Flexible Learning
Joy Pasco/4EDFIL7A
ABSTRACT
With flexible learning there are aspects to consider regarding to the time, content,
access, approach, and delivery. In this kind of set-up the teachers, the learner and the
institution have important role to play in flexible learning. The nineteen dimension of
flexible learning are grouped into five categories throughout teaching process. This is
the effective way to consider in this flexible learning.
INTRODUCTION
Flexible learning is a method of learning where students are given freedom in
how, what, when and where they learn. Flexible learning environments address how
physical space is used, how students are grouped during learning and how time is used
throughout teaching. According to Shurville et al. (2008) “Flexible Learning is a set of
educational philosophies and systems, concerned with providing learners with
increased choice, convenience, and personalisation to suit the learner. ‘Flexible learning
is a movement away from a situation in which key decisions about learning dimensions
are made in advance by the instructor or institution, towards a situation where the
learner has a range of options from which to choose with respect to these key
dimensions.’ (Collis & Moonen, 2001).
In a traditional course there is little or no room for learner choice: usually, course
dates are fixed, the content is pre-determined, instructional approaches are chosen and
learning materials are prepared in advance; course organisation is pre-defined. This is
one extreme. On the other extreme of the continuum is a just-intime, workplace-based,
problem-induced learning, about which the learner makes key choices and which occurs
life-long.
In this process where student expectations are matched with the willingness and
abilities of their teachers. In a multinational study Collis and van der Wende (2002)
undertook, they identified 19 dimensions of flexibility and listed them under five key
categories as follows:
• Categories of time
1. Time and date at which module starts and finishes;
2. Periods of time students are able to participate;
3. Pace of learning;
4. Time when assessment occurs;
5. Sequence in which topics are covered.
• Categories of content
6. Choice of topics covered;
7. Amount of learning activities expected to be completed;
8. Level of difficulty of module content;
9. Assessment standards.
• Categories of access/entry requirements
10. Prerequisites for module participation
• Categories of instructional approach/design (pedagogy)
11. Social organisation of learning (group or individual);
12. Times available for support;
13. Choice of who decides what modes of flexible learning are available;
14. Language for communication.
• Categories of delivery
15. Time and place where support is available;
16. Methods of obtaining support;
17. Types of support available;
18. Places for studying;
19. Delivery channels (ie, lectures, tutorials, Internet, podcasts).
The study of De Boer and Collis (2005), suggested that two types of flexibility are
operationalisable by instructors (2005, p. 46): planning flexibility, which maintains
largely the same teaching and learning programme but offers more delivery flexibility
(such that pedagogy tends to remain unaltered); and interpersonal flexibility, which
implies pedagogical change to more student-centred contributions. They concluded that
the change to interpersonal flexibility is more difficult because it requires instructors to
redesign course activities and their assessment. As we shall see, our own study
revealed findings consisted with these.
The identified 19 dimensions of flexibility is important; time, must be consider in
flexible learning because it will help the teacher, learner and the institution to arrange
and organize the details to provide the needs of everyone. Time help us to decide for
the process of learning of the student. Content, the topics covered the sequence of
topics, the types of learning materials, the range of assessment methods. The content
defines and motivates the student to understand the topic. To get the attention of the
student the content must be clear. Instructional Approach/Design: the social
organization of learning, whether that means group learning, individual or independent
learning, and the format of learning resources, and the origin of learning resources
(instructors, students, library, Internet). The delivery: place of study (on campus, off
campus, blended, flipped, work-based), opportunities for contact with instructors and/or
students, methods of support, and content delivery and communication channels
(Palmer, 2011). All of this must be considered in engaging the flexible learning.
CONCLUSION: In implementing the flexible learning it’s always considered the
nineteen dimension of flexible learning process that suit for the students, teacher and
the institution. To make it effective there must be a plan and decision making. In their
Guide to Providing Flexible Learning in Further and Higher Education, Casey and
Wilson provide some important planning and design decisions that need to be made
before trying to make a course more flexible (2005).
REFERENCES:
Casey, J. and Wilson, P. (2005). A practical guide to providing flexible learning in further
and higher education. Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Retrieved from
Collis, B., & Moonen, J. (2001). Flexible learning in a digital world: Experiences and
expectations. London: Kogan Page Limited.
Collis, B., & Van der Wende, M. (2002). Models of technology and change in higher
education: An international comparative survey on the current and future use of ICT in
higher education (External research report). Retrieved from http://doc.utwente.nl/44610/
De Boer, W., & Collis, B. (2005). Becoming more systematic about flexible learning:
Beyond time and distance. Association for Learning Technology Journal, 13(1), 33–48.
doi:10.1080/0968776042000339781
http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/docs/publications/a-practical-guide-to-
providingflexible-learning-in-further-and-higher-education.pdf?sfvrsn=34
Shurville,S., O'Grady,T., and Mayall,P. (2008). Educational and institutional flexibility of
Australian Educational Software. Campus-Wide Information Systems, Emerald Group
Publishing Limited, 25 (2), 74 – 84.
