Flexible learning

Models of flexible learning

While flexible learning makes use of the networked technologies of e-learning, it is founded on models of good learning, ‘there are really no models of e-learning per se – only e-enhancements of models of learning’ (Mayes & De Freitas 2004, p. 4). E-learning (and flexible learning), it is suggested, is not a new paradigm, but a use of technology to enhance and achieve good learning outcomes. This is achieved using good learning principles, such as the pedagogical design approach of constructive alignment (Biggs 2003), where learning outcomes, assessment and activities are aligned, with a focus on what the learner is doing.

A widely adopted model of flexibility is based on Collis and Moonen (2001), cited in Casey & Wilson 2006). They describe a practical approach to flexibility involving five ‘dimensions’: time, content, entry requirements, instructional approaches and resources, delivery and logistics. This model places learner choice and control as central. Nevertheless, the importance of teaching remains, with an orientation to designing materials, working in teams with peers, and strategies for online interaction with learners. Casey and Wilson (2006) offer a model of to understand how to make flexible learning work in terms of four inter-related building blocks, or perspectives:

pedagogy - the learning experience is built from the context of learners, encompassing content design, organising and managing student activities, and interaction and assessment of students
technology - an infrastructure that enables learning and offers choice to teaching staff to achieve their pedagogical aims
organisation - the institutional requirements and support for teaching and learning,
strategy - the context of policy and implementation of flexible learning, that respond to institutional and student needs.

Flexible learning needs to integrate learning of two levels: at the micro level of the situated teaching and learning setting; and at the macro level, finding coherence with the supporting policies, institutional teaching and learning strategies and practices, and the learning technologies themselves. This is a task of some complexity and magnitude (Cornelius & Gordon 2008), and there is the risk of building inflexibilities by restricting times and places of learning (Willems 2007) unless the experience and interaction for students is structured into the learning.