Thesis on "Kirkpatrick and Jakupec"

Quoted Instructions for "Kirkpatrick and Jakupec" Assignment:

You are to write a full 3-page paper. Read the article below and answer the 3 discussion questions after reading the article. When quoting from the Readings Use APA format. State the question first and then continue to answer.

Discussion questions

1.What is flexible learning? How is flexible learning connected to larger societal trends?

2.What are some of the problems with the idea and reality of flexible learning?

3.How does or should the development of flexible learning programs differ from that of a more traditional programs?

Becoming Flexible: what does that mean?

In Australia and elsewhere the introduction of flexible learning reflects a more general transformation of higher education influenced by technological change, public accountability, increased competition, restrict funding, and catering for the needs of a semi-mass rather than semi-elite system. The growing trend for universities to focus attention and energies on the development of flexible learning and delivery has been given impetus by a range of factors including the rapid advances and electronic communications technology that introduce flexibility in production, distribution and interactivity and education and the consequent tendency toward globalization of education. Commentators of information technologies argued that flexibility*****s offer education providers and effective means of responding to the needs of the new learner and hence are seen as a key to their survival. According to them the needs of consumers will drive the direction and demand for knowledge with legitimate of knowledge becoming largely a factor of its demand. To exit in such a climate educational institution will have to structure information and knowledge in flexible ways for example, offering courses in a different organizational and delivery modes, providing courses in a variety of locations including the workplace, modularizing existing courses, and providing continually updated information and just-in-time training. New technologies suggests different roles for universities. The growing range of information providers via the Internet offer an alternative source of knowledge creation and credentialing, challenge conventional models of teaching and learning offer by traditional education providers. In this context universities will have to compete with multinational information providers for market share of students. As a consequence of this globalization the traditional notion of scholarship are replaced by continual just-in-time learning. Teaching is seen as less place-bound, replaced by networked learning use and global connections. Strategically, flexibility of operation and flexible learning are seen as both a defense and an offense for educational institutions and their competition for students. Higher education institutions in Australia similarly to universities and other industrialized countries are engaged in competition for market shares of Australian and offshore markets especially at Post graduate level. Flexible delivery and flexible learning can be exploited to give the competitive edge in a number of ways. Flexible learning gives University the capacity to appeal to niche markets via approaches such as work based learning programs and to open up new, remote markets using communication technologies or distant learning modes. There is also a perception that institutions have to be seen to be doing flexible learning; that it is the sexy thing to do. By freeing up space place and time constraints of studying it can be used to attract students who previously may not have been able to attend class due to various life commitments. By providing alternate ways of accessing University education universities believe that they can attract more students.

This focus on alternative ways of delivering courses to students has also been in courage by a recognition of the changing needs of students, business interests and industry. There are a range of reasons of thinking about providing education in different ways. The more flexible offering and delivering of higher education may achieve the desirable social goals to increase access to education and democratizing teaching and learning process by giving greater control to the learner. However the relevant literature reflects a growing emphasis on to every aspect of education rather than thinking of ways of making student learning more flexible. This in turn may lead to the alienation of a significant number of students and members of the academic community not only due to the requirements for cultural trains especially the coach of teaching and learning but also due to the potential perceived or real loss of traditional academic values quality and scholarly rigor. In addition there are entrepreneurial considerations. The focus on delivery rather than learning will give rise to more intense competition for funding, resources and business among educational providers to turn flexible learning and flexible delivery implies an intention to increase learner*****s access to and control over particular teaching and learning environments. Flexibility is a character was it that may satisfy many stakeholders and education. It can serve the interests of managers and politicians will focus on effectiveness, efficiency and budget solutions to delivery of a service. Many business interests groups and politicians have argued the scarcity of resources provided compelling argument to support the use of flexible learning. They argue that flexible learning is the answer to challenges, which have emerged in international, national and regional higher education and training sectors. For those marketing educational services flexible learning can mean the production of commodities, which can be used competitively in a global market. For students and teachers it can suggest a student centered approach to learning and democratize of process of learning and teaching. For those students will either cannot or choose not to attend a physical state it can mean the opportunity to engage in education as it is delivered to the home or workplace and ways in times that suits the circumstances. For the curriculum developers it may mean the availability of a range of services approach to suit students diversity. Similar it can imply the end of the suite of academic offices as staff conduct their teaching from places other than the institution. In intent, as well as form, it can mean different things to different stakeholders and have markedly different consequences and implications. The prevailing view in higher education has been and steel help strongly in many quarters the good teaching can only be face-to-face and that learning can only take place in specific environments and the presence of a teacher. The onus is on flexible learning to demonstrate how it can be traditional values and expectations. This creates potential tension in any educational institution, which is changes culture from tradition of face-to-face teaching -- learning to a flexible learning and deliberate culture.

What happened in one University?

In this chapter we will describe the way in which flexible learning was established in a metropolitan Australian University. Since any educational initiative will affect the staff and students involved we will also consider the responses of academic staff and explore the staff development implications of implementing flexible learning across a University. The University of technology, Sydney is a multiple 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 good 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 offshore delivery of educational programs. In 1996 University of technology identified flexible learning as one of the strategic initiatives describing it as developing the university's capacity to learning independent of space and time. The term was initially loosely defined allowing individual faculties and academics within faculties to construct their own meaning in ways that were relevant to their current and future practices. A central committee was established to provide strategic guidance and support for flexible learning and to ensure a coordinated approach across the university. The university was keen to support early adopters of flexible learning in the first instance and funding was provided to support the establishment of teaching projects and administrative practices that would result in flexible learning. In the early stages of introduction of flexible learning it was not surprising that many academics that expressed concerned about the exact nature of this new approach and were eager to get some ideas of what might be involved. To provide some guidance for staff a discussion document featuring flexible learning case that he was developed. This document featured flexible innovations that were information technology base. Stat also drew conclusions about the former flexible learning that the university saw a valid and appropriate by looking at the type of projects that head been successful in the first round of funding. A large number of successful project bids involve the use of technology including the establishment of a web site the introduction of computer mediated conferencing and development of multimedia or web-based instruction. A second major thread was the development of distance education type materials and the conversation of traditional face-to-face teaching to remote learning. These projects were followed by the provision of competitive funding for strategic initiative projects from talkies. In an effort to increase the likelihood of lasting changes result from these projects preference was given to projects that were a team based. Again successful proposal focus mainly on the use of information technology. While there was a level of discomfort among many staff and the perceived lack of guidance from the top there was a high level of enthusiasm for the potential range of educational options created by the introduction of flexible learning. Every time funding to support flexible learning initiatives was advertised a large number of applications were received and the total value of funding request that far exceeds the amount available. In response to express concerns documents relating to flexible learning were issued by the office of Deputy Vice Chancellor academic which offered a broad definition of flexible learning and conferencing anything that increased students access to learning for example, offshore delivery, work based learning, the use of peer learning and assessment, take-home lamps, the use of web-based instruction, development of independent learning materials and the introduction of teaching periods that extended beyond the normal two semesters. An audit of existing flexible practices that had been Cary out as a part of funded project was made available on the flexible learning web site right interest academic staff with data about the range of activity that was occurring and to facilitate communications with and among staff involved in various projects. A range of activities were held throughout the university to support the idea of flexible learning and to provide information for interested staff. A flexible learning symposium provide an opportunity for expiration of possible practices with an emphasis on existing practices. In this part this was a response to criticism that the approach that had been adopted appeared to value only new practices and that many established teaching practices were already providing flexibility for the students. Not only did this symposium provide a forum for discussion and sharing the experience, it publicly valued existing and usually unfunded flexible learning practices. The central you did responsible for academic development offered University wide workshops on specific aspects or forms of flexible learning such as the design of independent learning materials. Staff development activities were also provided for specific projects or to support faculty level groups who were interested in exploring the possibilities offered by flexible learning. Funding was provided to support the involvement of academic staff developers and funded strategic initiative projects. 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 comparative edge, flexible learning as achieving equity, and flexible delivery, particularly the use of information technologies.

Flexible learning as efficiency

Performativity is the principle of optimizing performance by technical innovations. This notion of a performativity was clearly represented in the discourse of flexible learning as efficiency. The emphasis on the use of information technology is 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 process on the transmission of quiet learning 1984: *****˜the result... will be the mercantilization of knowledge where knowledge will cease to be an end in itself.***** Increasing attention is being given to the input-output equation and accountability in higher education and flexibility is represented as a means of achieving greater efficiencies. There were no explicit statements the 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 attention to the development of flexible learning was economic. The drive to implement more flexible 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 will 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 express 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 feature strongly in the university and faculty strategic goals and was reflected in planning documents. This managerial emphasis on flexible learning makes it increasingly difficult for individual academics to ignore the call 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 and joining a desperate rush for funding. Not only did this requires that 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 these changes. Consequently a reasonable resistance in the introduction of different ways of teaching was heightened by filling up anger and the imposition of innovation to which some staff had not agreed. The perception that flexibility learning was being imposed on academic staff accompanied by a belief that accountability was being shifted down become more widespread. Certain high-profile flexible learning projects folk's 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 and there were over and cold for actions that support this. The notion that flexible learning could result in a more efficient teaching was viewed by some as providing an opportunity to use flexible learning to handle administrative and organizational aspects of teaching more efficiently for staff and students thus allowing more opportunity to teach and learn. These views were most commonly voiced by academics will had been involved in the project for some time and had develop familiarity with technologies and were able to look beyond them. Like most users of new technology it was not until they were comfortable with the routine use of technology that they could envisage of the ways of employing 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 flexible learning may lower the cost of teaching a subject or course it removes an importance 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.

Flexible learning as the competitive edge

while flexible learning was represented as the means of creating a more efficient University there was a related discourse that portray flexible learning as providing the competitive edge. Flexibility was seen as the means by which the university could become more competitive and attracting students. This was betrayed 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 for example, 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 place in the current marketplace and of creating and consolidating niche markets. The discourse of competitive edge function at all levels within the university. In competition for scarce curriculum and development funding one faculty activity in the realm of flexible learning might give it the advantage over its rivals. The ability to develop courses that were more flexible and cater to the needs of particular potential student groups increased the faculty capacities to attract more students and hints a greater share of funding. The competitive edge also function among individuals. Flexible learning was strictly interpreted as something new or innovative. Individual teacher academics perceived pressure to be involved in the development of flexible learning and express concern 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 for the reasons for academics to think that involvement in projects would put them ahead of the competition. This reinforced the perception that flexible learning something that staff needed to be seen to be doing. Just as 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 doing something that would give an academic the competitive edge over his or her colleagues and attracting internal funding, getting promoted, having his or her contract renewed and so on. Others all the inclusion of flexible learning in criteria for promotion as an appropriate reward, making extra effort worthwhile -- in necessary way of encouraging staff to adopt new projects. In a context of economic rejection and threats of job cuts be the performative function of flexible learning initiatives became significant in regulating the behavior of academic staff.

Flexible learning as equity and access

in order to promote the view of flexible learning as increased access University documents presented alternative interests in aerials and policies were altered to support a third teaching semester. Documents describing what flexible learning might be in the university made reference to increasing the access of students education through the use of alternative modes of delivery. Recognition of prior learning and the 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 centered approach to learning and democratization of process of learning and teaching. The practice of flexible learning can support views about teaching, learning and access with a firm liberal and humanistic views of education. Flexible learning and delivery can be represented as the method of in fact a lifelong learning and student centered learning. At University of technology administrative procedures were review to facilitate more flexible student entry and a broad of studies were established to oversee the development of courses allowing nontraditional intrigue through work based programs. As equity and access flexible learning implied an intention to increase learners access and control over particular teaching and learning environments. The more flexible offering and delivery of higher education achieve the desirable social goals of increasing access to education and democratizing teaching and learning process by giving greater control to the learner. However this was contradicted in many instance by the restricted access created by the use of technology. Not all students have 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 to the use of learning contracts, block teaching sessions, and the provision of independent study materials. For many project lead those on the fringes of flexible learning it was the funded projects which were more visible and hence seen as more privileged.

Flexible learning as information technologies

Despite policy documents reiterating official view of while flexible learning may mean teaching with technology this would not always be appropriate there was a widespread sentiment that flexible learning did not 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 users of computer mediated conferencing and at least in the early stages web-based instruction received support for projects in which they had a special interests. This usually lead 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 publicized but as word spread about what various people were doing a sense of some individual 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 do not only know 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 has several consequences; for example, it meant that there were duplications of effort and in some cases resource provision as staff introduced new approaches. There were several similar projects happening concurrently but with little communication between teams simply because they were unaware of each other. Staff involved in overlapping projects responded with frustration when they heard that others were working on similar areas and that they had missed opportunities to share in each other's learning those outside meanwhile showed cynicism. Some undeserved interpret the failure of communication is evidence of the university wanting to make teaching staff responsible for the direction and the subsequent success of the venture others view it as a deliberate ploy to keep information from staff. Measures to address this lack of communication such as information sharing sessions and the establishment of a web site and of support groups initiated the dissemination of information and open up space for discussion and exploration of experience and ideas. Although as we noted above policy documents data support for a broad view of flexible learning in conferencing the diversity of ways of increasing access to learning this was not the message received by staff. The large proportion of available funding was directed to technological driven approaches and individual interpreted this to mean that high-tech approaches were preferred. For many teaching academics flexible learning and delivering was the form of learning that was carried by the information technologies. Flexible learning initiatives were accompanied by substantial highly visible infrastructure with emphasize the messages that information technology was highly valuable. This was particular the case where most of the projects were funded related to the use of computer conferencing and resulted in the formation of large teams, trailing and purchase of software and investment in infrastructure. Some consideration was given to the teaching and learning implications of this but the focus was clearly on the means of delivery. The allocation of limited funding to purchase of high-cost items that demanded the time and attention indicated to staff that forms a flexible learning that the university saw was valid and valuable. While some funding was allocated for the development of distance education materials for provisions was made for the central in structure to support this. Projects that involve the development or implementation of practices that place the learner more centrally in the teaching and learning process would generally perceived as a part of existing teaching practices and were not seem to require funding to support the development. This was also associated with the notion that flex learning was about innovation and doing something different. Even in context or learning contracts, flexible assessment and so on were not part of existing practice they had a lower profile because such envisages did not require large amount of funding for visible infrastructure. These were not unfunded, small-scale, individual projects and as such they do not appear on the advertisements of successful projects. In a culture that judges value probably by calls 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 acknowledge the value or projects that do not have a high price tag. This dilemma is deepened when the alternative route of rewarding involvement in such projects with promotion is viewed as either irrelevant, undesirable or coercive.

There were many unfunded projects and examples of teaching practice that could easily be understood of increasing flexibility of time and space. However in other words of one academic, *****˜well, I'm doing lots of things that could call flexible learning but they are things like flexible scheduling, self-study groups and choice of learning modules. And that is not what the university is calling flexible learning is it? For the university it is using computers, putting it on the web...***** Staff will believe that there existing practices constituted real flexible learning albeit not what they thought the university saw as flexible learning or perhaps complicit in marginalizing these other views. They acquiesced to what they saw as the official view often eventually seen themselves as not engaging in practices that represented flexible learning. In some counties were deans and managers publicly values staff involvement in these other forms of flexible learning there was a stronger association between the practices and the institutionalized term, although staff still expressed sentiment that they were currently engaged in and had been doing flexible learning for some time -- it is just not what the university wants it to be. This reinforced the technology driven view of flexible learning within the university. Consideration of 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 all core systems. If technology used overcome space and time constraints then the focus onto the reading may well improve the student access to education providing opportunities to attend to ways of making learning more flexible. However in many cases as in many other Australian universities these projects featured a reconsideration or repackaging of existing materials which will often lock students into a more rigid ways of engaging in course content rather than offering greater flexibility. The emphasis on flexible learning projects that use computer mediated communications conflict with this course of access and equity. The use of computer mediated communications as an integral part of a subject may create attitudinal as well as 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 war reliant on gaining access to limited University computer laboratories. Even when students have access to appropriate technology at home there may be less rejections on the amount of access and they have or the times at which they can make use of those resources for study purposes. As universities increasingly expect students to be able to utilize the technology resources of their employers the possibility that employers will restrict access or change employees for private use of resources become very real. It does not seem reasonable for universities who themselves as employers are considering charging their staff or 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 of 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 a part of the teaching learning process. Individuals was concerned about their level of computer literacy as well as the most effective ways to use for example computer media conferencing to encourage student learning. Technologies used in distance education also cause problems for academic staff who were not experience in the design, preparation or production of independent learning materials. Extensive involvement in a trial and error development was time consuming ultimately expensive and the source of fresh ration for many academics that. For this was perceived as further evidence that responsibility for the success of flexible learning was being placed squarely on the shoulders of teaching academics. The university use of the term flexible learning became synonymous with technology-based flexible learning and 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 fulfill this aim. The intention to increase flexible and plied that there would be a particular demand on students administration in the area of enrollment procedures and entry and exit requirements. In the first instance this impacted most administrative systems but staff began to identify issues relating to the procedures of course approval as publications goals attempted to free up the way in which they offer their courses. This place additional pressures for change on administrative procedures.

Implications for academic practices discussion of the representation of flexible learning has already highlighted some of the effects on academics. Not surprising there was considerable variation in the reaction of academic staff depending on the extent of their involvement in the innovation and the role they have taken. My job won't change, this response emanated from staff will believe that their current teaching practices already incorporated flexibility for learners, so 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 going to change what I'd do and I'm not looking forward to it. Some staff will concerned or disturbed that flexible learning practices would remove them from a primary source of academic pleasure or fulfillment: direct contact with students. Other staff were intimidated by technologies or by the demand of learning to use these and more reluctant to expose themselves to uncertainty. Professional identities are tied up with ones competency 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 and managerial positions who had limited teaching responsibilities do not see that flexible learning will directly affect the nature of their jobs. This is a great learning opportunity for me and my students. Learning involved not just how to use the technology whether this meant computer mediated conferencing, developing learning materials and packages or new assessment techniques but more cynically finding out what worked, untoward 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 a new worries. This presented them with the option of re-conceptualizing their teaching and quite dramatically different ways. A number of staff were also enthusiastic about the potential that the flexible learning offer them for improving the quality of students learning experiences and meeting the needs of the 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.

Providing support

The introduction of flexible learning has important implications for the culture of the university. It requires a changed culture in order to accept and implemented as well as developing a changed culture in response to it. In this section we will consider the support that the effective introduction of flexible learning requires. The introduction of more flexible learning approaches often requires sophisticated activities and technology technical backup and support structures. Attitudes and beliefs of staff can also up strong change and hence need to be supported. In this case that the attitudes and beliefs about the nature of value learning the real reasons for the introduction of flexible learning the contribution of flexible learning techniques to achieving specific learning outcomes and their own roles in the learning process all operated as barriers to change. Staff also expressed concern that they lacked knowledge, skills and pedagogic practices necessary to use flexible learning approaches effectively.

Providing a framework and clear direction

from our preceding discussion it is clear that the extent to which a central body such as the executive of a university defines the parameters of flexible learning is problematic. Rigid definitions of frameworks and limit creativity and restrict the breadth of possible initiatives reducing flexible learning to little more than a recipe book were rigidly defining sets of practices. However to little definition can have a negative effect on staff motivation as they expand 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 flex will 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. The need to be a clearly understood and shared meaning rather than a prescriptive definition of terms. At the University, while flexible learning was cruelly associated with the university strategic initiatives there was no clear indication of the ways in which it was possible to contribute to achieve the broad goals of the university. The provisions of the case study in examples that illustrate the breadth of the meaning of flexible learning can provide additional direction for staff without being too prescriptive.

Development in knowledge and skills

There are powerful barriers to taking seriously the problematic concerns embedded in flexible learning and delivery. If academics are to embrace the shift in emphasis they need to develop in knowledge base which allows them to understand the pedagogy practices which underpin approaches to teaching and learning that allows for independent self-directed learners and lifelong learners. The use of the term flexible learning suggests the focus should be on the student learning rather than technologies. However when proficiency in the use of technologies whatever they may be is the primary concern of the individual who must use them in order to fulfill their teaching role and maintain a public and private image of competence in teaching it becomes difficult to direct attention to a focus on learning. University made an intentional decision to leave the term flexible learning as undefined as possible to allow for generations of locally relevant meanings. However when staff were asked to adopt them vigorously defined innovations there was 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. The initial stages of introduction there is a need for the provision of opportunity for the staff to explore possible ways in which flexible learning may be interpreted and what each interpretation would mean for teaching and learning. Once staff has developed some idea of the option from which they may select there is a need for training and development of the skills involved. Such development may be offered in a range of ways generic skills in instructional design may be appropriate although these may result in limited transfer of learning. Alternatively a range of introduction workshops presenting over you of the basic skills in facilitating flex learning can provide staff with the confidence to begin work on development. Followed workshops for project teams specifically focus on the development of a project allow staff to be supported in the course of learning about the best way to use various flexible learning and delivery strategies. In flexible learning approaches that involved the use of technology there is a need for basic training in the use of technology express the ones that are unfamiliar with them. Were software is about 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 pedagogy demands of the new approach or the most effective ways to use it to enhance student learning. Attending the pedagogy dimensions of new approaches is of critical importance. Were flexible learning projects include the use of established approaches such as distance education materials, peer teaching, learning and assessments, videoconferencing, take-home labs and interactive multimedia one could draw on an established body of literature dealing with teaching and learning principles and issues. This provide a base from which staff development could begin in addition such literature provided a source of evidence to support the decisions that had made about selecting that approach as 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 to the staffs already heavy load not only do they have to learn how to use the technologies and a technical sense they have to learn how to use them effectively and instructional sense. This learning will provide further support for the recommendation that a range of opportunities are made available for staff to share their experiences. Once staff have develop familiarity with basic skills and technology attention needs to be given to exploring the pedagogy implications of using a specific approach in this may be done in generic workshops or carried out with project teams of faculty or sub-faulty groups. Ongoing work with teams on a specific project allow staff to reflect on their experiences on the guidance of a team leader or academic staff develop a who can draw on the experiences of other groups. Mentor schemes teaming more and less experienced user of specific flexible learning approaches have great potential for enhancing the learning process of academic staff adopting flexible approaches. The involvement of academic staff developers is ongoing project and development to work and for feel an important information dissemination function in addition to their more obvious educational development role.

Time

overwhelmingly the staff involved in developing flexible learning projects report that not only was the development time consuming it was consistently more time-consuming than they had expected. Even at the strategies or programs had been developed there were glitches in programs along the way. These not only took time to correct but often require development a fallback position so that teachers were not left without teaching materials when, for example, the server crashed or they lost vision from their videoconferencing. Provisions of adequate preparation time is a critical factor in supporting staff. Were staff were involved in the development of flexible learning approaches without some reduction in teaching or ministry of load flexible learning development made heavy claims or their time and on them personally. Most teaching staff was prepared to go beyond the call of duty but this can only sustain up to a point. The current educational environment were staff are facing heavier teaching loads larger classes and increase pressure to attract external funding and to publish challenging the commitment of most professionals. Of the greatest significance is that involved in flexible learning initiatives at the university will was the need for realistic acknowledgment of the time required to establish flexible learning.

Provisions of forums for discussion and dissemination of information

at all stages of introduction of flexible learning the provision of opportunities for staff engaged in discussions an exploration of ideas and possibility share experiences and critique their practice is essential. In the early stage it is important to provide adequate opportunities for staff to explore the implications of their teaching general academic practices and students. Later as staff become involved in projects they need opportunities to share their experiences with others providing a forum for displaying what they have done articulating the process that they have gone through and the decisions they have made. This also allows others especially those who may be reluctant to become involved to find out what is going on. Sharing experiences also allows individuals learn from each other's experience and to realize that others may be facing similar challenges. At the University of her writing of forms for sharing experience will held ranging from informal team discussions of formal University wide showcase of projects. A number of symposiums were held were staff involved in a range of flexible learning projects presented their experiences and shared the lessons they had learned. An unintended outcome of some of these discussions was troubleshooting as members of various teams work together to solve an individual staff members problem. These forums also facilitated exchange of ideas about teaching and learning between members of different faculties providing valuable cross-fertilization and establishing useful cross-collaboration of the sharing of expertise. There is also a need to provide opportunities for staff to discuss the affective consequences of adopting flexible approaches for many academics that it is the face-to-face interaction with students to define their teaching Celts; the use of forms of flexible learning which distance teachers from learners can unsettle these professional identities. Some staff view of the removal of this contact as undesirable or threatening an express feelings of loss and relation to view of themselves constructed through interpersonal interactions with students. Staff need to support to deal with these feelings and also to look forward and explore the possibilities for developing different relationships between teacher and learners. Similarly adopting new teaching and learning approaches that often contain little in the way of the established recommendation practice can be both challenging and intimidating. Good conventional teachers have will develop skills and enter acting with students in their classes. Studies of good teaching find it hard to go past personal interactive attributes when describing it is that makes a good teacher. Staff need opportunity to explore and conceivable what will constitute a teacher in Dee's more flexible learning environments. Individuals who were comfortable and competent in their previous teaching approaches will be trying out new and often untested teaching techniques opening of the possibility that teaching sessions may fail or at least be less successful than normal. In these circumstances the opportunity to hear others similar experiences and their responses and to receive collegial support provides encouragement and help sustain activity and morale. McInnis 1992 suggests that new university environments which include more flexible learning will be accompanied by a changing view of what constitutes academic work. Flexible learning will not miss surely result in flexible teaching or flexibility for the academic. Changed patterns to the academic year resulting from block-mode teaching summer school, short courses etc., will alter the autonomic me about the individual to self regulate their daily work practices. Flexible learning also challenges the direct and proportional relationship was some between teaching contact time and productivity and between teaching time and allocation of financial resources. If more flexible learning involves greater liaison with industry there will be a need for academic to develop skills in negotiating curricula and learning contact between student University and organization, developing links with industry and increasing their knowledge of the world out there.

Technologies have the potential to alter the nature of educational community controlled by teachers and university learning. Ideas of community discourse and power within conventional teaching and learning situations are changed by the new relationships between production and delivery. Technology alters the pattern of control and power that conventional education takes for granted in designing, delivering anybody waiting teaching and learning. Conceptions of teaching and curriculum contains the idea of order, structure and sequence: information is part of an intentional route to learning. Technology allows access to a radically different situation in which information is unscreened and unordered. The possibilities of electronically mediated learning make redundant the idea of self-contained classroom where teachers are the center of most of the control and structure of information and communications instead there is provider control. While it is important to look to developing new practices we must not lose sight of what was defective and valuable in our past practices. Suggesting that the flexible learning demands new practice devalues those activities which have comprised academic previous roles. A consequence of an emphasis on flexible learning as innovation is the abandonment of the past practices in flurry to become part of a new way. It also creates a perception that flexible learning must be something which has not been done before. Academics since of professional identity is also in part defined by institution in which they work. University's position themselves in the marketplace to develop a reputation for strengths in particular fields and in attracting particular types of students. Flexible learning has the potential to alter this. For a University which has a clearly described local student client group and which has historically refused involvement in any form of open and distance learning the introduction of flexible approaches opens up a whole new world of potential students. If universities and individual academics to find themselves in part by the nature of their students the changes in students and the nature of teaching and learning resulting from increased flexibility have significant implications for institutional and individual professional identities. And effect of 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 capitalize on expertise that is developing and minimizing duplication of effort. If staff have plenty of opportunities for finding out about various projects that are being developed including project similar to their own the task of adopting a new approach is made easier. E-mail discussion groups, a web site, occasional symposium, featuring flexible learning projects and University newsletters can help to publicize initiatives and make information widely available. Building up a resource base public sizing available information and support and providing adequate resources to support staff learning are essential. Staff from central academic staff development or support you is working across the university can provide a breadth of vision and different perspective on what is occurring. They can act as a conduit linking members and projects across disciplines and can share learning experiences between teams. The development of flexible learning approaches does take time, and having a number of staff of pool are informed about what is happening in different projects can prevent replication of mistakes and duplications of efforts.

Acknowledging and rewarding efforts

there is always a dilemma that institutional effort to reward staff achievements may be interpreted as techniques for ensuring compliance. The staff involved in developing flexible learning approaches were is spending large amounts of their own time and placing themselves in risky situations. The issue of a knowledge meant of efforts was equally salient however for staff who had been working in ways that they regarded as flexible prior to the initiative and which they felt they had not been acknowledged. Involvement in the flexible learning was added to the criteria for promotion, offering a very real incentive and reward for those will work in a position to apply. However there was no equipment work available for those for whom promotion was not a viable option. The linking of promotions to involvement in flexible learning prisons University with a dilemma: while it is important to reward involvement in strategic directives, care needs to be taken that what is rewarded is good teaching and that the staff does not rush to embrace flexible learning for purely instrumental reasons. Linking promotion to involvement in flexible learning can also be read as punishing those who chose not to adopt flexible learning for educationally sound reasons. The university toward a limited number of annual teaching excellence awards Andy's provided an avenue for staff who were actively seeking some incentive. However it takes a certain amount of competence or collegial support to put oneself forward as an excellent teacher along with the significant time commitment preparing an application. As an alternative means of acknowledging staff efforts a week of special activities valuing teaching and learning in the university was hailed and staff involved in flexible learning were invited to participate in workshops, seminars, symposiums, panel discussions and poster sessions that showcased their work and provided public recognition.

Infrastructure support and technical assistance

The success of the information technology-based flexible approaches is independent on the provision of sufficient infrastructure to support hardware and delivery. Staffs and students at the University reported upheaval when technology failed them. If staff are to preserve with new developments they need to do so feeling secure that technology is more rather than less likely to work. Projects that involve student learning via web-based and structured or computer mediated conferencing also need to be supported by adequate resources for example access to computer laboratories. Lack of adequate computer access was a source of upheaval for many students and limited the success of several projects. The use of information technology to deliver teaching implies around-the-clock access which in turn demands readily available technical support. A number of projects focus on the development of materials that could centralize infrastructure to coordinate the production and distribution of this type of learning materials. This presented difficulty for teams involved in these projects and was not only 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 to themselves to action.

Conclusion

Flexible learning has evolved in response to a range of social, cultural and economic factors. Examination of the introduction of a flexible learning and 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 the way we teach and learn in universities, the role of 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 unnecessary and have suggested strategies that have proved effective in the case of University of Technology, Sydney Australia.