning was being introduced to save money although there was a groundswell of opinion among teaching academics that the primary reason for the university’s attention to the development of flexible learning was economic. The drive to implement more flexible learning strategies was interpreted by many teaching academics as an economic and political expedient. Implicit in this was a concern that the change is a short term response, reactive rather than proactive, only secondarily determined by educational considerations. Teachers were also concerned that performance would be judged against externally determined criteria which neither learners nor teachers would necessarily endorse.

Public documents made it clear that although some money would be spent establishing projects, ultimately course delivery should cost no more than it currently did. Many teaching academics expressed beliefs that flexible learning was all about doing more with less (and that they would be seen as responsible and lacking in some way if they were not able to do this effectively).

Flexible learning featured strongly in the university’s and faculty’s strategic goals and was reflected in planning documents. This managerial emphasis on flexible learning makes it increasingly difficult for individual academics to ignore the calls for increased flexibility. Linking funding for initiatives and development to the demonstration of increased flexibility added pressure for individuals and groups to be seen to be involved and communicated the seriousness with which the idea is regarded by the university. In order to win much needed_ resources most departments agreed to ‘take on’ flexible learning joining a desperate rush for funding. Not only did this require staff time and effort to develop proposals but it was frequently done with little or no consultation between managers and teaching academics causing resistance from staff who had not been involved in the decision making but were expected to implement the changes. Consequently, a reasonable resistance to the introduction of different ways of teaching was heightened by feelings of anger at the imposition of innovation to which some staff had not agreed. The perception that flexible learning was being imposed on academic staff, accompanied by a belief that accountability was being shifted ‘down’ became more widespread.

Certain high profile flexible learning projects focused very clearly on developing mechanisms for dealing efficiently with large numbers of students. In at least one faculty there was a stated intention to use flexible learning to make faculty teaching operations more efficient (especially where multi campus teaching was involved) and there were overt and covert actions that supported this. Some staff saw that flexible learning could provide a tool for dealing with the administration of large student numbers and multi campus students groups more efficiently. They saw that handling the administrative and organisational aspects of teaching more efficiently would free staff to focus on teaching and learning. These views were voiced by a small number of academics who had been involved in the project for some time and had developed sufficient familiarity with technologies to be able to look beyond them. Like most users of new technologies it was not until they were comfortable with the routine use of the technology that they could envisage other ways of using it.

Many teaching academics saw a decrease in the amount of face-to-face contact between teachers and students as a negative consequence of flexible learning projects. While it may lower the cost of teaching a subject or course it removes an important source of teacher satisfaction and was the subject of some resistance. There was even greater resistance to the possibility that the ultimate efficiency may result from the development of flexible learning approaches - the redundancy of teaching academics resulting from the use of stand-alone teaching packages, workplace mentors or web-based instruction.

While flexible learning was represented as the means of creating a more efficient university, there was a related discourse that portrayed flexible learning as providing the competitive edge. Flexibility was seen as the means by which the university could become more competitive in attracting students. This was portrayed in terms of the modes of delivery that were offered, creating courses for niche markets and offering them in ways that would be attractive to particular groups (eg work based learning qualifications). Much attention was directed at the marketability of various funded project outcomes. Flexible learning was seen as the means of preserving the university’s place in the current marketplace and of creating, and consolidating niche markets.

The discourse of the competitive edge functioned at all levels within the university. In competition for scarce curriculum and development funding a faculty’_s activity in the realm of flexible learning would give it the opportunity to attract more funding than its competitors - other faculties in the universities. The ability to develop courses that were more flexible and catered to the needs of specific potential student groups increased the faculty’s capacity to attract more students and hence a greater share of funding.

The competitive edge also functioned among individuals. Flexible learning was frequently interpreted as something new or innovative. Individual teacher academics perceived pressure to be involved in the development of flexible learning and expressed concern that as the university was placing so much importance on it they would be judged as somehow lacking if they were not involved and successful. The inclusion of flexible learning in guidelines for promotion provided further reason for academics to think that involvement in projects would put them ahead of the competition.

This reinforced the perception that flexible learning was something that staff needed to be seen to be doing. Just as the university was seen to be engaging in flexible learning because its competitors were, so too were individuals. Being involved in a flexible learning project was seen to be something that would give an academic the competitive edge over one’s colleagues: in attracting internal funding; getting promotion; having one’s contract renewed and so on. Others saw the inclusion of flexible learning in criteria for promotion as an appropriate reward, making extra effort worth while, and a necessary way of encouraging staff to adopt new projects. In a context of economic restriction and threats of job cuts the performative function of flexible learning initiatives became significant in regulating the behaviour of academic staff.

University documents presented alternative entry scenarios and policies were altered to support a third teaching ‘semester’ supporting one dimension of flexible learning as access. Documents describing what flexible learning might be in the university made reference to increasing the access of students to education through the use of alternate modes of delivery. The recognition of prior learning and freeing up of entry and exit points can open higher education to students who would previously have been denied entry through traditional practices. This can suggest a student centred approach to learning and democratisation of learning and teaching.

The practices of flexible learning can support views about teaching, learning and access which affirm liberal and humanistic views of education (Nunan, 1996). Flexible learning and delivery can be represented as the method of enacting lifelong learning and student-centred learning. Administrative procedures were reviewed to facilitate more flexible student entry and a board of studies was established to oversee the development of courses allowing non-traditional entry through work based programs. As equity and access, flexible learning implied an intention to increase learners’ access to, and control over particular teaching and learning environments. The more flexible offering and delivery of higher education were represented as providing a way of increasing access to education and giving greater control to the learner. _

However this was contradicted in many instances by the restricted access created by the use of technology. Not all students had personal access to the necessary technology and the level of university support through laboratories was limited. Distance education, the form of delivery which would increase the potential access of students by freeing up ‘time, space and place’ received some attention but little infrastructure support. A number of unfunded projects offered more freedom of access through the use of learning contracts, block teaching sessions, and the provision of independent study materials. For many, particularly those on the fringes of flexible learning it was the funded projects which were more visible and hence seen as more privileged.

Despite official policy documents reiterating the ‘official’ view that while flexible learning may mean teaching with technology this would not always be appropriate there was a widespread sentiment that flexible learning did mean the use of technology. This is closely associated with the theme of flexible learning as the competitive edge. ‘Early adopters’ of information technology, specifically the use of computer mediated conferencing and (at least in the early stages) web-based instruction received support for projects in which they had a special interest. This usually led to a raising of the faculty level profile for people who were already seen as being associated with technological innovation. Many of these projects were not widely known, or officially widely publicised but as word spread about what various people were doing a sense of some individuals being ’in’ while others were seen to be excluded from a select group began to develop. Those who were working with funded projects were seen as the ‘anointed ones’: those who not only knew what flexible learning meant but were actively engaged in it and being rewarded by the institution that is, gaining the competitive edge in the university.

The lack of a coherent method of circulating information about various projects and initiatives had several consequences: firstly it meant that there was duplication of effort (and in some cases resource provision) as staff introduced new approaches. There were several similar projects happening simultaneously with little communication between teams simply because they were unaware of each other. This resulted in: frustration when the group heard that others were working in similar areas and that they had missed opportunities to share in each other’s learning: and cynicism from those outside. Observers saw this as either another sign of those who were ‘on the in’ or a lack of direction. Some interpreted it as the university wanting to make teaching staff responsible for the direction and the subsequent success of flexible learning. Another cynical interpretation was that this was a ploy to keep information from staff. Measures to address this lack of communication such as information sharing sessions, the establishment of a website and support groups began the dissemination of information and opened up spaces for discussion and exploration of experiences and ideas.

Although policy documents stated support for a broad view of flexible _learning, encompassing a diversity of ways of increasing accessibility to learning, this was not be the message perceived by staff. A large proportion of available funding was directed at technologically driven approaches and individuals interpreted this to mean that high tech approaches were preferred. For many teaching academics flexible learning (and delivery) was the form of learning that was carried by the information technologies.

These initiatives were accompanied by substantial highly visible infrastructure which emphasised the message. Flexible learning ventures that include some form of information technology then appeared to more valued within and by the institution. This was particularly the case where most of the projects that were funded related to the use of computer conferencing and resulted in the formation of large teams, trialing of software, purchase of software and investment in infrastructure to support the use of conferencing. Some attention was given to the consideration of teaching and learning implications of this but the focus was clearly on the means of delivery. The allocation of limited funding to the purchase of high cost items that demanded time and attention indicated to staff the forms of flexible learning that the university saw as valuable and valid.

While some funding was allocated for the development of distance education materials no provision was made for the central infrastructure to support this. Projects that involved the development or implementation of practices that placed the learner more centrally in the teaching-learning process were generally seen as part of existing teaching practice and were not seen to require funding to support their development. This was also associated with the notion that flexible learning was about innovation and doing something different. Even in contexts where learning contracts, flexible assessment and so on were not part of existing practice they had a lower profile because such initiatives do not require large amounts of funding or visible infrastructure to support. Often unfunded or small-scale, individual projects they did not appear on the advertised list of successful projects. In a culture that judges value by the associated monetary value these types of projects were seen as less valuable. This presents a dilemma for the university that is trying to encourage diverse practice - how to value projects that do not have a high price tag. This dilemma is increased when the alternative is the practice of rewarding involvement in such projects through promotion is viewed as either irrelevant, undesirable or coercive.

There were many unfunded projects and examples of teaching practice that could easily be understood as increasing flexibility of time and space. However, in the words of one academic "Well, I’m doing lots of things that you could call flexible learning but they’re things like flexible scheduling, self study groups and choice of learning modules. And that’s not what the university is calling flexible learning is it? For the university it’s using computers, putting it on the web . . .". Staff who believed that their existing practices constituted ‘real’ flexible learning, although not what they thought the university saw as flexible learning were perhaps complicit in marginalising these other views. They acquiesced to what they saw as the official view, often eventually seeing themselves as not engaging in practices that represented flexible learning. In some faculties where deans or academic managers publicly valued staff involvement in these other forms of _flexible learning there was a stronger association between the practices and the term although staff still expressed the sentiment that they were currently engaged in, and had "been doing flexible learning for some time it’s just not what the university wants it to be".

Consideration of the projects that were initiated suggests that at this stage attention was focused very squarely on flexible delivery. This is reflected in much of the literature relating to the development of flexible learning in Australia which focuses on ways of delivering information or courses to students. If the technologies used overcome space-time constraints then the focus on delivery may well improve student access to education, providing opportunities to attend to ways of making learning more flexible. However, in many cases the projects featured a reconfiguration or repackaging of existing material which may well often lock students into more rigid ways of engaging in course content rather than offering greater flexibility. The emphasis on flexible learning projects that used computer mediated communications conflicted with discourses of access and equity. The use of computer mediated communications as an integral part of a subject may create attitudinal or resource barriers to the access of particular groups of students or restrict access to particular times. This was the case where students did not have appropriate technology at home or work and were reliant on gaining access to limited university computer laboratories. Even when students have access to appropriate technology at work there may be real restrictions on the amount of access they have or the times at which they can make use of these resources. As universities increasingly expect students to be able to utilise the technology resources of their employers the possibility that employers will restrict access or charge employees for private use of resources becomes very real. It does not seem reasonable for universities (who themselves as employers are considering charging their staff for private use of the internet) to expect that other employers will be more generous.

Regardless of the form of technology which was intended to support alternate modes delivery this discourse was accompanied by concerns on the part of teaching academics about their lack of knowledge and skills in using the technology either in its own right, or more specifically, as part of the teaching-learning process. So there were concerns about one’s level of computer literacy as well as the most effective ways to use, for example, computer mediated conferencing to encourage student learning. Technologies such as distance education also caused problems for academic staff who were not experienced in the design, preparation or production of independent learning materials. The extensive involvement in trial and error development was time consuming, ultimately expensive and the source of frustration for many academic staff. For some this was perceived as further evidence that the responsibility for the success of flexible learning was being placed squarely on the shoulders of teaching academics.

The university’s use of the term flexible learning included any strategies that would increase students’ access to learning, freeing learners from constraints of time space and place. This suggested that almost any past and present practices could be adapted to fulfil this aim. The intention to increase flexibility suggested that there would be _particular demands on student administration in the area of enrolment procedures, entry and exit requirements. In the first instance this impacted most on administrative systems but staff began to identify issues relating to the procedures for course approval as faculties and schools attempted to free up the way in which they offered their courses. This placed additional pressure for change on administrative procedures.

Staff Responses

The following brief description of staff responses to the introduction of flexible learning were derived from interviews with academic staff from all faculties conducted as part of a research project over a twelve month period and general discussion and interaction with academic staff.

Staff responses to change and innovation are invariably diverse and this case was no exception. Technologically driven approaches to flexible learning were supported by enthusiastic ‘early adopters’ who were highly involved in both funded and unfunded projects . Frequently their interest and involvement in flexible learning was primarily driven by an interest in the technology involved, along with a desire to improve student learning. They were frequently prepared to invest a great deal of their own time in learning about how to use the technology and their attention was most usually focused on mastering the technology and using it effectively, rather than on aspects of learning. As had been intended by the university decision makers these enthusiasts ‘caught up’ others in their interest. This inclusion was encouraged by a policy of awarding funding for projects which were team based. This approach provided more novice users with opportunities to get support from colleagues who were teaching alongside them and established a local base of people with similar interests. In some cases the team approach resulted in the inclusion of members who were less committed to the introduction of flexible learning– their reluctance appeared to be a consequence of a number of factors: lack of familiarity or nervousness about using technology or the techniques of flexible learning; lack of understanding of what flexible learning might mean and whether their team’s approach was ‘right’; lack of understanding of the reasons for introducing new teaching and learning approaches; concern about their ability to do a ‘good job’ particularly in situations where there were competing demands on their time.

Beyond the enthusiasm of the early adopters were other clearly identifiable responses. These were not necessarily mutually exclusive– staff often expressed mixed feelings towards flexible learning. In a number of quarters there was a reasonable level of frustration– many staff truly were frustrated by what they saw as a lack of direction–they wanted to be told exactly what they should do, to be given clear definitions, and have their actions directed. Associated with this was a desire for more information about what was currently occurring. There were many examples of individuals who were interested in flexible learning but weren’t sure how to go about it. They wanted to opportunity to observe the actions of others to develop a sense of what might be appropriate for them. In the early stages as projects were being established there was little for teams to report but individuals ‘heard’ stories about various projects that we happening and wanted to know more. The high demand for scarce available funding led to the emergence on the part of some staff of resentment towards _others who were perceived as being ‘on the in’ or ‘anointed ‘ones. Because funding had been directed at supporting the development of new approaches it was perceived by some to mean that flexible learning was considered only to be about innovation, that existing flexible practices did not count. This was in part associated with the desire for clear explication of what flexible learning means and resulted in resentment or disappointment on the part of staff who felt that their previous effort were no longer valued in the same way.

In other cases staff felt that they had been coerced into adopting flexible learning (individual members of a teaching team where the coordinator had developed a project which automatically implicated them, or where management had made decision about flexible learning involvement). In some cases this was characterised by minimal involvement on the part of the disgruntled staff member in others there was more active resistance. This reluctance and associated resistance from staff highlights the need for the provision of adequate support and staff development to ease the introduction of flexible learning and ensure that as much as possible is done to help staff develop approaches that are well informed, educationally sound and practicable.

Implications for Academic Practice

Discussion of the representations of flexible learning have already highlighted some of the effects on academics. Not suprisingly there was considerable variation in the reactions of academic staff depending on the extent of their involvement in the innovations and the role that they had taken.

My job won’t change– This response emanated from staff who believed that their current teaching practices already incorporated flexibility for learners hence there was no need for change. Staff who were strongly resistant to flexible learning also had no intention of changing what they were doing.

I can see it’s going to change what I do and I’m not looking forward to it–Some staff were concerned or disturbed that flexible learning practices would remove them from a primary source of academic pleasure or fulfilment– direct contact with their students. Other staff were intimidated by technologies or the demands of learning to use these and were reluctant to expose themselves to uncertainty. Professional identities are tied up with one’s competence in performing one’s job–teaching. The prospect of teaching in new ways raises the possibility that some may be less successful than in traditional, familiar teaching roles. Senior level academics in managerial positions who had limited teaching responsibilities did not see that flexible learning would directly effect the nature of their jobs

Learning involved not just how to use the technologies whether this meant computer mediated conferencing, developing learning materials and packages, new assessment techniques but more significantly finding out what worked, under what circumstances and for whom and how. As staff became more familiar with the technologies _they were able to explore their potential to support teaching and learning in new ways. This presented them with the option of reconceptualising their teaching in quite dramatically different ways.

A number of staff were also enthusiastic about the potential that flexible learning offered them for improving the quality of students’ learning experiences and to meet the needs of their students in more appropriate ways. Generally individuals were not able to focus on student learning aspects until they were comfortable with the strategies and techniques they were using even where their initial interest had been motivated by the desire to improve learning

The previous section has identified the multiple ways in which flexible learning has been conceptualised and suggested some of the implications of such innovations. In the following section we will consider the staff development needs that emerged in relation to supporting the adoption of flexible learning.

Supporting Staff

Successful large scale educational innovations require appropriate staff development and support and the breadth the university’s conceptualisation of flexible learning created particular staff development needs.

Providing a Framework and Clear Direction

The issue of the extent to which a central body defines the parameters of flexible learning is problematic. Rigid definitions and frameworks can limit creativity and restrict the breadth of possible initiatives, reducing flexible learning to little more than a recipe book, or a rigidly defined set of practices. However too little definition can have a negative effect on staff motivation as they expend time and energy attempting to define what is meant. Too little guidance can also discourage staff who may be reluctant to take responsibility for constructing a workable meaning of the concept. Taylor (1996) argues that a definition of the scope of flexible education for meeting the extended mission of the university is a key feature of policy that will provide guidance about what is permitted and possible. There needs to be clearly understood and shared meaning of the term. While flexible learning was clearly associated with the university’s strategic there was no clear indication of the ways in which it would contribute to achieving the broader goals of the university. The provision of case studies and examples that illustrate the breadth of meaning of flexible learning can provide additional direction for staff without being too prescriptive.

Development of Knowledge and Skills

The university had made an intentional decision to leave the term as undefined as possible to allow for generations of locally relevant meanings. However when staff are asked to adopt ambiguously defined innovations there is an understandable feeling of disquiet. Well intentioned staff who wish to improve learning for the students want to know just what it is they should be doing. In the initial stages of introduction there is a need for the provision of opportunities for staff to explore possible ways in which flexible learning may be interpreted and what this would mean for teaching and learning.

Once staff have developed some idea of the options from which they may select _there is a need for training in the skills involved. Such development may be offered in a range of ways: generic skills in instructional design may be appropriate in some cases but there may be little subsequent transfer. Alternatively a range of introductory workshops presenting overview and basic skills can provide staff with confidence to begin work on a development. Follow-up workshops for project teams, specifically focused on the development project allow staff to be supported in the course of learning about the best way to use various flexible strategies. In flexible learning approaches that involve the use of technologies there is a need for basic training in the use of the technologies when staff are unfamiliar with them. Where software is involved staff also need to become familiar with ways in which the software works and its capabilities.

Until staff are comfortable using technologies such as computer mediated conferencing, video or teleconferencing they will not be able to consider the pedagogical demands of the new approach or the most effective ways to use it to enhance student learning. Attending to the pedagogical dimensions of new approaches is of particular importance. Where flexible learning projects included the use of established approaches such as distance education materials, peer teaching, learning and assessment, videoconferencing take home labs and interactive multi media there was an established body of literature dealing with teaching and learning principles and issues. This provided a base from which academics staff development could begin and provide staff with guidelines for their practice. In addition it provided a source of evidence to support the decisions staff had made about selecting that approach as the most appropriate for their context. However, newer strategies such as the use of workplace based learning, web based instruction or computer mediated conferencing have little empirical evidence suggesting best practice or supporting their use to facilitate learning. This adds yet another ‘layer’ of learning on the staff’s already heavy learning load – not only do they have to learn how to use the technologies in a technical sense, they have to learn how to use them effectively in an educational sense. This ‘learning load’ provides further support for the recommendation that a range of opportunities are made available for staff to share their experiences.

Once staff have developed familiarity with basic skills and technologies attention needs to be given to exploring pedagogical implications of using the specific approach. This may be done in generic workshops or carried out with project teams or faculty or sub-faculty groups. On-going work with teams on the specific project allows staff to reflect on their experiences learning from their experience under the guidance of a more experienced team leader or academic staff developer who has the capacity to share the experiences of other groups. Mentor schemes teaming more and less experienced users of specific flexible learning approaches have great potential for enhancing the learning of academic staff adopting flexible learning. The involvement of academic staff developers in on-going project and developmental work can fulfil an important information dissemination function in addition to their more obvious educational development role.

Provision of Forums for Discussion and Dissemination of Information

At all stages of the introduction of flexible learning the provision of opportunities for staff to engage in _discussion and exploration of ideas and possibilities, share experiences and critique their practice is essential. In the early stages it is important to provide adequate opportunities for staff to explore the implications for their teaching, general academic practice and students. Later as staff become involved in projects they needed opportunities to share their experiences with others – providing a forum for displaying what they have done, articulating the processes they have gone through and the decisions they have made. This also allows others to (especially those who may be reluctant to become involved) to find out what is going on. Sharing experiences allows individuals to learn from each others’ experiences and to realise that others may be facing similar challenges.

A variety of forums for sharing experiences were held ranging from informal team discussion to formal university wide showcases of projects. A number of symposia were held where staff involved in range of flexible learning projects presented their experiences and shared the lessons they had learned. An unintended outcome of some of these discussions was trouble shooting as members of various teams worked together to solve an individual staff member’s problem. These forums also facilitated exchange of ideas about teaching and learning between members of different faculties, providing valuable cross fertilisation ideas and establishing useful collaborations and sharing of expertise.

Most academic staff have strong attachments to their professional identities formed through their traditional teaching experiences; the use of forms of flexible learning which distance the teacher from the learner can unsettle these identities (McWilliam & Palmer, 1995). Some staff expressed feelings of loss in relation to their previously constructed view of themselves in relation to interpersonal interaction with students. For many staff it is the face to face interactions with students that define their teaching selves (McInnis, 1992). The removal of this contact was viewed by some as undesirable or threatening. It was common for staff to feel a sense of loss at the perception that they were losing the thing that they most found most attractive about teaching – direct contact with students. Staff need support to deal with this but also to look forward and to explore the possibilities for developing different relationships between teacher and learners. Similarly, adopting new teaching and learning approaches that often had little in the way of established recommended practice can be both challenging and intimidating. Individuals who were comfortable and competent in their previous teaching approaches were trying out new and often untested techniques, opening up the possibility that teaching sessions may fail or at least be less successful than normal. In these circumstances the opportunity to hear of others’ similar experiences (and their responses) and to receive collegial support provides encouragement and helps sustain activity and morale.

An effective and far reaching method of communicating ideas among and between staff can provide support for staff who may feel isolated in their efforts and can capitalise on expertise that is developing and minimise duplication of effort. If staff have plenty _of opportunities for finding out about various projects that are being developed the task of adopting a new approach is made easier if they can identify other who are working on similar projects. Email discussion groups, a website, occasional symposia, featuring flexible learning projects in university newsletters can help to publicise and make information widely available. Building up a resource base, publicising available information and support, and providing adequate resources to support staff learning are essential.

Staff from central academic staff development or support units working across the university can provide a breadth of vision and different perspectives of what is occurring. They can act as a conduit linking members and projects across disciplines and can share the learning and experiences between teams. The development of flexible learning approaches does take time and having a number of staff who are informed about what is happening in different project can prevent replication of mistakes and duplication of efforts.

Time

Overwhelmingly the staff involved in developing flexible learning projects reported that not only was the development time consuming it was consistently more time consuming than they had expected. Even after strategies or programs had been developed there were glitches and problems along the way. These not only took time to correct but often required the development of fallback positions so that teachers were not left without teaching materials when the server crashed or they lost vision from their video conferencing. Provision of adequate preparation time is a critical factor affecting the quality of the learning experiences developed and in supporting staff in their teaching effort and maintaining momentum.

If staff are to learn from their experiences and to improve the teaching materials and learning experiences in the light of this experience then they need to be provide with adequate time (and where necessary) support for reflection on their experiences. Where staff were involved in the development of flexible learning approaches without some reduction in teaching or administrative load the demands that flexible learning development made on their time was great and placed heavy demand on them personally. Most teaching staff are prepared to go ‘beyond the call of duty’ but this can only be sustained up to a point. The current educational environment where staff are facing heavier teaching loads, larger class numbers, increased pressure to attract external funding and to publish challenge the commitment of most professionals. Of greatest significance to staff involved was the need for realistic acknowledgment of the time required to establish flexible learning.

Acknowledging and Rewarding Efforts

There is always a dilemma that institutional efforts to reward staff achievements maybe interpreted as techniques for ensuring compliance. Staff involved in developing flexible learning approaches were spending large amounts of their own time and placing themselves in risky situations. The issue of acknowledgment of efforts was particularly salient for staff who had been working in ways that they regarded as flexible prior to the initiative and which they felt had not been acknowledged.

_

Involvement in flexible learning was added to the criteria for promotion offering a very real incentive and reward for those who were in a position to apply. However, there was no equivalent reward available for those for whom promotion was not a viable option. The linking of promotions to involvement in flexible learning presents the university with a dilemma: while it is important to reward involvement in strategic directives are needs to be taken that what is rewarded is good teaching and that staff do not rush to embrace flexible learning for purely instrumental reasons. Linking promotion and involvement in flexible can also be read as punishing those who choose not to adopt flexible learning (for educationally sound reasons) by withholding promotion.

The university awarded a limited number of annual teaching excellence awards and these provide an avenue for staff who were actively seeking some incentive. Staff efforts need to be rewarded and acknowledged in other ways and acknowledgment has to be offered rather than sought. It takes a certain amount of confidence or collegial support to put oneself forward as an ‘excellent teacher’ along with a significant time commitment preparing an application. There need to be other techniques which acknowledge staff involvement. A week of activities was held valuing teaching and learning in the university and staff involved in flexible learning were invited to participate in a variety of activities including workshops, seminars, symposia, panel discussion and poster sessions that showcased their work and provided public recognition.

Infrastructure Support and Technical Assistance

The success of information technology based flexible approaches is dependent on the provision of sufficient infrastructure to support hardware and delivery. Staff and students reported frustration when technology failed them, if staff are to persevere with new developments they need to do so feeling secure that the technology is more rather than less likely to work.

Projects that involved student learning via web-based instruction or computer mediated conferencing also need to be supported by adequate resources ie access to computer laboratories available when students wanted to use them. Lack of adequate computer access was a source of frustration for many students and limited the success of several projects. The use of information technology to deliver teaching implies around the clock access– this places particular demands on the availability of technical support.

A number of projects focused on the development of materials that could be offered as distance education packages. The lack of provision for a centralised infrastructure to coordinate the production and distribution of these learning materials presented difficulties for teams involved in these projects and was not always resolved in a satisfactory manner. Academic managers and project teams need to be encouraged to give careful consideration to the implications and needs of projects before committing themselves to action. The efforts of technical and academic staff need to be coordinated and there needs to be open communication ensuring an understanding of needs, possibilities and constraints.

Conclusion_

Flexible learning has evolved in response to a range of social, cultural and economic factors. The examination of the introduction of flexible learning in one university identified the following dominant discourses: flexible learning as efficiency; flexible learning as technology; flexible learning as a means of improving student access; and flexible learning as innovation. These discourses both influence and represent what is valued in the university in terms of learning and teaching. Flexible learning has the potential to change significantly they way we teach and learn in universities, the role of the academic, the nature of our learners and what is learned. It offers potential challenge and excitement for academics as they adapt to these new ways of being and doing. However unless the introduction of such a significant initiative is accompanied by appropriate support and staff development its effects are likely to be limited and disappointing. We have identified areas in which support and staff development are necessary and have suggested strategies that have proved effective in this case.

References

Carnevale, P. (1991). America and the new economy. Washington, DC: American Society for Training and Development/US Department of Labor.

Hartley, D. (1995). The 'McDonaldization' of higher education: food for thought. Oxford Review of Education, 21, 409-423

McInnis, C. (1992). Changes in the nature of academic work. Australian Universities Review, 35, (2), 9 - 12.

Mc William, E. & Palmer, P. (1995). Teaching tech(no)bodies: Open learning and postgraduate pedagogy. Australian Universities Review, 38, 2, 32 - 34.

Mourad, R. P. (1997). Post modern philosophical critique and the pursuit of knowledge in higher education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.

Nunan, T. (1996). Flexible learning–what is it and why is it part of current educational debate? Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia. Perth, WA, July.

Taylor, P. G. (1996). Courses in university teaching: looking to practice-focused educational development. Paper prepared for Preparing University Teachers in Australia and New Zealand. A symposium conducted by the Griffith Institute for Higher Education, Griffith University, October, 1996.

Taylor, P. G., Lopez, L. & Quadrelli, C. (1996). Flexibility, technology and academics' practices: Tantalising tales and muddy maps. Canberra: AGPS.